Posted on 01/21/2015 4:47:04 PM PST by RnMomof7
As a church history professor, I am sometimes asked how certain practices developed in church history. For example: When did the Roman Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) emphasis on praying to saints and venerating relics and icons begin?
A somewhat obscure, but extremely helpful, book by John Calvin answers that question directly.
In his work, A Treatise on Relics, Calvin utilizes his extensive knowledge of church history to demonstrate that prayers to the saints, prayers for the dead, the veneration of relics, the lighting of candles (in homage to the saints), and the veneration of icons are all rooted in Roman paganism. Such practices infiltrated the Christian church after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire in the fourth century.
Here is an excerpt from Calvin’s work that summarizes his thesis:
Hero-worship is innate to human nature, and it is founded on some of our noblest feelings, — gratitude, love, and admiration, — but which, like all other feelings, when uncontrolled by principle and reason, may easily degenerate into the wildest exaggerations, and lead to most dangerous consequences. It was by such an exaggeration of these noble feelings that [Roman] Paganism filled the Olympus with gods and demigods, — elevating to this rank men who have often deserved the gratitude of their fellow-creatures, by some signal services rendered to the community, or their admiration, by having performed some deeds which required a more than usual degree of mental and physical powers.
The same cause obtained for the Christian martyrs the gratitude and admiration of their fellow-Christians, and finally converted them into a kind of demigods. This was more particularly the case when the church began to be corrupted by her compromise with Paganism [during the fourth and fifth-centuries], which having been baptized without being converted, rapidly introduced into the Christian church, not only many of its rites and ceremonies, but even its polytheism, with this difference, that the divinities of Greece and Rome were replaced by Christian saints, many of whom received the offices of their Pagan predecessors.
The church in the beginning tolerated these abuses, as a temporary evil, but was afterwards unable to remove them; and they became so strong, particularly during the prevailing ignorance of the middle ages, that the church ended up legalizing, through her decrees, that at which she did nothing but wink at first.
In a footnote, Calvin gives specific examples of how Christians saints simply became substitutes for pagan deities.
Thus St. Anthony of Padua restores, like Mercury, stolen property; St. Hubert, like Diana, is the patron of sportsmen; St. Cosmas, like Esculapius, that of physicians, etc. In fact, almost every profession and trade, as well as every place, have their especial patron saint, who, like the tutelary divinity of the Pagans, receives particular hours from his or her protégés.
You can read the entire work on Google Books.
Calvin’s treatment includes a historical overview, quotes from the church fathers, and even citations from sixteenth-century Roman Catholic scholars. The result is an air-tight case for the true origin of many Catholic practices.
Calvin’s conclusion is that these practices are nothing more than idolatrous superstitions, rooted in ancient Roman paganism. Even today, five centuries later, his work still serves as a necessary warning to those who persist in such idolatry. Hence his concluding sentence: “Now, those who fall into this error must do so willingly, as no one can from henceforth plead ignorance on the subject as their excuse.”
That is exactly what Catholicism does. The gospel is the good news of salvation. Catholicism adds to what the apostles taught. No one can deny that Catholicism teaches that believing what they teach must be believed for salvation. It's a different gospel than the apostles taught.
Your post is untrue in every regard.
Well done!
“Calvin ... demonstrates... veneration of relics... Roman paganism...”
The early Christians were Jewish and the Hebrew people venerated relics. The early Christians continued with the practice that was found in the ancient traditions of their roots since the time of Moses.
Joshua 3:15; 1 Samuel 4-6;2 Samuel 11-12; numbers 21:9; 2nd Kings 13:21 - especially this one!;Acts 5:15; Acts 19:12
Exodus 29:37 - Clearly!! the Jewish people held that material “creatures” (created goods) had the ability to become sacred conduits for God’s power in the right circumstances.
The pagan Romans HATED the early Catholic Christians and martyred them - because their worship DIFFERED from pagan beliefs, not because they were the SAME as pagan Roman beliefs.
In particular the Roman pagans were suspicious of and killed the early Catholic Christians for their literal re enactment of the Lord’s supper (eucharist) on Sundays. The eucharist is explicitly referenced in the still preserved writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch who wrote within 50 years (or less) of the resurrection. There are other early records (Didache) that show beyond doubt that the earliest Christians were Catholic and had the mass and sacraments.
Calvin dropped sacred Tradition (small t tradition that bible warns against is NOT the same as sacred Tradition) and made up an interpretation of the bible that is his own own opinion in the 1500’s - over one thousand years after Christ.
Were both the eastern churches (Orthodox) and the western (Latin) churches in error for all of these centuries? of course not; it was Calvin who was in error with his made up biblical interpretations; did the Lord “protect” Christians from the Truth until the heresy of Calvin?
Saint Thomas Aquinas could out think and refute Calvin’s absurd premises in a nano second.
To reiterate: Jewish tradition allowed for the recognition of material relics as holy (see above biblical proof texts) and the early Christians continued the practice.
Then show where the apostles taught the assumption of Mary and the requirement to believe it.
That may be in the Bible, but it’s not a teaching of the Catholic Church, any more than the Levitican command that active homosexuals be put to death.
I would bet “more than one beer” that you already knew that.
LOL Catholicism adds, subtracts, and corrupts what scripture teaches. So you're saying that fish entrails no longer work? How about burning fish hearts to ward off devils?
Once again. Well done!!
If Jerome and Basil changed their statements why would you even consider them credible?
Excellent point...I was going to respond but then I scrolled down and saw your post...
This proves what we and others have been saying all along...
The earliest church fathers unanimously supported 'sola scripture'...It's clear from the Catholic religion's own history that the Catholic religion didn't come into existance til Constantine...
A set of Ignatius' writings were forged about that time making reference to the Catholic religion which didn't exist at the time of Ignatius' life...
I was doing some reading that referenced some of that. I need to do more research on just how much the Catholics rely on writing that is forged.
That's a weird thought...How about, because no one prayed to and thru dead saints so there was nothing to complain about...
But the accusation from Protestants has always been that people WERE praying to saints. That’s the accusation that this thread is all about.
A LOT...Their basic religious beliefs are based on the forgeries of Ignatius...Without those forgeries, they don't have a religion...
The Donation of Constantine...
The Isidorian Decretals (which falsely gives them the authoity for their popehood)...
And many others...
They still reference Thomas Aquinas' use of these false Decretals even knowing they have been proven forgeries...
I can’t even imagine putting my faith and trust in an organization that relies on and references proven forged documents.
Irenaeus lived two centuries before the catholic folly was born.
He was a true follower of the Way, not a catholic.
Eusebius was the first ‘catholic’ scholar.
.
Most of the early Catholic history comes from Eusebius...Much of the later Catholic history is based on what Eusebius wrote...
Supposedly many early Catholic documents are cited by Eusebius...Those documents don't exist but we are to trust that the Catholic Eusebius, Constantine's right hand man gave us the real history...
Quite often when someone is quoted from that period and one asks, 'how do you know it's true', they will have to say, 'because Eusebius said so'... And so that is what's passed of as legitimate Catholic history...Ya hafta take it for what it's worth...
But they did...And still do...I'm sure most Catholics don't realize it...They just follow the guy with the flute...
-— ...They just follow the guy with the flute... -—
Luther? He invented Sola Scriptura, which isn’t biblical or historical.
The doctrine didn’t exist, and was practically impossible, until Gutenberg invented the printing press. Shortly thereafter, Luther saw an opportunity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.