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.”
Are you saying demons work miracles?
Will the circle be unbroken?
That would only work if there had indeed been many who addressed prayers directly to saints, (from the initial, first generations of the Church) seeking of departed saints their own personal intervention, rather than prayers be more simply of veneration as it were, a continuing communion of saints (and thanks be directed to God for them) reaching even into heavenly places (where the souls of saints were widely enough considered to reside, some time after their earthly lives came to an end, thus their souls passing on, as that saying expresses the concept).
It is a leap of sorts to address prayers directly to those whom have passed on, in comparison to directing prayers to the Heavenly Father (as Christ did stipulate -- pray thusly -- to the Father) while also possibly perceiving those whom have passed on to have been then "hid in Christ", even as we are to be so ourselves, beginning while still here upon earth.
If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory.
Can you show that in the first generations of Christians (what would that be -- 120 to 150 years perhaps, for more than a few "generations"?) that it was common to pray TO saints, in seeking those 'saints' own direct intercession (in the affairs of men) rather than the prayer and veneration be more about them, like as in loving remembrance & gratitude directed towards God for those souls for having been leading personages of the Church --- in those earliest generations after the Apostles?
Where are all the early prayers directed TO the Apostles themselves, from the first century, and say--- to the middle of the second, if praying (directly) to saints was such an original precept of the church? Please limit this to the first few generations...and provide sources for where these "prayers" may be found. Bringing prayers from centuries after the initial founding of the church simply will not suffice, being that you seem to be attempting to assert that they were there from the beginning.
If praying to departed saints was established by Christ and the Apostles --- then why the absence of such prayers from the first decades of the Church? That is a better question than why there were no objections to such (nonexistent) prayers.
Do not here conflate and confuse earliest "veneration" for "prayer towards" saints-- and then you may have an valid point. Yet the way you worded your own positional query, does appear to have committed the error of logic of having assumed the consequent, namely in having assumed that there were prayers directed to saints in form of seeking direct intervention from them.
Please also note --- pagans (the world over) prayed to their own ancestors. Some (many?) still do.
Is that the kind of thing which should be incorporated into Christian worship of the Creator of heaven and earth?
Is God a now (again?) a pantheon of Gods as it were, different from the Greek way of viewing the heavenly realms chiefly for God the Father being something higher than Zeus conceptually was, yet there still be a plethora of lesser gods (and goddesses) who were once initially human beings? Oh, and in this "christianized" model of paganist view of the heavenlies -- there is not the trickery and competition among gods and goddesses which there is among just about each and every "pagan" model of religion. (it is one thing for Christianity to have been "Hellenized" -- must we Christianize Greek mythology? please say it ain't so, joe)
We do accept there is no competition, no duplicity, no differing agendas among the Trinity, them being of One truth, and One true essence, united in all purposes. To know one of them is to know them all. Isn't that generally correct?
Feel free to word that differently, to better express the concepts, if you wish, or perceive a need to.
Being that is the condition, One God (not in disagreement with Himself in any way -- but Holy, and entire in His being) then are we to now pray to those whom were once human beings -- which we do hope (and even pray) are now truly united with Him, even very much more so than we are now, while we are still upon earth in our own mortal bodies?
If they be now truly hid in Christ ---- why pray TO them, rather than pray to God the Father?
John 14:18-20 “A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also. At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.
I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
If God the Father would desire for those whom have departed this earthly realm, and their souls now fully with His own -- to hear our unutterable prayers in the spirit then so be it. The saints then could commune with us in spirit, the spirit expressing our own innermost longing for God, if it be we truly have that longing for Him.
Romans 8:26-30 Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
I submit that in this manner, more originally, communion of the saints was understood to be -- when that was extended to encompass not only those of the Church upon earth (as Paul can be seen to have been writing of, in the above) but those whom had passed on also.
This leaves us still short of finding advisement to direct our prayers to any other than the Creator, God the Father (to whom we may cry unto, in spirit of adoption, Romans 8:15).
BTW, why is it that Armenians and Ethiopians reverence relics and pray to saints? None of them were ever under Roman political or cultural control.
most former Catholics are former because they put themselves over the Church, they want to do something the Church says is wrong.
it may be a “vial” of blood, it is not a “vile”
Dr. do you believe you have a soul? Does this soul survive earthly death? Do you ever talk to your deceased ancestors? Mary is not a “goddess.”
I was taught to pray in the Holy Name of Jesus through Mary....
Correct. Barbara is the patron saint of the artillery.
Great post
As the proverbs said, don’t be so sure........
Well you got taught wrong....there’s no mention of praying to or through mary at all as mediator. That is a catholic add-on...and foolish to even consider since she’s not here and Jesus is here with us. Logic alsone says we go to him...if you’re going to her she’s simply taking up your space.
God’s Word is very clear...
As I Timothy states...”For there is one God, and ONE MEDIATOR between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all.
No...I got it right the first time...it’s a ‘Vile’ of blood.
And no wonder people in Africa send missionaries here...they think catholicism is a death cult...and the rest sacrifice babies in the womb.
ahahaha, silly. Africa sends missionaries here because no one wants to be in Africa.
"don't eat the blood" - God
>>Have you considered that the Epistles were written with a purpose?<<
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
>>Their purpose was the correction and reproof of churches which had lost their way.<<
Not for the reason John said?
>>In fact, if you read 1 Cor 11 in context, it confirms it further.<<
Hmmm, so Catholics must not be doing it right because That is why many among you are weak and sick.
>>What good are Biblical proofs when even something so extensively covered as the Eucharist is denied?<<
Acts 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
>>There is no change to their statements...<<
"For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?" - Ambrose (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)
“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.” - Gregory of Nyssa (d.ca, 395) “On the Holy Trinity”, NPNF, p. 327
“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.” - Augustine (354–430) De unitate ecclesiae, 10
Those are your "church fathers". You can parse their words all you want. I rely on the writings of the apostles with the counsel of the Holy Spirit as we were told we should do.
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Nobody other than the apostles were with Jesus to remember what Jesus said. We were given the Holy Spirit who teaches us not some group of men in fancy robes.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Catholics, Mormons, and Muslims want to rely on writings other than the apostles. They each put their faith and trust in those fallible men. I'll trust in Christ alone and the Holy Spirit he promised each of us.
“Wow. I knew we disagreed on the identification of St Peter as the first Pope from Matt 16:18... I had no idea we disagreed on the word “Church.” Learn something new everyday...”
The word used is ekklesia, the Greek word for gathering.
Well done!
“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.”
That is a false argument that contains its own presuppositions.
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.