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.”
Well, there’s a long history behind that, but for a group that demands the literal interpretation of some passages that should not be interpreted literally because Jesus said so, AND the fact that they claim to hold the very words spoken by Jesus in the highest regard, of more import than anything else in Scripture, they sure do seem to like to pick and choose what to take literally and what not to take literally.
Jesus’ command there is pretty clear and taken in context, even clearer.
The only attempt at refuting that passage that I have ever seen, is the inane argument that kids call their fathers daddy and they are disobeying Jesus, right? So if they can call their fathers, *Daddy*, then Catholics can call their religious leaders *Father*.
But Jesus words do not allow them that out, taken in context, which is how religious leaders are to be addressed.
Spicy rhetoric (e.g. “inane”) isn’t really an argument, it is a distracting word bomb.
And we do talk about church fathers without a sense of irony.
However to use ecclesiastical titles of “Father” seems to bid fair to run afoul of the intention of Christ.
You could have just admitted that you have no idea what Sola Scriptura means or how it's used. I have seen no one claim or infer what you just said.
>>Any proposition or practice that is not taught in the New Testament is the invention of Popish priests, in order to further their agenda of genocide, accumulation of unimaginable wealth, world domination, and Satanism.<<
I find your tactics of late rather interesting. Using scripture to test all doctrine is valid and obviously believed by most of your "church fathers". The "agenda" the "popish priests" had was to attract and keep pagans by adopting and adapting many of their beliefs and practices.
By the Catholic Church eliminating anyone who opposed them and burning any books that disagreed with them. You can find the evidence in the declarations and the decrees by the popes.
Most of what Catholicism teaches contradicts scripture as has been shown in these threads many, many times.
>>What the Catholic Church denies is the man-made, unscriptural theory of “sola scriptura.”<<
See 169
We know better than that since we read the scriptures...Your entire religion is a contradiction of the scriptures as has been pointed out countless times on FR including your Catholic office of a non married priest...
You need to expand your search of church history...Or if you have, quit deceiving people with your phoney Catholic history...
“I can tell you how it’s used. Everything revealed by Jesus Christ was written down in some part of the New Testament. Any proposition or practice that is not taught in the New Testament is the invention of Popish priests, in order to further their agenda of genocide, accumulation of unimaginable wealth, world domination, and Satanism.”
Again, I’m at a loss as to how anyone who claims to be trained as a priest can be unfamiliar with one of the major doctrinal developments that shook the foundations of the church he was trained to serve?
I assumed priests are taught theology, the historical development of theology, why doctrine is arrived at as opposed to why it is rejected, and of course, a study of what the Scriptures say themselves.
It does not appear your post is familiar with any of those things.
Please, I urge you to do a basic Google search and become familiar with the theological term you are using in your posts.
Nice word game going on here )
One can not make doctrine FROM SILENCE ...and that's exactly what Rome does.. ..
Scripture does not teach Mary had original sin...so she must not have, Scripture does not say Mary was buried, so she must have been assumed etc. Scripture does not say that Jesus stopped and had his face wiped by veronica so she must have done it.. etc
Ya know Scripture does not say that Jesus was actually an alien from another planet and that His resurrection was actually on a space ship.. so His ship really came to pick Him up..
It is a dangerous thing to add to scripture..to have a "prophet " that is infallible like God..
Cults love to have their own personal "prophets.. look at Mormonism , look at the JWs.. they think their prophet got direct instructions from God and they disagree with each other and Rome .. So what is the check that tells us truth ?
Arthur would you define Sola scriptura
Amen
I'll bet they would be hard pressed to find a Catholic who calls his own father, 'Father', yet they call their clergy Father...Just exactly as Jesus told them not to do...
I'll bet they would be hard pressed to find a Catholic who addresses his own father as 'Father', yet they address their clergy as Father...Just exactly as Jesus told them not to do...
As I understand it, Catholic priests start off their education with at least 3 years of pagan philosophy...They then head to a seminary where they learn Catholic church history and the ins and outs of the Catholic rituals and priestly functions with little or no bible study...Except for the talking points we see posted constantly...
That would certainly explain why it is nearly impossible to engage a Catholic in a discussion of scripture...
“As I understand it, Catholic priests start off their education with at least 3 years of pagan philosophy...They then head to a seminary where they learn Catholic church history and the ins and outs of the Catholic rituals and priestly functions with little or no bible study...Except for the talking points we see posted constantly...”
You very well may be right, based on the quality of what has been posted on FR. If so, this is immeasurably a sorry state of affairs of a group that purports to represent God.
“That would certainly explain why it is nearly impossible to engage a Catholic in a discussion of scripture...”
I realized when interacting with one certain member of that denomination, that their belief starts with whatever the church claims and then they try to find it in scripture and defend it. That is the totality of their approach. It again, is sad.
Yes, it is very sad.
“As I understand it, Catholic priests start off their education with at least 3 years of pagan philosophy...They then head to a seminary where they learn Catholic church history and the ins and outs of the Catholic rituals and priestly functions with little or no bible study...Except for the talking points we see posted constantly...”
OK, I just visited three major Catholic seminaries online. I reviewed their curriculum. Certainly some good things covered. Weak on Bible - mostly survey course. Example: 3 credits that cover works of Paul. Weak on theology - particularly systematic theology.
It makes sense. In these discussions that cover the totality of revelation, there is a lack systematic and the ability to understand each book of the Bible and where it fits in revelation, as well as the structure of each book.
“Refinement and clarification of dogma is not the same as “invention.”
The definition of dogma is incontrovertibly true. How can that be when your denomination hadn’t even reached s decision on what the word sacraments should mean. So it was not dogma, but a new procedure of Salvation. Also noted in the definition of dogma it cannot be changed or discarded, but your Church did indeed change the sacraments as stated in the previous post. You can argue all day long, but that will not make it true. Face it the Catholic Church has had major changes on Salvation and how Grace can be obtained, it’s just a fact.
Dogma
Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded ... Wikipedia
Why this multiplicity of definitions? Because agreement hadn’t been reached on what the word sacraments should mean. As a result, many things were called sacraments in the early Church which subsequently were not identified as such.
He doesn’t have any new info same old distraction.
There you go again adding to my words to take away from the original message. No one becomes door stops and I didn’t say that. As a matter of fact IAW Scripture we are very busy serving our God and his Lamb. The below Scripture is from your Bible and should tell you all that you need to know.
Luke 16:26-31New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
26 Besides all this, between you and us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.’ 27 He said, ‘Then, father, I beg you to send him to my father’s house— 28 for I have five brothers—that he may warn them, so that they will not also come into this place of torment.’ 29 Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; they should listen to them.’ 30 He said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
Some examples.
There are things called “sacramentals,” the most common being Holy Water and the Rosary.
It is interesting that the one ritual most explicitly described in Scripture that fits the definition of a “sacrament” (An outward sign, instituted by Christ, to give grace.”) is the Washing of the Feet. It remains part of the Mass on Holy Thursday, but is not called a sacrament, at least in the Latin Church.
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.