The Catholic Church claims that it is blasphemous to use the name of the Virgin Mary or the Saints in vain, and Protestants are understandably uneasy about this. So let’s start with what the Church claims. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 2148, defines blasphemy like this:
2148 Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God – inwardly or outwardly – words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one’s speech; in misusing God’s name. St. James condemns those “who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called” [James 2:7]. The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ’s Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God’s name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God’s name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion.Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself a grave sin. [Can. 1369]
In CCC 2146, we hear that “the second commandment forbids the abuse of God’s name, i.e., every improper use of the names of God, Jesus Christ, but also of the Virgin Mary and all the saints.” This teaching is repeated in CCC 2162.
Recognize that this teaching itself sounds blasphemous to many Protestants, and understandably so. The Ten Commandments prohibit taking the Lord’s Name in vain, and so when Catholics say that it’s possible to blaspheme against Mary and the Saints, it sounds like we’re saying that Mary and the Saints are God (or at least are gods and goddesses equal to God). So I can understand this outraged reaction:
Wait a minute!!! The OFFICIAL teaching of the Roman Catholic Church is that improper use of the names of Mary and the rest of the dead saints constitutes a violation of the Commandment against using the NAME OF GOD in vain? Moving a little down this line of reasoning, are the Catholic faithful to consider the names of Mary and all the other canonized dead people to be as holy as the name of God? Or are they to consider the names of Mary and all the other canonized dead people to be the names of GOD? Or are those people considered by the Catholic Church to also be GOD? Has the Roman church gotten ahead of herself in her blatant efforts to elevate Mary to the place of Christ and herself to the role of the Holy Spirit?
But no, Catholics aren’t claiming that it’s blasphemy because Mary or the Saints are God. And in fact, the Catholic teaching is both Biblically and logically sound.
What does Scripture say? Look at Acts 6:8-14, and the charges brought against St. Stephen:
And Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people. Then some of those who belonged to the synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), and of the Cyre′nians, and of the Alexandrians, and of those from Cili′cia and Asia, arose and disputed with Stephen. But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke. Then they secretly instigated men, who said, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council, and set up false witnesses who said, “This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law; for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place, and will change the customs which Moses delivered to us.”
Notice that Stephen is accused of having blasphemed Moses. Granted, the accusation is false (Stephen hasn’t done that), but it’s treated as a real crime by both sides of the debate. Notably, Stephen doesn’t respond by saying “Hey, blasphemy only applies against God!” No, he responds by showing how Moses (who he describes as “beautiful before God” in Acts 7:20) was rejected by the Israelites, foreshadowing the rejection of Jesus (Acts 7:51).
And this makes sense, logically. If you hate a person, you might assault them… or you might slash their tires, key their cars, and smash their stuff. That is, you might express your hatred for (or anger towards) the person by attacking what is associated with them. Blasphemy attacks God either directly, or by attacking who and what is holy. And so, it’s much bigger than a list of words you can’t say (which is why the Catechism describes torturing people in God’s Name as a sort of blasphemy).
Blasphemous utterances are often intentionally about taking what is holy and using it in an ugly way. This is chiefly seen when people curse God, but sometimes people will curse holiness (holy people, the Church, etc.) for their connection to Him. Take Quebec, for example. The French Canadian blasphemies there (listed here, so click at your own risk) curse the Eucharist, the Tabernacle, the Chalice, the Virgin Mary, and the Cross. We used to have these much more in English. For example, the innocuous-sounding “Gadzooks!” was probably originally a curse against the Nails of the Cross, and of course, there’s the old “For the love of all that is holy…” that serves as a sort of catch-all (often blasphemously). In all of these things, they’re/we’re cursing God. Why? Because it’s because these things are holy that these people and objects are being spoken of in a vain and unholy manner.
So the short answer is: yes, it’s blasphemy to speak vainly of Mary, the Saints, the Church, and all that is holy. But this isn’t because they’re God. It’s because they’re holy, and when we speak ill of what is holy because of its holiness, that’s the very sort of evil that the Ten Commandments condemn.
While Jesus was being crucified, He prayed on the cross: “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.”
If ever there was a time for convicting someone of blasphemy, it would have been then, on Calvary, but Jesus takes into account their inherent ignorance of Who He really was. And so, we also should try to understand the ignorance of so many Protestants who speak badly against everything regarding the Catholic Church. They learn about the Church from their own sources, repleat with their own biases and superficial understanding; and then pass along these shallow and misinformed assessments of the Catholic Church, and it’s saints and history, to the next generation of Protestant believers; adding every new Catholic flaw or sin discovered to their ever growing collection of evidence against it. And so, it is easy to see how articles such as the one Joe posted (in the link) above, are generated and spread for future generations of Catholic haters to feed on. And yet, almost all of this is due to ignorance, competitiveness, and shallowness of piety and holy study. It’s basically akin to malicious gossip, but wherein those who are gossiping truly believe in what they are spreading due to the lack of interest in discovering the truth of the matter, which can easily be had with a little open mindedness and a little effort in searching for answers via the internet (and especially sites like this one).
So, with Jesus, I can only ask the same as He Himself asked on the Cross… blasphemy, or no blasphemy: “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do”.
Amen, but woe to them who deny their own sins and will not repent, for Christ’s infinite Mercy is of no avail to them. When the Lord comes in glory with all His saints, He will vindicate His Name against all the blasphemies uttered against it, and vindicate His saints against all the calumnies levied at them. Thus will the wicked be so utterly refuted that they themselves shall approve of their sentence to fiery Gehenna, as it is written, “Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
I was raised protestant. I would never blaspheme, but I’ll criticize the Catholic church as I see fit. I read the bible and serve the Lord God, not the Pope or any human saints, whose reverence has been decreed by men, not by God. It is not blasphemy to call out the sins of the church elders. Such thinking is what led to the cover up, and tacit approval, of child molestation. It is based in authoritarianism, idolatry, and polytheism.
Thank you Joe for this short bit of catechesis. In a similar vein I have noticed for some years now that the evil one relishes in distorting the names/terms of good and holy things to render them foul and debased. i find myself resisting this new verbage because of the source and the continued degradation of those things that should be respected. It is troubling to watch/hear these things happen in our culture. Disturbing to say the least.
What people need to bear in mind is that Christ Himself showed that the Ten Commandments can be generalized. Merely hating my neighbor is not literal murder, and merely lusting after a woman is not literally adultery, but Jesus taught that these are nonetheless violations of the respective commandments.
I do think, though, that more care could have been used to specify what it means to “speak against the Saints or the Church”. For instance, it is not really speaking against St. John Paul to say that he should not have kissed the Koran, and the prohibition of speaking against the Church MUST NOT be used to cover up crimes by clerics.
Joe what you think about the following claims of Saint Ludwik Grignion de Monfort ?:
“What I say in an absolute sense of our Lord, I say in a relative sense of our Blessed Lady. Jesus, in choosing her as his inseparable associate in his life, glory and power in heaven and on earth, has given her by grace in his kingdom all the same rights and privileges that he possesses by nature. “All that belongs to God by nature belongs to Mary by grace”, say the saints, and, according to them, just as Jesus and Mary have the same will and the same power, they have also the same subjects, servants and slaves”.
“Moreover, if, as I have said, the Blessed Virgin is the Queen and Sovereign of heaven and earth, does she not then have as many subjects and slaves as there are creatures? “All things, including Mary herself, are subject to the power of God. All things, God included, are subject to the Virgin’s power”, so we are told by St. Anselm, St. Bernard, St. Bernardine and St. Bonaventure”.
2 Peter 1:4 talks about Christians being “partakers of the divine nature”, and surely this applies to the Blessed Virgin to an extraordinary degree; yet for all that, latria is reserved for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit alone, with the Blessed Virgin receiving hyperdulia. She remains a finite and contingent being, distinct from God though never separated from God.
It would appear that this is one canon that needs some clarification/revision in the part dealing with saints. A few canonized saints of the past would never make it through the process today because of unsatisfactory acts on their part that are now recognized as disqualifying and that were never repented of. I might note that the cause of one that is being promoted widely in the US today is scarcely admirable in view of past support for violently atheistic and oppressive causes and movements. No expression of regret or repentance for these very public actions was ever made.
I would suggest to you that if you wish for Christian unity the bishop of Rome ought to forbid his followers from addressing him with the blasphemous appellation “Holy Father”, for verily one is our Father in Heaven, not in Rome.
The presumption that because St. Peter was given his mandate by Christ, every purported successor of his, Borgia, female pretender, or whatever, has by some extension, unsupported by Scripture the same mandate eternally, is a fine thing with which to aggrandize temporally and spiritually, but is it Truth?
As for the pretence that said Bishop when speaking ex officio is infallible, well that’s stretching the words of Christ like a bungee cord. And that my friends is a dangerous game indeed.
So, if you care to wonder why Protestantism exists, go and look in the historical mirror. A sincere believer can only stand so much cant, cynicism, hypocrisy, worldliness and mercenary hawking of the grace of forgiveness before they PROTEST.
Hiding the Word from the Faithful behind a Latin veil? Teaching for doctrines the commandments of men! Woe to they who are stumbling blocks. Woe to them who pervert the Word. Spare us and youselves your Petrine preening and try a little sackcloth and ashes.
James, if you had a son and you called him Joshua, would that be blasphemy? If you’re wondering what I mean, Joshua and the name of our Lord derive from the same root. You would not agree that it is blasphemy – he just, for a completely irrelevant reason, shares a name with our Lord. Same with the ‘Holy’ ‘Father’.
Now let’s take the pope’s name in part.
‘Holy’: 1 Pet 1:16 says: ‘be ye holy, for I am holy.’ (Interestingly, the one who wrote this book was the first pope.) We are all holy, James, for we are united in the love of Christ. The pope does not have power on his own; he relies on the power and sanctifying grace of God Almighty, and Jesus Christ, to whom all authority in heaven and earth is given.
https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-do-catholics-call-the-pope-the-holy-father-if-the-bible-says-only-persons-of-the-trinity-may
‘Father’:
https://www.catholic.com/tract/call-no-man-father
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/call-no-man-holy-father
https://www.catholic.com/qa/how-can-we-respond-to-the-call-no-man-father-question
We have only one (spiritual) Father, who is in Heaven. However, the word ‘father’ is used many times as in the modern sense:
https://www.catholic.com/bible-navigator/calling-priests-father
This is why Jesus is not condemning calling priests ‘father’ in a literal sense, but rather what he knew would happen 15 centuries later: the ‘Reformation’.
https://www.catholic.com/bible-navigator/infallible-church
‘Ex cathedra’ actually stems from the whole idea of Mt 23:2-3 (Moses’ seat, right?)
https://www.catholic.com/qa/how-do-we-refute-those-who-say-only-the-bibles-authority-is-infallible
https://www.catholic.com/bible-navigator/primacy-of-peter
May the gates of Hell not prevail against the one true Church. May God preserve you through Christ and His words.
And let’s not forget the blasphemous presumption recently reiterated by the latest pope that “it is dangerous for individuals to think that they can have a personal relationship with God”. No, we must be the intermediary you see! Where is this in the Gospels? Where is this spiritual protection racket in Scripture?! The Grace of God is not reserved for any denomination and if you doubt it go and see with whom it has been shared and in what form. Go and see to whom Christ has appeared and to whom revelations and healings have been given. “He seeks those who will worship him in spirit and in truth”, and he finds them! How any sane person can read the Gospels and then pretend that grace and salvation are only for one denomination is hard to fathom: it takes a pettifogging, legalistic little mentality of the kind that Christ rebuked in no uncertain terms. To pretend that the Grace of God and his power to forgive or condemn may be bandied about like a “get out of jail free” card! Where did Christ say that every Tom, Dick & Harry who wears a Roman collar might pretend that he has the power to forgive or withhold forgiveness? Is this why we see every abuse and perversion the mind can imagine coming out of Rome in the last thousand years: because the sinners imagine they have only to utter a few lines and they can absolve each other?!
Is the Armenian or Syriac Church without grace; do they worship in vain? They predate the Roman Church!
Give up your wordly empire building and pretences of Divine Authority and wash the feet of those whom you would make disciples. Let the bishop of Rome again describe himself as “the servant of the servants of Christ”, and act accordingly. Then we may have in this world the unity in the Body of Christ that exists in the spiritual world.
Remember the punishment of those who cause others to stumble or to fall away: their blood will be required of us at the last day
1. No, Francis didn’t say that.
https://www.catholic.com/search?q=personal%20relationship%20dangerous
2. Yes, I agree with your point from Mk 9:39 that ‘he who is not against us is with us’. I think this is very important for Christians nowadays. However, you, like many other Protestants, have misunderstood the term ‘no salvation outside Rome’.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/what-no-salvation-outside-the-church-means
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-there-really-no-salvation-outside-the-catholic-church
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/no-salvation-outside-the-church
3. Yes, Lord Jesus gave authority for His disciples (the forerunners of the bishops) to forgive sin.
‘And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.’ (Jn 20:22-23) Notice how this is the 2nd time that God breathes onto His creation. He clearly says that ‘ye retain’ and ‘ye forgive’, not ‘ye proclaim forgiveness’ etc.
‘But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.’ (Mt 9:8)
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/how-can-a-priest-forgive-sin
4. Yes, the pope indeed should be ‘the servant of the servants of Christ’, and wash the feet of Christ’s followers, in at least a spiritual sense. I am glad that you see sense, and I am praying for God to preserve you and all Christians, in the love and blessings of Jesus Christ who died to ransom us.
And have you perhaps read Mark 9:39? The disciples tried to forbid an unknown man from casting out devils in Jesus name “because he followeth not us”. And what did Christ say?
He forbade the disciples to do so! And if Christ forbade the very disciples themselves from preventing others from evangelizing or doing miracles or exorcisms in his name, who is the bishop of Rome to pretend that his denomination has the right to do so?
Or are you in the face of countless evidences to the contrary going to pretend that Christ gave St. Peter and his claimed successors carte Blanche over that too?
The kind of sophistry Christ rebuked in the Pharisees!
James, peidei para você. Vai chorar seu Cristo de merda no seu quartinho fedorento. Beijos.
If you wish to appear clever answer in the language of Christ, not the language of Pilate, otherwise plain English will suffice. Never mind, it is pointless. Those who flatter themselves that they are the Elect by virtue of their denomination have reached the limits of their perception. Others flattered themselves on much stronger grounds before them, and that ground was cut from beneath them. Those who think a few phrases incanted by a man will replace the judgement of God…one can only hope that they are too simple to know they have been deceived. As for those who deceived them, we know what will be their reward. The Son of God humbled himself, but you, little mortal men, cannot? Confess your historical crimes, and repent. Even the Russian communists managed some of that, and sixty years ago!
You are an Godless MORON.
Crawl back under your STONE.you
are an ignorant FOOL.
You are an Godless MORON.
Crawl back under your STONE.
1. I totally agree that we should not stop people of other denominations. 2 weeks ago the gospel reading in my church was this passage, and the priest in his sermon emphasised Christian unity and condemned people who thought only they were right. He further emphasised the term ‘followeth not us’, which means that the apostles wrongly saw themselves as the authority. This is what some Catholics are doing, and if the pope is guilty of this too, someone should send him a letter about this. (If the teaching was heretic, the priest would have gotten into trouble quickly because the Mass was recorded and he was speaking in the cathedral of the diocese.)
2. Authority to Peter was to ‘bind and loose’ (https://www.angelfire.com/mi/CIL/Papacy.html), to keep the keys. Jesus definitely did not give Peter carte blanche to stop or murder his non-supporters. (We are still free to preach the Good News and to debate Protestants, however, if we adhere to the principle in Mark.)
Great article, I had just one question, If it’s blasphemy to speak vain words to Mary who is the spouse of the Holy spirit.
Would Matthew12:32 directly applies to the words speak by people against Marian Apparition that it is the work of the devil.
Is speaking and attributing the Marian apparition as the work of the devils is the “unforgivable sin” in Matthew12:32?
“The spouse of the Holy Spirit”? What are you talking about Jong? Mary had a spouse named Joseph, of the House of David, though her first-born Son was conceived by the Holy Spirit. In the Kingdom of Heaven, Christ said, “they neither marry, nor are given in marriage”. If we avoid “the commandments of men” and seek the truth of Scripture and God’s guidance in understanding it, we are less likely to fall into error. For none who truly seek will be denied that guidance.
Interestingly, Christ addressed his natural mother as “woman”, at least that is what is recorded in the Gospels. Nowhere did Christ tell us we ought to pray to his mother,who though she was “blessed among women”, was a human being “born in sin” as far as Scripture informs us.
The Father and the Son, who see all and know all, know in what spirit a man thinks, speaks and prays, and we can perhaps venture as far as to say that as with prayers to the saints, if prayers to the Blessed Virgin are offered in a spirit of humility and reverence, and in addition to, rather than instead of prayers to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, might not such prayers be acceptable to God?
But I suggest that it is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit that we are directed to pray, according to Scripture – and is there any higher authority than that except Divine Visitation?
God keep us from error.
1. You are indeed very correct. However, you have misunderstood the phrase ‘spouse of the Holy Spirit’ in a literal sense:
https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-is-the-holy-spirit-called-marys-spouse
https://www.catholic.com/video/is-it-problematic-to-refer-to-mary-as-the-spouse-of-the-holy-spirit
https://www.catholic.com/audio/cal/weird-questions-17
That is why Protestants accuse Catholics of believing in a Quadrinity but don’t want to admit it.
2. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin
https://www.catholic.com/tract/immaculate-conception-and-assumption
https://www.catholic.com/video/was-the-immaculate-conception-necessary
3. Regarding your 3rd paragraph, I am amazed at your insight. As a Catholic, I believe Catholics should focus on the Gospel and foster a personal relationship with Jesus, as is what I experienced at Catholic school. Intercessory prayers may be requested, but we should remember that the ‘saints’ are only our fellow brothers in Christ, who have been made pure and have eternal life (which does not separate us). As they are MADE righteous, their prayers (may probably) avail more than ours. (Jas 5:16)
4. Regarding the authority problem:
https://www.catholic.com/tract/pillar-of-fire-pillar-of-truth
https://www.catholic.com/tract/whats-your-authority
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-truth-about-biblical-authority
I hope this helps, and God bless.
I blog often and I seriously appreciate your information. The article has really peaked my interest.
I am going to book mark your site and keep checking
for new information about once a week. I subscribed to
your Feed as well.
Aw, this was a very good post. Spending some time and actual effort to create a
good article… but what can I say… I hesitate a whole lot and don’t seem
to get anything done.
Do you mind if I quote a few of your articles as long as I provide credit and sources back to your webpage?
My blog is in the very same area of interest as yours and my visitors would really benefit from a lot of
the information you provide here. Please let me know if this ok
with you. Thanks!