" Catholicism Is Nothing New "

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='ExCorde' timestamp='1296592094' post='2207498']
I'm talking about the kind of "indisputable" argument (there's no question about it in their minds) that claims the Church to be a motley collection of doctrines, copying its teachings from Egypt, tales of virgin births and resurrections from several cultures, replacing pagan festivities for their own holidays, etc.[/quote]
As long as we're not talking about the Zeitgeist movie...

[AudreyGrace]

As Catholic Christians, we believe that God is the Creator. How He did it, we do not know. For us to try and figure that out to its full extent is futile because we can never fully understand how God operates. However, science has revealed certain things to us that cannot be ignored. I love science, and when people say that science is evil because it goes against complete faith, I get extremely annoyed. If anything, courses I've taken (especially physics, physiology, anatomy, and genetics) have deepened my faith and awe in God. God created us with an intelligence. It is our purpose to integrate faith and reason and to do so for the glory of God.

I see what you're saying about the evolution of the term "Creationism" (pun definitely intended). It used to mean that one believes God created everything as it is in 6 days, and evolution does not exist. But, now we know that certain species definitely have evolved in some way or another over time. Even our own, in some ways (our coccyx, height, jaw strength, ears, etc). In current times, Creationism (at least in my opinion) means recognizing science but with a constant attribution to God as the ultimate creator. Example- the "Big Bang" could have happened, but only because God willed it.


I've gotten some snarky comments and shocked looks from some of my teachers and other students when I say I'm a Creationist, especially when they know how much I love science. Most don't realize that Catholics and Christians can "believe" in science while believing in God as the creator of science. But once I explain, they seem to understand better. I think it's also impacted some people's faith, because many get stuck in the rut and feel forced to either believe in science or in God, but not both. If we have more Catholic witnesses in the world who recognize science with God as its creator, think of how many more people will be open to the acknowledgment of God.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1296672184' post='2207813']
because many get stuck in the rut and feel forced to either believe in science or in God, but not both. If we have more Catholic witnesses in the world who recognize science with God as its creator, think of how many more people will be open to the acknowledgment of God.


[/quote]

And ain't that teh truth?

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='ExCorde' timestamp='1296592094' post='2207498']
I'm talking about the kind of "indisputable" argument (there's no question about it in their minds) that claims the Church to be a motley collection of doctrines, copying its teachings from Egypt, tales of virgin births and resurrections from several cultures, replacing pagan festivities for their own holidays, etc.

I don't have much of a clue about the facts because this sort of idea was never a problem for me. When I hear them, I know they are distorting a lot of stuff because they often take it too far and their misunderstanding of actual Catholic teaching and custom shows. Yet, I really want to know more and be articulate when it comes to make sense of the specific similarities between world religions and our faith.

Many thanks for having me!
[/quote]


Hye Corde and welcome to the Phorum!

I have heard arguments like this before, coming mostly from anti-Catholic Protestants who are trying to discredit the Church by proving that She is pagan. Of course, it's an argument that eats its own tail, because Protestants came from the Catholic Church and we sink or swim together, and they often just end up trying to disprove their own beliefs and practices. However, they argue it anyway, in the hopes of defeating the "Whore of Babylon". *insert eye roll here*

Arguments I have heard are:
1) The Church adopted pagan practices and beliefs to get more converts, until she herself became pagam (Syncretism)
2) Mary is the goddess Gaia
3) Mary is the goddess Ishtar
4) Catholics worship statues
5) Catholics believe in human sacrificing and cannibalism
6) There were bad popes in the Middle Ages, which made them pagan.
7) The Mass is a pagan ritual
8) Christmas and Easter were pagan holidays
9) Catholics worship the Sun God
10) The rosary is pagan

I've seen a lot of arguments like this; I think most Catholics who debate with Fundamentalists and Jehovah's Witnesses have.
I've used Jason Evert's book [i]Answering Jehovah's Witnesses [/i]quite a bit.
[url="http://http//www.davidmacd.com/catholic/were_catholics_pagan.htm"][i]THIS SITE[/i][/url][i] [/i]is good for the apologist who has to deal with this sort of stuff, as well.
I think Karl Keating's [i]Catholicism vs Fundamentalism[/i] might also have a chapter on the supposed pagan origins of the Church.
If you want a good book on Church history, I suggest [i]The Story of the Church[/i] by Rev. George Johnson, Rev. Jerome Hannan, and Sister M. Dominica, O.S.U.; that's a good place to start.


[size="1"]Edited for stupidity in the subject of spelling[/size]

Edited February 2, 2011 by Tally Marx

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1296685715' post='2207938']

Arguments I have heard are:
1) The Church adopted pagan practices and beliefs to get more converts, until she herself became pagam (Syncretism)
2) Mary is the goddess Gaia
3) Mary is the goddess Ishtar
4) Catholics worship statues
5) Catholics believe in human sacrificing and cannibalism
6) There were bad popes in the Middle Ages, which made them pagan.
7) The Mass is a pagan ritual
8) Christmas and Easter were pagan holidays
9) Catholics worship the Sun God
10) The rosary is pagan

[/quote]
2 & 3 Don't protestants believe in Mary?

Number 4 is true with many Catholics. The strange part is that religious icons and places seem to focus spiritual energy, however we should use them just for that 'focus' not worship, which is proper only for Jesus/God.

If number 5 is referring to the Eucharist, then all I could say to them is that there is no cure for dumb. Eating 'The body of Christ' and cannibalism is similar but entirely different and for entirely different reasons and is therefore not comparable.

Number 6 hhmm, I'm a fail on history, but if doco's have any credence Catholicism had some really bad times.

Number 8 could be part true. I read where the true date of Christmas is unknown, so the 25 December was chosen because it was a pagan holiday and they wanted to take the focus off of that.

7 and 9 where on earth could they get that from?

[AudreyGrace]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1296690060' post='2207980']
7 and 9 where on earth could they get that from?
[/quote]

yeah, i lol'd at number 9..

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1296690060' post='2207980']
Number 4 is true with many Catholics. The strange part is that religious icons and places seem to focus spiritual energy, however we should use them just for that 'focus' not worship, which is proper only for Jesus/God.
[/quote]
If a Catholic worships a statue, then he is an idolater, which is mortally sinful. We do not worship statues.

"The Eastern Orthodox teaching regarding veneration of icons is that the praise and veneration shown to the icon passes over to the archetype (Basil of Caesarea,On the Holy Spirit 18:45: "The honor paid to the image passes to the prototype"). Thus to kiss an icon of Christ, in the Eastern Orthodox view, is to show love towards Christ Jesus himself, not mere wood and paint making up the physical substance of the icon. Worship of the icon as somehow entirely separate from its prototype is expressly forbidden by the Seventh Ecumenical Council; standard teaching in the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches alike conforms to this principle. The Catholic Church accepts the same Councils and the canons therein which codified the teaching of icon veneration."

As far as I'm concerned, this is quite valid in Catholicism as well.


[url="http://www.ikonograph.com/about_icons.html"]Source[/url]

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1296690957' post='2207989']
yeah, i lol'd at number 9..
[/quote]


Part of it, is because the monstrance is typically shaped as a sunburst.

[AudreyGrace]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1296710003' post='2208092']
Part of it, is because the monstrance is typically shaped as a sunburst.
[/quote]

oh i didn't even think of that! i'm usually to focused on Jesus..

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1296708329' post='2208075']
If a Catholic worships a statue, then he is an idolater, which is mortally sinful. We do not worship statues.


[/quote]

I know we shouldn't, what I was saying is that many people do or appear to do. I consulted a priest in East Timor with a question on that, because I observed many people praying before statues of Mary in grottos and I had always struggled with the concept of praying to saints rather than God. The priest explained to me about the wedding feast of Cana and how Mary interceded and brought to Jesus attention of the shortage of wine but was not involved in the miracle itself. This I found satisfying and I have used it myself to explain to others who have also been satisfied by that explanation. Unfortunately there are apparently many Catholics, so I have been told, who take it too far and actually pray as though the icon or the saint is going to answer their prayer. They are possibly excused by invincible ignorance.

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1296711202' post='2208096']
oh i didn't even think of that! i'm usually to focused on Jesus..
[/quote]

That's what the rays are supposed to do, I think, they are the radiance or halo of Jesus at the centre.

Edited February 3, 2011 by Mark of the Cross

[Laudate_Dominum]

That's true. I had a friend who said that in his country/diocese there was a problem with poorly catechized people mixing statues of saints with Hindu idols and worshiping indiscriminately. Still, the common Protestant objection is that Catholics praying at the foot of a statue (or other image) are thereby worshiping it, and perhaps that having statues at all violate the commandment against graven images. I think of that Jack Chick tract which has a picture of Pope John Paul II praying before a statue of Our Lady of Fatima with a caption condemning idol worship. lol.

[ExCorde]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1296710003' post='2208092']
Part of it, is because the monstrance is typically shaped as a sunburst.
[/quote]

Thanks so much for the hospitality and the straightforwardness of your post Tally Marx! I think I should have made a list such as yours so we could go point by point rather than trying to get across to people what I was thinking with too many words (you'll probably notice I have a tendency to add as many details as I'm able to write).

I'll take advantage of your list and elaborate a bit more on a few drafts I have laying around so I can put them forward for discussion soon. I think most of them revolve around the "Christ-myths".

About #9 I think it's related to the evangelization of the Roman culture. The monstrance and such are artistic elements that did retain their imagery from those ancient times. But at its core, look at this: Sunday - Sun Day. It's because of the belief, common in Rome and many cultures around the world, in a solar deity. The English weekdays have germanic/norse origins which included it and this is reflected in other languages/cultures as well -- in Latin it's (was) "dies solis" -- but the beliefs about the gods and the ways people praised the "sun" weren't exactly the same in all places. The day of the week was indeed evangelized in the Latin cultures as Dominicus: Lord's Day (Dominus = Lord). In Portuguese and Spanish, for example, it's Domingo (masculine) and in Italian it's Domenica (feminine).

But one of the main reasons for this idea is the celebration of Christmas being placed on the 25th of December, which was the major feast of the year for Romans (I think), the day the sun god started rising again: Sol Invictus, which became the official cult of Rome in the 3rd century, therefore well after apostolic times, so you can have a sense of its importance even then. I think Christians inherited this idea of feast days and patrons from Romans - although we do have more reasons to celebrate and we do have people alive with God whose intercession is particularly suited for what their vocations on earth were. These adaptations make sense, and we may even describe them as circumstantial and unnecessary (as in, it could have happened differently with no impact on the Gospel) but I think it's wiser to look at is as providential. Many of the symbols of Christmas (the tree, fruits, holly) also have beautiful and legitimate Christian meanings. What's your opinion on this perspective?

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1296732239' post='2208150']I think of that Jack Chick tract which has a picture of Pope John Paul II praying before a statue of Our Lady of Fatima with a caption condemning idol worship. lol.
[/quote]

Oh I do remember that... I was so baffled when I read it that it made me respect how deeply people could hold their prejudices against the Church, and in the end, for no good reason. I think that also placed the seeds for me to really strive towards making sure if the Church really was true or just completely fake and built onto something shaky. I think a lot of people get fed that sort of prejudice of the Dan Brown variety now. I bet he read Chick tracts as a kid too.

But hey, that means this is a useful thread! I'll keep adding to it with your help. The idea for this came about because I was being aggressively harassed by an atheist (almost satanist) at university. I managed to calm him down by telling him how I care about him and want to seek answers to his questions together but he just thinks I'm gullible and has no idea his poisonous bite worked as a vaccine. My defenses will be up next time. By the way, he was arguing that faith should have nothing to do with science when he resorted to this sort of undermining assault. There's a lot of assumptions involved, gotta break 'em down and move on with our mission.

It was also a great excuse for me to finally join PM and contribute! (I'm actually looking for opportunities to be of service at this point in my life)

Edited February 3, 2011 by ExCorde

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='ExCorde' timestamp='1296736743' post='2208162']
Thanks so much for the hospitality and the straightforwardness of your post Tally Marx! (you'll probably notice I have a tendency to add as many details as I'm able to write).

I think Christians inherited this idea of feast days and patrons from Romans - although we do have more reasons to celebrate and we do have people alive with God whose intercession is particularly suited for what their vocations on earth were. These adaptations make sense, and we may even describe them as circumstantial and unnecessary (as in, it could have happened differently with no impact on the Gospel) but I think it's wiser to look at is as providential. Many of the symbols of Christmas (the tree, fruits, holly) also have beautiful and legitimate Christian meanings. What's your opinion on this perspective?

[/quote]


Actually, I typically tend to be very wordy, myself!

I am certain that the early Christians (Catholics one and all) did take the idea of feast days from the Romans. The Church has been accused of assimilating paganism in order to attract more members, and it is said that over time she herself became more pagan than Christian. People hold the Churchs holydays up as an example. I admit that it is probably the case that Christmas was purposefully set on the day of the rising of the pagan sun god. However, while as most people view this as an act of submission, what they don't realize is that, in those times, it was an act of superiority. The Church didn't assimilate the Day of the Sun, so much as they [i]supplanted[/i] it. "That Sun God? Ha! He's a joke. He is not real, and he is gone now. Behold, the Son of God!"

To those who object to using symbolism and items associated with pagansim, I just point out that most material items in this world (candles, sunburts, etc.) are tools. They are not inherently evil, and their evil-ness or goodness is based upon how they are used. Once, candles and such may have been used in pagan rites. Singing, too But, now, we have given them new meaning, better meaning, by using them in the Mass and to promote Christian devotion. Are candles evil? Is singing evil? Most, answer no. To those who persist is saying that using "redeemed" (if you will) pagan symbolism is bad, I point out all the pagan symbols they use in their daily lives. Wedding bands, Nike shoes, etc.

Then, I remind them that Christians are not deists. God never abandoned the earth. Furthermore, every soul has some knowledge of its Creator, no matter how fundamental. You will find traces and elements of the Truth, of God, everywhere. Even in paganism. I like the way Jason evert put it:

[quote] What makes pagansim problematic is that these elements [of truth] are obscured by sin and a flawed understanding of the nature of humna existence. But when the elements of truth are distilled out of their pagan context and properly seen in the light of God's revelation, they are no longer problematic, as God is ultimately the source of all truth. [/quote]


Yes, this will be a very useful apologetix thread Thank you for bringing the subject up, ExCorde.
Also, I've found that debating with atheists is very different from debating with Protestants. Whereas Protestants look to the Bible as having the final say, atheists look toward sceince--or whatever they claim to be scientific. Many of them who claim to know "science" actually don't know much about it. And those who do, don't know anything about religion, so that they get it into their heads that [i]God[/i] and [i]scietific fact[/i] are diametrically opposed. For Protestants, you have to reconcile Catholicism with the Bible (or the other way round) and with an atheist you have to prove that it is possible for God to exist-- even necessary. With atheists, it is very easy to get caught up in mushy arguments about morals. I find it best to begin with the question "Why does the physical exist?" and "Why is there order in the universe?" and begin looking at the problem using a sort of Phenomenological approach. Once you get the answer (Uncaused Cause, Intelligent Entity which is Omnipotent, Omniscient, & Omnipresent and is the Maintainer of Order) you call it God and move on from there. Atheists are typically more willing to engage you in conversation and speak coherently, and will respect you if you are also logical and coherent. Actually, they will be in awe of you, so used are they to thinking that religious folk are brainwashed morons. Protestants are more difficult-- they spend most of the time waving blunt swords and fighting whatever Fantasy they perceive the Church to be. They argue by reiteration and vain repetition, mostly. That's what I've personally found, anyway.

Pax et bonum,
~Tally Marx

Edited February 4, 2011 by Tally Marx

[ExCorde]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1296781208' post='2208428']
Actually, I typically tend to be very wordy, myself!
[/quote]
Actually, you're pretty cool, yourself! You even used "phenomenology" almost casually in a post, that's so amesome (with x2 m)!

I thank you for writing your thoughts and also for the resources you've posted previously. About this thread, we sure can make a fuller list of references; I have some very good resources already but they're a bit lengthy and I still don't know how cooperation with the Defense Directory works. At any rate, this was the subject that got me to come post at PM, and I am willing to give priority to this while I'm here (although issues of sexuality and spirituality have also been important for me to discuss).

I wholeheartedly agree with your perception and evaluation on our good ol' Roman roots. I do believe we can find no real occurrence of contradiction to the claim that Catholicism won over paganism on its own merits - the details of Augustine in The City of God as referenced in the link you posted, as long as a balanced appreciation of history in general will show that. We could surely make a compilation to show that Christianity was disseminated in the public squares of major cities, confronted itself openly with the major religions and philosophies and trends of the day, and pervailed on some of the brightest minds and kindest hearts from the beginning. This would take a bit of work, but I think some weight has been done already in works such as those that a few years ago [u]debunked the Da Vinci Code suspicions and ambiguities[/u] (Olson & Miesel, Welborn, etc).

Could people kindly [u]contribute to the thread[/u] with references on that type of work?

Is that quote of Evert from the book you mentioned, [i]Answering Jehovah's Witnesses[/i]?

Care to explain how Nike shoes are pagan?

So, about atheist outreach... This has been a subject of some concern to me but I could work on the stuff I have been thinking on it to start a thread on faith/reason, religion/science where natural theology (and "intelligent design) could also be included. I already mentioned clearly I wouldn't want us to focus on that here! Instead, we could focus not on certain epistemological difficulties, but really rather on [u]historical prejudices[/u] and an understanding of the religious realities that were in existence before the advent of Christ.

Truly, the Catholic concept of reason is amazingly enriching to the human person. Once again, between Protestants and atheists, it's the "middle way between two opposed forms of error" (Knox). We should explore that in a couple days.

For now, here's the sort of [u]historical clarification and appreciation of the Church[/u] and the Incarnation of God that I had in mind with my initial post. It's by Christopher Dawson, who seems to be an extremely resourceful historian on this sort of analysis (he only converted to Catholicism when he was already at 30 years old):

[b][url="http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0001.html"][b]Christopher Dawson - Christ in History[/b][/url][/b] (by Gerald J. Russello)
[i]Catholic historian Christopher Dawson (1889-1970) was probably the most penetrating student of the relationship of religion and culture who has ever written.
[/i]
[url="http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0037.html"][b]The Catholic Church[/b][/url]
[i]The religion which was destined to conquer the Roman Empire and to become permanently identified with the life of the West was indeed of purely oriental origin and had no roots in the European past or in the traditions of classical civilisation.
[/i]
[b][url="http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0099.html"][b]The Stages of World Religion — part 3[/b][/url][/b] (on this site, Dawson's "7 Stages" are divided in 4 parts/pages)
[i]In this continuation of selections from Christopher Dawson illustrating The Stages of World Religion, we present the second part of Stage V. This deals with the way in which the Hebraic monotheism of the Old Testament found its fulfillment in Christianity — and how it also was a factor in the rise of Islam.
[/i]
Apart from the rest of the, there are quite a few other writings of his on that website. We would also have at least Daniel-Rops and Hilaire Belloc to explore as far as notably convinced Catholic historians of the 20th century are concerned.

[u]So, everyone, please do use this thread to discuss aspects of ancient religions that are similar to Christian belief or are the origin of certain Christian practices![/u]

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='ExCorde' timestamp='1297013122' post='2209350']
Actually, you're pretty cool, yourself! You even used "phenomenology" almost casually in a post, that's so amesome (with x2 m)!

I thank you for writing your thoughts and also for the resources you've posted previously.

Is that quote of Evert from the book you mentioned, [i]Answering Jehovah's Witnesses[/i]?

Care to explain how Nike shoes are pagan?

[u]So, everyone, please do use this thread to discuss aspects of ancient religions that are similar to Christian belief or are the origin of certain Christian practices![/u]
[/quote]


Thanx!
I'll try to find and post more resources later, along with itty bitty pieces of info I have gleaned from here and there (my head is full of useless, disjointed information like that)... I'm pressed for time at the moment, so it will have to wait for now.

Yes, the quote was from [i]Answering Jehovah's Witnesses[/i].
Nike is the Greek goddess of victory. If one insists on asserting that a symbol or item cannot have any merit outside of or different from the original context in which it was found, then they must also think that Nike shoes are pagan and evil, because it invokes the goddess Nike (they typically don't; an inconsistency in their line of reasoning).

Edited February 7, 2011 by Tally Marx