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.”
Yep too many errors to even start to address
Yes the apostles and disciples opposed pagan teachings.. that is why you do not see them practicing anything near what Rome does on any given Sunday.. there was no priesthood, no 7 sacraments, no statures, no prayer to saints, no "vestments, no "holy water", no re-sacrifice of Christ, etc.. all of thsoe things came out of Rome..not the NT church
Oh, and I would suggest you refrain from blatant personal comments. It's rather frowned on here.
You have not established that veneration of saints, the Mass, the priesthood, the seven sacraments, etc., did not exist in apostolic or sub-apostolic times.
There is NO RECORD of any dissension in the Church over the “invention” of the Mass, the introduction of images, the veneration of the martyrs and other saints.
You are trying to get me to believe that MASSIVE changes in the Christian religion, the introduction of idolatry, the hierarchy, etc., and NOBODY CONDEMNED it as heresy until the SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
The centuries we are talking about saw the major Christological and Trinitarian heresies, and their condemnation. But NO CONDEMNATIONS of the “idolatry” and “paganism” you complain about.
You continue to ignore the 1500-YEAR SILENCE.
Silence? Not exactly.
Nah, that poster is not the idiot.
Well! That’s interesting.
“I do not think Calvin was a big fan of the Catholic Church.”
Of course you’re right; his opinions are clear when it comes to pagan religions.
What? That controversy was about the mode of the presence of the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Eucharist. There were several major controversies about that. There was hyper-realism, there was hypo-realism, there was moderate realism (which is the Catholic position). But there was never any claim that the Mass was something other than what Jesus did at the Last Supper, and commanded the apostles to do “in memory of me.”
In other words, your response is no response.
You still have not explained the total absence of controversy, for 1500 years, about the veneration of saints, the Mass, and all the other popish “inventions” you listed.
All of a sudden, in the Fourth Century, the Christian religion was maimed and twisted by idolatry and superstition, and NOBODY NOTICED and NOBODY MINDED.
Easy. Catholicism eradicated them as *heretics*.
It's not hard to have no controversy when all your opponents are either dead or threatened with death in the most gruesome ways.
That was my first thought also. And had all their writings destroyed.
There truly are a great cloud of witnesses whom can testify to Him being among and within themselves. Mileage may vary though -- as that saying goes, and there does appear to me there are those whom merely talk about it, rather than living it. One simply must be born again.
Your reply here indicates to me -- that before you converted to [Roman] Catholicism -- you were something of a lukewarm Christian, correct?
Or should it be better said, that all the Scripture study on it's own was not producing enough of a life-changing effect? That is understandable, for it is not by letter alone by which we are born again, but by the Spirit, as the "letter" of Scripture does indeed (interestingly enough) indicate. :^')
You said;
Interesting. Outside "the" Church you say?
Yet even by RCC reckonings, those whom are baptized (though under "Trinitarian" formula alone, none of the baptized "in the name of Jesus" business, no siree bob) belong to, or are "in" the Church [regardless of the erroneous ways of thinking which makes it out to be that the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical 'body' is the only 'body'].
I don't know who it was who was teaching you, that which for yourself resulted in "no real desire to change my ways" as you put it; yet to mistake your own personal experience as identical to a greater majority of other-than Roman Catholic Christians, to then further evaluate and transpose your own personal experience(?) onto all Roman Catholics other than yourself (as for alleged dedication to God) would be to make the same mistake which was first committed (mistaking your own inwards experience for being that of most others) in that yet second direction, for the wider evidence is abundant enough that many persons who are counted as members of various ecclesia including the RCC appear outwardly to be not much transformed into being and remaining of the Spirit, rather than seemingly much more consistently still worldly.
There is tension there for most anyone --just how to remain in this world, yet not "of" the fallen spirit of this world.
Many attempts have been made by persons to veritably pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, so to speak, and through harshness towards their own physical existence, subjugate (and castigate) their own selves into being acceptable unto God.
That methodology puts the cart before the horse.
Yet to continue on in life of remorselessness for unrepentant sin (the sin which, as Paul wrote still dwells within) assuming that one can do whatsoever is pleasing to one's own self, is to not drive (or ride within?) the "cart" much at all.
We do know that Scripture attributes Christ himself having said (John 6:44);
and in John 16:7-11;
Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in Me; of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
That same Helper, the Spirit of truth is that which convicts us of our sin. Leaving us then nowhere to turn but to the light (if we don't just run away and hide from Him, like Adam did) allowing the Light to further illuminate inwardly within ourselves that which is opposed to Him.
As we journey in this realm in which we live, we must allow Him to (as He demonstrated) wash our feet (John 13)...for walking in this earthly realm in which we exist, it is unavoidable that any can avoid having their feet (which touch upon the earth?) being dirtied.
You seem to argue that all which Arthur wrote --- all the attributing motives included, were universally enough true -- for those having been true -- for yourself.
Yet that is the argument which you would have me accept -- that the sky is red (or blue, take your pick) in Cath-o-lic land -- but not elsewhere..?
I'm sorry, but my own personal experience and observations both, do preclude that there be can be any real truth to that, not to the overly simplistic manner in which that was presented -- as if there was a actual night/day difference.
" I do not think Calvin was a big fan of the Catholic Church." -- WayneSOkay. Did my post said otherwise?Not a fan of Rome or the papacy, which is not the same thing. --lnf
This might be helpful: We Confess A Holy Catholic Church
I recently addressed part of this question in response to a question from an HB reader. When we say, in the Apostles’ Creed, with the church in all times and all places, “I believe in the Holy Spirit, a holy catholic church….” (Credo in Spiritum sanctum, sanctam Ecclesiam catholicam) we are not confessing that Rome is the Catholic Church....
In short, the early Christian conception of catholicity has no more to do with the Roman congregation than it has with any other congregation and there is no evidence that, when these 2nd century authors spoke of catholicity, these authors were thinking of the pastor of the Roman congregation and certainly not of any episcopal supremacy of the Roman pastor.
During the Reformation, however, the Romanists accused the Protestants of being “sectarian,” i.e., of dividing the church and of falling away from the “Catholic” church. That accusation was exactly backward, however. ...
Whole thing's worth reading.
cc a couple of the saints
Hey Mom, do you ever get the feeling, that somewhere on earth, there is a catholic who is cringing, that also, somewhere on earth, there is a protestant who is getting away with something they wish they could get away with?
Yeah. More than once.
Sheesh. Imagine the nerve of those Prots, to be free in Christ and not to have to submit to the RCC’s regulations of “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” which regulations “have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.”
(Sound familiar?)
Jealousy raises its ugly head.
It does indeed. You sure answered quick. I am just getting up, Friday morning here. Good morning. Yes, imagine that, free to do what we should, no longer slaves to sin. Oh the horrors. Some people REALLY are jealous.
:-)
If the Catholic Church obliterated all memory of heretics, why have we even HEARD OF Arius, Nestorius, Montanus, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.
So somebody DID object to the invention of the Mass, the six other sacraments, the veneration of saints, etc., but the Church obliterated them from history? Unlike the THOUSANDS of OTHER heretics in history.
That’s a neat trick. The SAVAGERY of the Catholic Church against these proto-Lutherans is PROVEN by the fact that we have NO RECORD of the savagery.
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.