Archangel Michael Becomes Patron Saint of Russian Investigative Committee

Interfax ^ | 8/16/16

[marshmallow]

Moscow, August 16, Interfax - Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia has made Saint Michael the Archangel the patron saint of the Russian Investigative Committee at the initiative of the committee's head Alexander Bastrykin, Investigative Committee spokesman Vladimir Markin told Interfax on Tuesday.

"His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia blessed and made the Saint Archistratigus Michael the patron saint of the agency at the initiative of Russian Investigative Committee Chairman Bastrykin, as well as in order to strengthen the spiritual and moral foundations of the Russian Investigative Committee's staff," Markin said.

St. Michael the Archangel was chosen as the patron saint of the Russian Investigative Committee because in the Holy Scripture he is portrayed as the main fighter against all sorts of illegality among people, and in the Book of Revelation Archangel Michael acts as the warrior of Light and the chief leader in the war against the Devil and the dark forces, he said.

"In Orthodox iconography Archangel Michael is depicted as piercing the Devil with a spear and as trampling with a foot upon a rich old man [as a symbol of the fight against bribery and other corruption-linked crimes]. Archangel Michael is also often depicted as holding the scales where one scale is heavier than the other, which helps the guard of the Gates of Eden to discern between a righteous man and a sinner, thus allowing us to draw parallels with criminal proceedings, which is the main task of the Investigative Committee," Markin said.

The first ceremony to hand over an Archangel Michael icon is expected to be held at the St. Petersburg Academy of the Russian Investigative Committee on September 1, 2016, when the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the academy will take place, he said.

A draft agreement between the Investigative Committee and the Russian Orthodox Church is currently being draw up at Bastrykin's instruction and with the involvement of the Moscow Patriarchate's Synodal Department for Relations with the Armed Forces and Law Enforcement Agencies, Markin said.

"The subject of this agreement is the sides' cooperation aimed at resurrecting and strengthening spirituality based on traditional moral values, which is a crucial factor of Russian society's wellbeing and security; the use of the spiritual potential that Orthodoxy has to protect cultural, spiritual and moral heritage and historical traditions, as well as to enhance stability in social life, overcome the threat of the people's spiritual degradation and reduce crime rates in the country; the crackdown on negative phenomena such as terrorism, extremism, corruption, immorality, as well as other negative tendencies stemming from the false understanding of freedom and human rights," Markin said.

It is no less important that Archangel Michael is present in the majority of Russia's traditional religions (Orthodoxy, Islam and Judaism) and is mentioned in the Old and New Testament, as well as in the Quran. This circumstance will help ensure the worshipping of this patron saint in the Investigative Committee's departments in Russia's North Caucasus Federal District as well, Markin said.

Similar initiatives were earlier successfully put into practice in other security and law enforcement services of the country, he said.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"The unrecorded things do not rise to the level of authority of inspired Scripture and are judged by that - assuming we have any idea what they are... and we do. "

Some ---not all, but some --- unrecorded things DO rise to the level of authority of inspired Scripture, because it is Oral Tradition and the Early Church which gave birth to the NT and to the canon of Scripture itself. If Tradition (capital-T) and Church had lesser authority, they could not have produced and authorized Scripture itself.

Somebody or something with lesser authority cannot produce and "authorize" something with greater authority. This is logically inescapable.

That is to say: Tradition and Church are the foundations God used to establish authentic Scripture. By the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they gave rise to the sacred Writings. By the authority of the Holy Spirit, they controlled the selection and preservation of the canonical Books. This is one of the many reasons why St. Paul calls the Church--- the Church, mind you --- "the pillar and foundation of the Truth." (1 Tim 3:15)

It is highly significant that for documents written on papyrus, they have to be re-transcribed every couple of decades or they deteriorate badly and are lost. The papyri which survived as the Dead Sea Scrolls survived -- in crumbled fragments, much of it in jigsaw-puzzle sized pieces --- only because they were kept in jars in dry caves preserved from dampness or humidity, significant temperature fluctuation, handling, and light.

That means that for the messages on the papyri to be preserved, they had to be painstakingly re-written by hand in every generation at least. That entails a continuity of authority --- as well as a continuity of skills and purposes --- to do the selection and transcribing.

Thus Scripture is a product of the Church, and not vice-versa.

[Mrs. Don-o]

And I wanted to add, thank you for your thoughtful and well-considered responses. I appreciate the time and care that you take with this discussion.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Mrs. Don-o, though we disagree, I'm happy to have you as a great neighbor. Since my last response was so long, I'll make this more salient.

"Some ---not all, but some --- unrecorded things DO rise to the level of authority of inspired Scripture"

None.

"because it is Oral Tradition and the Early Church which gave birth to the NT and to the canon of Scripture itself."

Oral tradition played a role. It was not a decisive role. There were a number of factors considered when weeding out the extraneous documents that claimed to be epistles or gospels and were not. The Church, despite a very long history of recognizing specific documents, was forced to weed out fake documents. The identical thing happened first, as the church was attacked from without then the identical thing happened from without. The church was placed into the position of holding to truth and to repelling falsehood. I'm grateful for that, as one of the beneficiaries.

Where I find your argument weak is in how the NT and the canon were birthed. God birthed them, as Scripture states. He inspired the Hebrew Scriptures and worked through men to write, recognize, preserve and transmit His Word. Were flawed human members of the early church used by God to accomplish His purpose? Absolutely. For some reason we do not understand, God's method involves flawed people - including the Great Commission given to 12 flawed men.

Unfortunately, your argument turns God's decree into a "rooster crowing makes the sun rise" kind of argument. Obviously, this is not a persuasive argument. We can agree that God used people to accomplish His will. I studied (for a long semester) the history and process of bibliology. I do have a pretty solid background in understanding the process.

I am also very aware that this process has happened many times.

[did I say this was shorter?!]

Somebody or something with lesser authority cannot produce and "authorize" something with greater authority.

Agreed! SOMEBODY, did. Glory to Him!

This is one of the many reasons why St. Paul calls the Church--- the Church, mind you --- "the pillar and foundation of the Truth." (1 Tim 3:15)

Foundation to uphold the truth. Pillar to shine the light of the truth. Wish they'd do it more.

That means that for the messages on the papyri to be preserved, they had to be painstakingly re-written by hand in every generation at least. That entails a continuity of authority --- as well as a continuity of skills and purposes --- to do the selection and transcribing.

I believe it might be far more accurate to say that these writings were treasured. Not all found in the Qumram caves was inspired Scripture to Jews. The writings were treasured. As a side not, pay attention to the Copper Scroll.

Thus Scripture is a product of the Church, and not vice-versa.

I believe the accurate way to say this is that Scripture is a gift of God to His church of all believers of all time.

Blessings to you friend.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Do you say that the Apostles’ preaching had less authority than their writing?

Would that cause us to accept the corollary that the seven of the Twelve who in their First century missionary zeal founded many local churches but left *NO* writings, had little or no authority?

And the churches which had no Scriptures, were they really churches? Were the believers in, for instance, the churches founded by St. Thomas, being Scriptureless, for that reason not Christian?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Do you say that the Apostles’ preaching had less authority than their writing?”

The Apostles themselves had authority and were the foundation stones of the Church.

Churches can exist with no Scriptures - and do today.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Right you are.

Right you are.

Right you are.

This is most satisfactory. And conclusions follow.

The Muslims say that we Christians (along with the Jews) are "People of the Book," but that's not quite right: we are, rather, people of the Word.

And the Word is, in fact, a lot bigger than the Book. The Word is the full expression of God; ultimately, the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity; the Book, precious as it is, is just one form of expression of the Word.

The Bible does not say "For God so loved the World, He sent a Book." It sways "He sent His only Son."

Which brings us to the consideration that the unwritten teachings of the Apostles, which they learned from Christ and taught first and primarily by oral preaching and example, were just as authoritative as the portions of those same teachings which were ultimately reduced to written text. That is the Church being an embodiment of the Word, and an even fuller one than the Text alone: we are the Body of Christ.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Quick:

1. The Scriptures didn’t die for us obviously. We had a sin problem that could only be solved by death and the shedding of blood.

2. Oral teaching was authoritative because it was emanating from an authority - an apostle. We do not know what was taught, not being there. At the time, it was authoritative.

3. What an apostle taught was authoritative but was never equivalent to the “God-breathed Scriptures.” These are not a mere “reduction” of oral teaching. Saying something like that is a particularly weak view of the inspiration of Scripture. Every word inspired directly by the Holy Spirit.

4. “That is the Church being an embodiment of the Word, and an even fuller one than the Text alone”. Very bad conclusion friend. The church should of course be a reflection of the highest values from His Word, and by the life of Christ being expressed through the life of every born again believer.

Best!

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Oral teaching was authoritative because it was emanating from an authority - an apostle."

True, but more. It was authoritative because the Apostles got it from Christ. Therefore it was authoritative for ALL time.

"We do not know what was taught, not being there."

What? What??? ---but you don't understand: we WERE there. The Church --- the believers --- the followers of Christ were there, they heard, they saw, they observed, and they "went and did likewise."

That's how we know what the Apostle taught: by seeing, experiencing, and imitating what the Churches DID: how they believed, how they prayed, how they taught and how they lived their lives.

" At the time, it was authoritative."

It's still authoritative!

Think of this: in the Acts of the Apostles, it says that Jesus taught the disciples many things during the 40 days between His Resurrection from the dead and His Ascension into heaven. But does that book --- the Book of Acts, or any book of the NT --- quote for us one single sentence of what He said in those must-have-been-amazing 40 days? No, actually. Not one sentence. But was it authortative? Yes, and for all time. Forty days of teaching from the One who Died and Rose and now will die no more.

Now: do you think He would give us all this teaching, and then fail to provide a way for it to be transmitted to us? I think not.

How is it that all the early churches thought it HAD been transmitted them? It was in the way they prayed, the structure of how they were organized, the example of how to worship andhow to live, the thick, deep, rich culture and heritage of faith and morals and new life in Christ which took root in the churches in EVERY continent --- Europe and Asia and Africa --- planted by their Apostolic founders?

"What an apostle taught was authoritative but was never equivalent to the 'God-breathed Scriptures.'"

Why do you say this? On what basis? This statement of yours is completely unsupported by Scripture. In fact, Scripture says the opposite:

1 Corinthians 11:2
I praise you for remembering everything I told you and for holding to the traditions that I passed on to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

2 Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness..

Therefore THESE Scriptures (1 Corinthians 2 Thessalonians) affirming a particular kind of Apostolic, capital-T Tradition, are still applicable to us: "Stand fast and hold the Traditions."

Or do you think that *all* Scripture is useful for teaching, EXCEPT the Scripture that tells us to hold fast to Tradition?

`

[Mrs. Don-o]

Oh! And!

Do you think that the teachings of St. Paul were NOT God-breathed when he preached them, but WERE God-breathed when he wrote them?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Do you think that the teachings of St. Paul were NOT God-breathed when he preached them”

Correct. He taught with authority. His teachings were not equivalent to Scripture in the way you are asking.

” but WERE God-breathed when he wrote them?”

He did not simply “write them.”

He was moved by the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures were “God-breathed” as detailed in Scripture.

[Fantasywriter]

If you were as passionate about the commands of Jesus as you are in the defense on your non-Scriptural traditions, our discussion would never have taken place. That would have been a good thing.

Blessings to you and yours.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“do you think He would give us all this teaching, and then fail to provide a way for it to be transmitted to us? I think not.”

Again, you are creating a narrative and choosing to believe your story. It is an opinion that can not be demonstrated in history. God clearly transmitted everything He desired to in Scripture. He does t answer every question or cover everything. He chose to give us what He wanted us to have.

“It’s still authoritative”

It is unknown and unprovable.

“Why do you say this? On what basis? This statement of yours is completely unsupported by Scripture. In fact, Scripture says the opposite:”

Only Scripture is God-Breathed. It says it is. The burden is on you to prove the unprovable.

“Or do you think that *all* Scripture is useful for teaching, EXCEPT the Scripture that tells us to hold fast to Tradition?”

I understand your narrative. It is unprovable as to what these traditions specifically were. They were obviously known and identifiable to Paul and his readers.

You know you do not have that list. Nor do you have an unbroken chain of proof that these beliefs were tradition nor apostolic teaching.

Even dear El Pope Bennedict acknowledged this.

Your argument keeps cycling back to a narrative you believe, but cannot prove from Scripture nor history before 100 ad. You believe it because you like the story and want to believe it, I have to conclude.

It is at this stage you should move to “well, God could do whatever He wanted”... And keep doing it because you like the story.

I understand human nature. I are one. I study story in culture. I studied too many pages of Church history and the historic development of doctrine. Many of these practices are pagan, added later and proclaimed now as tradition that must have come from the apostles. They are not.

Best always.

[daniel1212]

Your first underlying assumption, which there is no reason for me to share, is that if a practice is not commanded or authorized in the Bible, it is not to be done.

No, it means that (unless you are speaking as wholly inspired of God, which popes do not) it cannot be made part of binding doctrine, as is the case with Catholic teaching. Moreover, if it is a matter of corruption of an issue that Scripture speaks much of, such as prayer, then it is contrary to it.

Second, the assumption is that if something is not mentioned in the NT, it was not present in the early churches. There is no reason whatsoever to think this.

No, it means that if the Holy Spirit did not see fit to include it in Scripture, then it is not to be taught as official doctrine. Unless you are speaking as wholly inspired of God and providing new revelation thereby, which popes and councils do not.

The earliest churches were instructed first and principally by the oral preaching and example of the Apostles, and only later --- sometimes decades, sometimes generations later --- by portions of that oral teaching and example which had been transcribed into text.

The critical differences are that.

1. The veracity of these rested upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, versus the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.

2. The oral preaching of the Apostles wholly inspired of God and providing new revelation thereby. which popes and councils do not. God is not the author of even claimed infallible statements as He is of Scripture. Do you disagree?

That is why many of our brothers and sisters in Christ are quite bereft of the "input" which St. Paul insisted was necessary. We went over it before here (link) rather recently, and unfortunately the lack remains.

[from link]Scripture was sourced from Oral Tradition.

[from link]St Paul did not list (in writing) what he meant by the traditions he referred to, and yet he enjoined his disciples to cling to them and observe them.

Another invalid argument.

1. Besides only some (perhaps a minority) of Scripture being what was orally preached as inspired of God, once again it was wholly inspired of God if it was the word of God, and often contained new revelation, and its veracity did not rest upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, but upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. All of which is contrary to Rome.

2. A SS preacher can enjoin obedience to oral teaching, even without anyone having a Bible, but only under the presupposition that it is the preaching of Scriptural Truths, with said obedience presuming it is verified by it, as the noble Bereans found.

[from link] How would we know what that Oral Tradition consisted of? By the actual practice of the oldest churches founded by the apostles and their first-generation disciples, across three continents, before ca. 300 AD:

Which is no more true than relying on the Talmud as concerning oral Tradition. Your argument presumes ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is not promised, while the way we know whether the post-NT churches were teaching apostolic doctrine is by examining such by the only substantive body of Truth that is wholly inspired of God.

In addition, the very body of churches that claim to be teaching apostolic doctrine differ in substantial issues as to what is true apostolic doctrine.

The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." - Orthodox apologist and author Clark Carlton: THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135.

More by God's grace.

You still lack that "fellowship" to which St. Paul calls us: Ephesians 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God. But you sadly lack this sense of fellowship NOW with the angels and the saints, with whom you will (hopefully) spend eternity!

More egregious extrapolative eisegesis. The meaning and manner of fellowship is defined not in isolation but in the light of the totality of Scripture, which NOWHERE shows fellowship of the saints as meaning those on earth praying to those in Heaven - despite prayer being a more common activity, and with approx. 200 prayers being recorded by the Spirit, or even of believers in Heaven being able to hear incessant multitudinous prayers of those on earth to them, which only God is shown able to do. Meanwhile the only example of those on earth making supplication to unseen spiritual beings in Heaven is condemned. (Jer. 43, etc.)

As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes... (Jeremiah 44:16-17)

Third, you still confuse "prayer" with "adoration." G No, Caths are the one who do that, kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represents in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them

Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

Following the example of Jacob/Israel, I say: May your Guardian Angel bless you. May ALL the Angels and Saints bless you! And may Almighty God bless you, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit!

That is nowhere a prayer of Jacob/Israel, while the issue is that of who you are addressing in prayer, and believers in Scripture only prayed to God, as the Lord Himself taught.

Why do you insist on trying to validate Catholic traditions by Scripture, when the weight of it is not even the basis for the veracity of such, and the spurious nature of your arguments is exposed, and is an argument against being a RC?

[daniel1212]

Russia has been Christian for a thousand years. It has also endured the most bloody persecution in the history of Christendom. The Orthodox Church is building new churches and reopening closed ones all the time.

More like an arm of the KBG, which it has been in the past.

Russia's Newest Law: No Evangelizing Outside of Church | Gleanings ...

Thousands fast after Putin signs law banning evangelism outside of ...

Which means that the state Russian Orthodox church now has even more power to deal with its competition. A return to the "good ol days." C h e k i s t s i n C a s s o c k s : T h e O r t h o d o x C h u r c h a n d t h e K G B

And don't try to argue this law is only designed to combat Islam, which would make them inept at writing laws.

[daniel1212]

Despite God having no "need" of them, throughout Scripture angels are ubiquitous. They interact with humans continuously. They clearly are an important part of God's plan. He uses them to communicate with us, right? However, if I understand you, the communication through angels is one-sided and rather similar to those one-way email messages which appear in our in-box from time to time and are labeled "do not reply". Angels can bring messages from God to us but we're not allowed to send messages to God via the same route. We have to go directly to the top.

Rather, despite having multitude of angels to pray to, and ascended saints after the resurrection, and with prayer being a most basic common practice, with approx. 200 prayers recorded by the Spirit of God, no believer ever prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord. Nor are created beings in Heaven shown able to even hear all the prayers from earth (Rv. 5:8; 8:4 or Heb. 12 does not teach this). Instead, from what I see two-way communication btwn created beings from their respective realms required both of them to being in the same realm.

[Fantasywriter]

Those are very good points. To add to what you posted: the Bible records many powerfully answered prayers that were offered to God. It records not a single answered prayer offered to anyone else. [I.e.: the worshippers of Baal prayed to their idol/demon for hours at Mt. Carmel, but received no answer. Offhand, I can’t even think of any other prayers recorded in God’s Word not directed to God Himself.]

Isaiah 42:8

“I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.

Isaiah 48:11

“For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My name be profaned? And My glory I will not give to another.

[daniel1212]

I already mentioned that a keyword search at BibleGateway will revel dozens, if not hundreds, of instances of human persons interacting with angelic persons in a way that is pleasing to God.

More sophistry, for you will never find any believer praying to any angel in Heaven, or able to hear in Heaven all the prayers from earth. Human persons interacting with angelic persons was never that of asking them to intercede to God, and required them both to be in the same realm.

Here's a particularly good one, for which I provide two translations: Genesis 48:16 NASB The angel who has redeemed me from all evil, Bless the lads.

You really think that is an example of praying to a angel, a created being in Heaven? Rather, contextually Israel is addressing God, mentioning how He fed him and sent His angel, and after which prelude he asks God to bless, saying "God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day (Gen 48:16)

It would hardly be fitting to address God in blessing Joseph and then ask a created being to bless him. And as there is no word in the Hebrews for "the" and "who" (the angel who/which) it can easily be prefaced as "whose," saying "God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, [whose] angel redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads. (Gen 48:16,17)

Moreover, in an angelophany it was Christ who carwed for Israel in its flight from Egypt, And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:4);

Revelation 8:3-4

Elders and angels offering prayers in memorial, like as in Lv. 2:2,15,16; 24:7; Num. 5:15, "an offering of memorial," will not do, and which here is as a preclude to judgment, not regularly hearing such and being a delivery service, while the Lord Jesus is the only unceasing Heavenly intercessor. (1 Tim. 2:5)

[Mark17]

Millions of 4 year olds speak Hebrew and Greek!

My neighbor does too, and 5 other languages, but not one of the 80 or so languages that are spoken here.
I suspect I wouldn't make it in seminary. I'm just not into other languages. I took Latin in high school, and that experience traumatized me for life. 😀

[daniel1212]

It is too easy to make even good things into idols. Hence the warning from John.

Notice not one Cath objected to the translated (I assume) statement that says,

This circumstance will help ensure the worshipping of this patron saint in the Investigative Committee's departments in Russia's North Caucasus Federal District as well, Markin said.

[daniel1212]

Oh here, I'll do it for you, dear aMPU, you will see over a hundred examples of human persons and angelic persons talking / conversing / interacting with each other (i.e. PRAYING together.)

Once again this is misleading, for among the words for "prayer" in the OT we have the Hebrew word "tĕphillah" a feminine noun, and which denotes not mere talking btwn created beings, but intercession, supplication as seen by its occurrence 77 times in 70 verses in the Hebrew concordance of the KJV, in which it NEVER describes prayer to angels or created beings.

In contrast, there is the Hebrew particle "na'" of incitement and entreaty, that is often used as such toward others on earth.

But the word most used for prayer in the NT, proseuchomai, is never used for talking btwn created beings, as seen by its 90 occurrences in 82 verses.

Similarly, proseuchē from the above, and a feminine noun, which is never used for mere talking btwn created beings as we would to each other.

There is also a general word in the NT that is sometimes translated "pray," which describes action, which sometimes, if rarely, is used for the activity of prayer to God, erōtaō.

That is the extent of my research this AM, and thus reducing prayer to mere talking with created beings is not what the totality of Scripture teaches, while it remains that nowhere do anyone but idolators pray to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord.

But He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination. (Proverbs 28:9)

You are correct on you "idolatry" point if you run into people who want to adore angels as if they were gods, or rivals to God, or as if they were giving to them the absolutely supreme honors which should go to God alone.

Then study how the words are used.

One would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them

Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

Caths should only do (and I should do more of) what Mary and every believer in Scripture did in praying to Heaven, which was to pray directly to the Lord, not saintly secretaries. But they must truly become born again for that.

Instead, Caths basically say,

As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes... (Jeremiah 44:16-17)