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.”
"They [heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures...We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith....
It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and to demonstrate the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these heretics rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to 'the perfect' apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon to the Church, but if they should fall away, the direst calamity....proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves." - Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 1:8:1, 3:1:1, 3:3:1, 3:12:9)Selective quoting sure helps to make the point you want to make. However, taking things out of context tends to distort the truth. So it is with all of your quotes.
Don’t you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Sirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command. For many other observances of the Churches, which are do to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law Jerome (The Dialogue Against the Luciferians 8 [A.D. 382]).They claim Sola Scriptura.Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us "in mystery" by the tradition of the Apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will contradict; - no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in these matters… Basil (On the Holy Spirit 27 [A.D. 375]).
The New Testament says NOWHERE that each and every doctrine or practice taught by the apostles is written in the New Testament.
How about answering my challenge: Show me an Apostolic Father or a Sub-apostolic Father who complains about or condemns the practice of asking the saints for their intercession. If it was an innovation contrary to the Faith, then there MUST be complaints about it BEFORE circa the year 1500.
Individually. Each one of us. And none of us are perfect.
There is no reasoning with such absurdity.
It wasn't a demand. It was a mirror. You reject our tradition in favor of your own all the while hiding behind a shield of Sola Scriptura. It's hypocritical.
It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and to demonstrate the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these heretics rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to 'the perfect' apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon to the Church, but if they should fall away, the direst calamity....proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves." - Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 1:8:1, 3:1:1, 3:3:1, 3:12:9)
Nothing in that quote changes what he said in the quote I posted.
If Jerome and Basil changed their statements why would you even consider them credible?
Yes. He did. If you had read more than the tracts printed to turn him into the John Boehner of the Catholic Church, you would know that he didn't write against the Church as it stands. See post 182 for more context.
It’s impolite to talk about someone without pinging them.
So then simply show proof of where they taught what the Catholic Church teaches.
>>How about answering my challenge: Show me an Apostolic Father or a Sub-apostolic Father who complains about or condemns the practice of asking the saints for their intercession.<<
It matters not whether they complained about it or not. The fact still remains that Paul said if anyone teaches something else.
I have only recently read some of your anti-Catholic posts and the more I read the more I’m wondering:
Are you all part of that crowd that doesn’t put up a Christmas tree, doesn’t exchange gifts, doesn’t eat candy canes, doesn’t watch Frosty or Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer or sing “White Christmas”?
Faith comes from hearing God's Word. While reading about others might be entertaining, maybe even sometimes edifying, why not spend the majority of time in fellowship with the Living Word - you cannot separate Jesus from the Word. Spend time in God's Word and you just might stop trying to become what God has already made you to be. (Joshua 1:8, Psalm 119, Isaiah 55:11, Matthew 4:4, 7:24-27, Luke 8:9-18, Romans 10:17, 2 Timothy 3:15-17)
“Reformed” theology, on the other hand, holds that grace does nothing to us. It does not make us holy. All that happens is that God LIES about us to himself, and lets us into heaven.
Do you even know what Grace really is? It sure doesn't sound like it. If you read God's Word a little more, the revelation will come, and you will understand the depth of God's Love. You will never understand it in your head until it is first revealed to your spirit. (1 Corinthians 2:6-16, Ephesians 1 & 2)
This is the fundamental reason Protestantism denies the ability of the saints to intercede for us: Protestantism denies that grace actually transforms people, filling them with charity—which is the form of God.
Why do I need saints? I am child of God, led by the Holy Spirit that dwells IN me. I am seated in Heavenly Places, and complete IN CHRIST. What more could some "saint" do for me who no longer has a body, therefore no authority on earth? Let the elevator go to the top. (Romans 8, Ephesians 2, Colossians 2)
Even more fundamentally, Protestantism does not take the Incarnation seriously. To Protestants, God’s revelation is primarily verbal. What Jesus left behind in the world is primarily words, written down. Our salvation consists of God’s pronouncing words over us, fictitious words judging us as “justified.”
Why is the PHYSICAL world more real to you and Rome than the SPIRITUAL WORLD? Jesus came, died, was resurrected, and is now seated at the right hand of God. He provided the Holy Spirit to dwell inside all who BELIEVE. How do we believe? Let's ask the first "pope"?
1 Peter 1:23 (KJV) - 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
What about Jesus?
John 3:3-8 (KJV) - 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
I don't think Jesus was talking about physical water in the above. But just in case you attended one of those theological cemeteries...
John 4:13-14 (KJV) - 13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: 14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
Ephesians 5:25-27 (KJV) - 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Let's examine one of many key passages from Paul, who was the apostle to the Gentiles, wrote 2/3 of the NT, and was given the responsibility of unveiling the Mystery of the Body of Christ.
Romans 10:8-12 (KJV) - 8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
The Catholic Church teaches, on the other hand, that the Word became Flesh. His primordial “legacy” to us is his BODY on earth, the Church. In the Church, the written word came to be. The Church, through the Sacraments, makes Christ still present on earth, and their purpose is to cause REAL transformation, divinizing us, by making us participants in the divine nature—charity—the very form of God.
Look at your paragraph, its the flesh, the physical world, your senses, everything revolves on what YOU DO, not what God HAS DONE. Its exactly what has doomed mankind from the very beginning, ignoring God's Word and turning to man's own methods. Look at Cain & Abel, one brother provided a sacrifice by faith - it was accepted. One gave fruit from the cursed ground and it was rejected. That is religion in a nutshell, doing things their own way.
You want to do good works? That is noble. Want to be 100x more effective, let the Holy Spirit guide you and the Anointing flow through you. In other words - imitate Jesus, not the religious. (2 Corinthians 9:8, Ephesians 5:1-2)
The Bible, God's Word, is NOT the invention of man, or any religious organization. Of all Rome's claims that one is the most egregious, attempting to subordinate God's Word under some man-made religion. (1 Corinthians 2:12-16, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:16-21)
Oh, and don't forget, I am ALIVE with Christ. God made the decision to save me long before sin even entered the world. Its in the Book. (Ephesians 2)
Ephesians 1:3-14 (KJV) - 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: 4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. 7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; 8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; 9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: 10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: 11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: 12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
Protestantism does not take the Incarnation seriously. It does not believe in REAL effects of the Incarnation. It does not believe that the Incarnation transforms US. Protestantism is about God pretending that we are no longer sinners, even though all our actions are sins.
Satan's greatest weapon is religion. Nothing blinds folks faster to the simple Truth of God's Word than the rudiments of the world, and the reasoning of theologians. Again, READ GOD'S WORD.
Matthew 15:16-20 (KJV) - 16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? 17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? 18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man. (see also Mark 7:18-23)
John 4:23-24 (KJV) - 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
John 6:63 (KJV) - 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
John 17:14-19 (KJV) - 14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
BELIEVERS are COMPLETE in Christ.
Colossians 2:6-10 (KJV) - 6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: 7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. 8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
Look up, not at religion.
Colossians 2:16-23 (KJV) - 16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. 18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. 20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, 21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.
Honestly, what could religion do for the child of God? Its so sad that folks will cling to anything other than Jesus.
Colossians 3:1-4 (KJV) - 1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. 2 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. 3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. 4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.
Yes, it did. The proofs of Scripture offered are like those from the Old Testament referenced in the New Testament. It takes context to understand. The Church has been providing that context from the beginning. Let's consider something like the Eucharist. We don't think it should be controversial. Have you considered that the Epistles were written with a purpose? Their purpose was the correction and reproof of churches which had lost their way. We know the Christians at the time were accused of cannibalism because they claimed they ate the flesh of Jesus. Yet there was no mention in Scripture to correct this. In fact, if you read 1 Cor 11 in context, it confirms it further. Yet this teaching is denied.
What good are Biblical proofs when even something so extensively covered as the Eucharist is denied? You simply deny the Church the authority given Her by Christ and though you claim to want an explanation, no explanation will suffice.
If Jerome and Basil changed their statements why would you even consider them credible?
To quote "A Fish Called Wanda"...
"Apes don't read Nietzsche."
"Yes, they do, Otto. They just don't understand it."
You are quoting great doctors of the Church in an attempt to undermine the authority of the Church. There is no change to their statements... only context you don't understand. If you truly want to read what these great saints wrote, put down the tracts and read their writings in full.
He did not. He warned against teaching another Gospel.. Definitionally, the Gospel is the life, death and resurrection of Christ. It is not the full body of Scripture.
Who said it was? Why do Protestants deny the physical world? It was created by God and we live here in our journey to Heaven. It is real and tangible and has a purpose for the salvation of souls. Christ came into the world in the flesh to die a horrible death on a real, physical Cross. He was baptized (as are all of His people) in real water. He healed real, physical bodies of afflictions and even restored physical life. He raised real, physical bread and wine to be His own Body and Blood. To deny physical realities is to minimize the sacrifice of Christ and deny the reality of what will be glorified bodies raised physically to Heaven in the resurrection.
The physical world is not more real than the spiritual... but it is real and has a purpose than many overlook in their quest for "pure" spirituality.
Indeed.
Hebrews 4:12 "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"
A lot of the time it seems 'religion' tries to wedge itself between these two verses.
The fact that no one in the first several generations of Christians complained about people addressing prayers to saints proves that the practice was NOT a departure from the teaching of the apostles.
Name dropping can be near meaningless...though doing so possibly demonstrates the erroneous conception (loose assumption) that all those named persons supported Roman Catholic doctrines as those are today --- without there being any discernible differences.
The differences can at times be but slight in initial superficial appearance, yet the ramifications as for the differences be part of a larger contextual view which presents significant variance (and even direct opposition) to what developed later.
Yet in that list of individuals you just named, there is one thing that is easy to show marked difference for, compared to what the RCC now says is "truth" .
There are hosts of others who were in agreement with Athanasius as to what is included in Old Testament -- and what was not.
You say such things as;
without stipulating what "truths" you are talking about -- more specifically.
But to be both generous -- and accusatory, I will venture that it is not the fault of rank-and-file [Roman] Catholics today, to commit the error of thinking all those who you named, supported all of what later developed as dogma and doctrine.
The promoters of the RCC (to be over and above all other Churches, so the claims always include --- a preaching "of the church" more than "preaching of Christ" it does seem) have been working steadily at building up that image for more than a thousand years.
When the records are examined in closer detail, it often turns out that what was "cherry-picked" as quotation from one of those of the earliest of those which you named --- were not expressing the same concept as the isolated quotes are frequently represented to be, though admittedly it can be time-consuming to gather up and then lay out all the evidence in order to prove things one way or another.
I see you did nothing of the sort yourself, no deeper examination of the quotations which you rejected -- but instead linked back to a previous "editorial-like", expression of your own opinion comment of your own from years ago now, yourself having done so at least once previous on this thread, after having offered up a pair of your own isolated & "selective" quotes, as if the words of two, entirely overpower the words of others, enough so that the "others" should be given short shrift, and entirely ignored?
Your claim of "selective quoting" in reply #182 which you submitted in reply to the quotes provided in comment #169 for multiple ECF's having provided clear support for the concept of Scripture being supreme, is just so much assertion that is was only isolated-out-of-context citation (if that was what you intended).
Sure the Church had Tradition. One of the Traditions from earliest times was to rely upon the Holy Scriptures as being over all, thus supreme. That worked for most things, for most early tradition had enjoyed support from Scripture, all along. If not-- then show us more of what early tradition there was -- that can be adduced to have been established by the Apostles, rather than have arisen later -- first, as custom.
The example you provided for the contrary of reliance upon Scripture as Supreme, are just so much early example of where things can go wrong (even if they did not, at those junctures)-- particularly in that second example, where Basil invokes "others we have received delivered to us "in mystery" by the tradition of the Apostles; which could possibly be OK -- yet is also much the way things which arose more along line of custom that had been introduced post-Apostolic age, could be confused as having been in actual fact "Apostolically" sourced when it was not.
The situation for later individuals which you listed in the comment to which this note is addressed in reply, such as Aquinas, scarcely matters except for what was likely to be believed in his own era, for one as late as Aquinas, although one could look upon how Aquinas incorporated the fraudulent Pseudo–Isidorian Decretals in his own writings, unknowingly to himself incorporating falsified theological/historical context in support of Romish Papacy (and Supremacy) which has still to be rooted out from among Roman Catholic theology.
As for Augustine -- he can be shown to have promoted a 'spiritualized' view of what came to be termed ---Eucharist, while it comes across (still, even this day, far removed from the Reformation) that the RCC teaches something akin to a 'carnal flesh' presence and reality (for the wafer or "host", after consecration), since that is how many "Catholics" speak of this, what with the alleged miracle of Lanciano, and other perceived-to-be-actually-bloody-like "Eucharist miracles(!)" ---- when that was not what Christ was speaking of much at all, or else he would not have added that His words were Spirit and Life, the flesh profiting nothing.
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.