Summer Reading

[MichaelFilo]

After deeply considering it, and I think I'll spend some time praying on it as well, I am fairly sure I want to get this book removed from the required summer reading booklist. It is filled with lies, and all in all is a bashing of Christianity (especially Catholicism). I came here because who better to know how I can refute this in front of an eductated person and show how much rubbish it is. The book by the way is A World Only Lit By Fire: The medieval mind and the Renaissance.

Here are the claims, the so far I've read,

The Catholic Church had trouble teaching pagans, but didn't have trouble converting them through threats of capital punishment otherwise.

Those who followed Arius of Alexendria, who rejected the Nicene Creed, after his death, rioted, and were slaughtered ( the wording makes it sound like the defenders of the faith where in the wrong, I'm not even sure if it happend like that)

The apostles Paul and John had been "profoundly influenced by Neoplatonism." After that is a quote that says Pope Gregory I in the sixith century named 7 cardinal virtues, 3 that were Christian - faith, hope, and charity - and 4 that were adopted from plato and Pythagoras - Wisdom, justice, courage, and temparance.

The most absusrd so far though has been his claim that St. Augustine said that lust polluted every child in the very act of conception- sexual inercourse was a "mass of perdition". He goes on to say, However although most people were thereby damned in the womb, some could be saved by the blessed of intervention of the Virgin Mary, who possessed that power because she conceived Christ sinlessly. He then pulls out a quote of St.Augustine (thedude said this was from faked works, and didn't belong to St. Augustine ), "Through a woman we were sent to destruction; through a woman salvation was restored to us. "

He sais that St. Augustine taught that sex was evil, and salvation was possible only thorugh the intercession of the Madonna.

That Church holiday's took the place of pagan holidays ( in the context, the Church holidays were derived from those other days so the Church could stop paganism. ) Here is the list.
Pentecost - Floralia
All Souls' Day - frestive of the dead ( not a proper name )
Feast of the Nativity - Roman Lupercalia and the feast of the purification of Isis.
Christmas - Saturnalia
Easter - resurrection of Attis.

The saints were all converted forms of Roman gods. The holy sanctuaries were just old pagan sanctuaries. Churches were built upon pagan temples ( I don't see the problem with this, but, if there is anything against this, it would be appreciated.

Clement of Alexandria declared it was sacrilege to adulate that which is created, rather than the creator. The author however goes on to say that the people wanted statues and pcitures of Mary, of Jesus on the Cross. Statues of Horus, the Egyptian sky god, and Isis, were rechristened Jesus and Mary.

I posted this in the apologetics section. Basically, the book says that the only real change that Christianity made was that it controlled the sex and the idea of sex in that time. This is so not true, but how do I debunk it on a secular level? I've gotten help with the saints, and it is indeed very helpful, but the holidays and the rest of the stuff I still could use help with. The fact that this book is a summer required reading is what bothers me.

Thanks in advance,

God Bless,

Michael Filo

[BeenaBobba]

Hi Michael,

I've read your post, and I'll try to help in any way that I can.

[quote]The Catholic Church had trouble teaching pagans, but didn't have trouble converting them through threats of capital punishment otherwise.[/quote]

Did the author of your book list his sources for making such a claim? You might want to check out the footnotes. H.W. Crocker III's book, [i]Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church[/i], says that Constantine closed pagan temples due to the sexual immorality practiced within (p. 59). Pagan sacrifices were also forbidden by him. If this law (against pagan sacrifice, that is) was transgressed, death would be the punishment ([url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm"]source[/url]). It should be also noted, however, that the pagan Romans sacrificed humans at times, so if that was the case, the punishment of death [i]could[/i] perhaps have been seen as fitting ([url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13309a.htm"]source[/url]).

Were some Christians violent in spreading Catholicism? Perhaps. But, we all know that using violence and forcing conversion is against the teachings of Catholicism. Your book needs to give more evidence and sources if it's trying to claim that Christian persecution of pagans was widespread and sanctioned by the Church.

More later...

God bless,

Jennifer

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Jul 18 2004, 01:00 PM'] Those who followed Arius of Alexendria, who rejected the Nicene Creed, after his death, rioted, and were slaughtered ( the wording makes it sound like the defenders of the faith where in the wrong, I'm not even sure if it happend like that)
[/quote]
This is a strange bit of information. Did the author list his sources? I've found no evidence of specific instances where the supporters of Arius were executed in large numbers before or after the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea. It is [i]possible[/i] that there were executions. In [i]Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church[/i], H.W. Crocker III wrote (on p. 57): "Constantine assumed that after the Council all would be well with the Church. But that was far from the case. Soldiers might accept the verdict of the battlefield--and rival Augusti and their families could be executed, exterminating their threat forever--but contumacious clerics refused to be bound by council, pope, or emperor. Persecution appeared futile, extermination impossible."

After the First Council of Constantinople in 381, Arianism more or less died off, but many barbarians adopted a form of it. Apparently, though, they were defeated by the "sword of Clovis" ([url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm"]source[/url]), but I don't know whether this was actually due to their heretical beliefs or if it was due to other political motives.

You might also want to check out [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm#REF_VIII"]this article[/url], which explains that ecclesiastical courts never inflicted temporal punishment on heretics. Temporal punishment was inflicted on heretics by order of the emperors. Death was sometimes used as punishment for heresy, but as the article says, this wasn't very common around the time of the Arian heresy.

I hope this helps.

More later...

God bless,

Jennifer

[BeenaBobba]

[quote]The apostles Paul and John had been "profoundly influenced by Neoplatonism." After that is a quote that says Pope Gregory I in the sixith century named 7 cardinal virtues, 3 that were Christian - faith, hope, and charity - and 4 that were adopted from plato and Pythagoras - Wisdom, justice, courage, and temparance.
[/quote]

As far as that is concerned, you might want to check out [url="http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0163a.html"]this[/url] and [url="http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0169a.html"]this[/url]. It's exactly what I think you'd be looking for to refute that claim. (If you want to discuss these articles afterwards, or if you have any questions regarding what you read, let me know; I'll try to help or answer your questions the best I can. )

[quote]The most absusrd so far though has been his claim that St. Augustine said that lust polluted every child in the very act of conception- sexual inercourse was a "mass of perdition". He goes on to say, However although most people were thereby damned in the womb, some could be saved by the blessed of intervention of the Virgin Mary, who possessed that power because she conceived Christ sinlessly. He then pulls out a quote of St.Augustine (thedude said this was from faked works, and didn't belong to St. Augustine ), "Through a woman we were sent to destruction; through a woman salvation was restored to us. "[/quote]

St. Augustine was a Manichean before he was an orthodox Catholic ([i]see[/i] [url="http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=363660&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=3000&Author=&Keyword=manichean&pgnu=1&groupnum=0"]here[/url] and [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm"]here[/url]). The Manicheans thought that sex was morally tainted. I can also see how'd they view sex as a "tainted" thing, as they believed that the material world was the creation of an evil god (as opposed to the spirit world, which they believed was created and ruled by a good god). People have sex with their bodies. Bodies are a part of the material world, so it would follow that they would view sexual intercourse as being sinful simply because they had an extremely negative view of the material world.

St. Augustine is often accused of holding to the Manichean belief that sex was tainted even after he was considered an orthodox Catholic. Dr. Garaghty from EWTN [url="http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=300342&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=3000&Author=&Keyword=manichean&pgnu=1&groupnum=0"]disagrees with that accusation[/url].

Some of St. Augustine's works are addressed [b]against[/b] the Manicheans. (You can read his works [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/"]here[/url].) As a matter of fact, here's some quotes from his work, [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1507.htm"][i]On Marriage and Concupiscence[/i][/url]:

"He might teach us, that every one who is born of sexual intercourse is in fact sinful flesh, since that alone which was not born of such intercourse was not sinful flesh. [u]Nevertheless conjugal intercourse is not in itself sin, when it is had with the intention of producing children; because the mind's good-will leads the ensuing bodily pleasure, instead of following its lead[/u]; and the human choice is not distracted by the yoke of sin pressing upon it, inasmuch as the blow of the sin is rightly brought back to the purposes of procreation." (From Book I, Chapter 13. Emphasis mine.)

He then goes on to write:

"Since, however, the cohabitation for the purpose of procreating children, which must be admitted to be the proper end of marriage, is not sinful, what is it which the apostle allows to be permissible, but that married persons, when they have not the gift of continence, may require one from the other the due of the flesh-- and that not from a wish for procreation, but for the pleasure of concupiscence? [u]This gratification incurs not the imputation of guilt on account of marriage, but receives permission on account of marriage.[/u] This, therefore, must be reckoned among the praises of matrimony; that, on its own account, it makes pardonable that which does not essentially appertain to itself. For the nuptial embrace, which subserves the demands of concupiscence, is so effected as not to impede the child-bearing, which is the end and aim of marriage." (Book I, Chapter 16. Emphasis mine.)

[Those two quotes were taken from [url="http://www.newadvent.org/"]New Advent[/url].]

You mentioned that thedude said that the following quote, while attributed to St. Augustine, was not written by him after all. The quote is as follows: "Through a woman we were sent to destruction; through a woman salvation was restored to us." Even if St. Augustine didn't write this, it is not a false statement. In Genesis 3, Eve is the one who first succumbed to Satan's temptations. Shortly after, she gave the apple to Adam. We know that eating the apple brought sin into the world, so it is correct to say that Eve brought sin to humanity. Mary, on the other hand, is the New Eve in that she's the Theotokos, "the one who bore God." Because she said yes to God, i.e., because she chose to bear His Son, she brought our Lord and Savior into this world. Jesus saves us from the sin and death brought into this world by Adam and Eve's sin, and Jesus was bore by a Woman. Mary's cooperation ensured the Incarnation, without which there'd be no salvation.

I hope this helps.

Again, more later...

God bless,

Jennifer

[conservativecatholic]

MichaelFilo: What kind of school system would have such a summer reading list?! I am required to read [i]The Grapes of Wrath[/i], which is aweful, yet it has no catholic bigotry. You, my friend, are being discriminasted against. This in an outrage. If this is a public school you attend, you need to notify the state government. You know darn well that the NAACP and ACLU will take out books such as [i]Mein Kamph [/i]and [i]Huckleberryfin[/i]. Where are they when the state discriminates against Catholics?!?!? If you would like me to write a letter or start a petition, please notify me. Once again, I'm sorry that you are subjected to this typical Catholic hatred! :angry:

May God Bless!
-conservativecatholic

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Jul 18 2004, 01:00 PM'] That Church holiday's took the place of pagan holidays ( in the context, the Church holidays were derived from those other days so the Church could stop paganism. ) Here is the list.
Pentecost - Floralia
All Souls' Day - frestive of the dead ( not a proper name )
Feast of the Nativity - Roman Lupercalia and the feast of the purification of Isis.
Christmas - Saturnalia
Easter - resurrection of Attis.
[/quote]
That is actually true. I'm going to quote from a dialogue Dave Armstrong has posted on [url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZINDEX.HTM"]his webpage[/url]. The person with whom he was dialoguing said the following:

"He [Thomas Bokenkotter, an unorthodox Catholic] also says that the feast instituted for Christmas and Epiphany were intentionally mingled with the pagan celebrations on those days."

Dave responded:

"In a certain sense, yes. The quickest way to get rid of an old pagan religious belief and festival is to incorporate its outward aspects, while not compromising any Christian belief in so doing. So the Church placed the feast day of Christmas on December 25th precisely because that was the date of the Roman feast of the Unconquered Sun, or Sol Invictus (it is now thought by many scholars that Jesus was actually born in October). Result?: Sol Invictus eventually goes the way of the dinosaur. The Roman Feast of Saturnalia, which was held from December 1-23 also disappears, having been superseded by Advent. Thus paganism is defeated. And whatever remaining customs have a similarity to pagan practices, again, so what? No one even remembers the meaning of the old customs, and it is the inner meaning which is primary (or the application of the practice to Christmas, the Christ-child, etc.).

"So the pagans of northern Europe (like the ancient enemies of the Hebrews) perhaps used trees as idols; we use the evergreen Christmas tree as a symbol of everlasting life: life in the dead of winter - just as Christ brought life to the deadness of humanity and the Fall and original sin. The tree itself is a neutral (and, I might add, beautiful) object: a part of God's good creation. To think otherwise is pure superstition, which is ironic because it typifies the attitude of many rabidly anti-Catholic fundamentalists in their dislike (hatred?) of Catholic sacramentalism and such things as crucifixes and rosary beads and statues of Paul and Peter, or the archangel Michael (not to mention . . . . . egads!: the Blessed Virgin Mary!!!!!!!).

"They falsely accuse Catholics of superstition and paganism, even as they themselves hypocritically and ironically blatantly indulge in it, neglecting the crucial role of inner meaning and the heart (very Pharisaical . . .). They view a crucifix as a talisman or a charm. We view it simply as an aid to devotion to our Lord Jesus (an entirely different concept), just as Passover was a means of remembrance to the Jews for God's deliverance of them (Ex 12:13-14). Many other similar biblical analogies could be brought forth also.

"To the early Calvinists, e.g., church organs and stained glass windows - indeed statues of Christ Himself - were "clearly" idolatrous, so they smashed them. This is the ancient heresy known as iconoclasm (which some have traced to the influence of Islam). Much of this thought (knowingly or not) stems from a quasi-Gnostic suspicion of God's creation as evil.

"Even well-known Protestant Church historian Philip Schaff - no friend of the Catholic Church, and often a severe critic of it -, while deeply ambivalent about some of these "pagan customs," nevertheless sees the essential utility and "Christianness" of the Catholic Church's traditional approach to such things:

"This connection [to pagan Roman festivals] accounts for many customs of the Christmas season, . . . and gives them a Christian import; while it also betrays the origin of the many excesses in which the unbelieving world indulges in this season, in wanton perversion of the true Christmas mirth, but which, of course, no more forbid right use, than the abuses of the Bible or any other gift of God . . . Besides, there lurked in those pagan festivals themselves, in spite of all their sensual abuses, a deep meaning and an adaptation to a real want; they might be called unconscious prophecies of the Christmas feast. Finally, the church fathers themselves confirm the symbolical reference of the feast of the birth of Christ, the Sun of righteousness, the Light of the world, to the birth-festival of the unconquered sun, which on the 25th of December, after the winter solstice, breaks the growing power of darkness, and begins anew his heroic career.

"{History of the Christian Church, vol. 3: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 311-600, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974; reprint of the rev. 5th ed. of 1910, pp. 396-397}"

Later in the dialogue, the history of the word Easter is brought up. You should check it out. You can read the dialogue [url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ377.HTM"]here[/url].

[quote]Clement of Alexandria declared it was sacrilege to adulate that which is created, rather than the creator. The author however goes on to say that the people wanted statues and pcitures of Mary, of Jesus on the Cross.[/quote]

Did the author of this book offer any proof for this, and did he provide the exact quote? It is a sin to worship anyone or anything apart from God. But, we all know that the early Christians didn't worship Mary, the saints, statues, and icons. They honored them, which is an entirely different thing. (They honored Mary and the saints. Icons and statues are only visual representations of them, just as photos of our family members are only visual representations of them. They remind us about the person or people depicted.) Evidence for this can be found [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/mary_saints.asp"]here[/url]. (If you need more info, let me know).

I hope has been helpful to you.

God bless,

Jen

[MichaelFilo]

Wow, first of all thank you for all that, it is indeed alot of info! I'll check out the links in half a second. As far as quotes, the author has no citations of his quotes, merely a long list of book sources. I'll have a long 3 weeks of summer ahead of me looking through these sources, but I'm determined to remove this book from any required summer book list. The school I attend is Stanton College Prepatory school, and it's very well known, it just got ranked first in the nation, so it's fairly credible, and all of it's publicity as far as I know is good. Generally, knowing the flow of things, the book maybe removed, but it will be quietly without anyone knowing, just because it would hurt the school, and I'm not looking for that. I can imagine no one had bad intentions with assigning this book ( probably someone of protestant or non-Christian background who would believe this stuff anyways ), so I don't want to blow it out of propertion. The info though has been very wonderful BeenaBobba. I think with all these, I'll have a solid case. Any other info though would be highly appreciated! I think this is a good chance to take up an active role as a part of the Church Militant! Thank you again BennaBobba. All the other help is appreciated!

Thanks in advance,

God Bless,

Michael Filo

[MichaelFilo]

The mention of Paul being influenced by Neoplatonism dont' directly refer to what the book refers to, as adding other virtues. Luckily, I remember a good Bible passage, now only to find it. It is the one about love, charity and faith, and love being the greatest. The stuff you posted though is still helpful in a very big way, and I'm very thankful for it, and any help that may come.

I've read more of the book, and I do know of a period of time when the popes were less than Catholic in their actions, but I don't imagine it's as bad as this author goes about it. He claims under Innocent VIII simony was instituionalized. He claims that popes and cardinals hired assassins, sanctioned tortue, and enjoyed the sight of blood. The author quotes from a work by Francesco Guicciardini, [u]Storia d'Italia[/u] (1561-1564), "the High Priest, the Vicar of Christ on earth was "excited" by a scene in which Christians slaughtered one another, retaining nothing of the pontiff but the name and the robes."

He quotes from Alsatian Johann Burchard who was the papal master of ceremonies, 1483 to 1506. This is the words the book use "In his [i]Diarium[/i], a day-by-day chronicle of pontifical life, he tells how, at one Vatican banquet, another Holy Father "watched with loud laughter and much pleasure: from a balcony while his bastard sone slew un-armed criminals, one by one, as they were driven into a small courtyard below."

A cardinal, Pietro Cardinal Riario, the book claims, heald "a saturnalian banquet featuring a whole roasted bear holding a staff in its jaws, stags reconstructed in their skins, herons and peacocks in their feathers, and orgiastic behavior by the guests appropriate to the anceint Roman model." The source isn't given, but it says this is according to an account.

Anyways, I'll save you from the other remarks about the beloved papacy we Catholics are so proud of. Anything to debunk this would be nice, and it would put my mind to some rest, this book is really messing with it. Better spend some time praying!

Thanks in advance,

God bless,

Michael Filo.

[Justified Saint]

The author is William Manchester and I've read the book up till the last chapter of it where he started talking about Magellan. He doesn't really have a whole lot of nice things to say about Protestants either, but the anti-Catholicism that drips on every page is quite obvious. The author is really quite fascinated with sex and recounts several erotic tales about royalty and popes. I am suprised this is required reading.

I seem to remember that the author would accept as fact the most obscure and ridiculous sources and myths but question anything that didn't immediately prove his agenda that the Middle Ages and Renaissance was the most corrupt and violent era of history. He quotes mythical literature to support the stories he tells about rampant sexuality from Pope to pauper during the time.

The author admits in the preface that he is not a scholar of the Middle Ages, he actually specializes in 20th century history (Winston Churchill etc) and he died a couple of months ago. I couldn't really take anything he said seriously. I understand that he was suffering from Alzheimer's during some of the book's writing and publication.

[MichaelFilo]

I'm not sure about weather those sexual remarks are true or pure hogwash. I don't know much about the era in detail. This would be my first time reading about it really. I know he exaggerates things out of context, such as his emphasis on murders. If anything, the population would have decreased and abosulutly nobody would be left the way he describes it. Anyways, the book is absurd, but when you have nothing else to go by, it's hard to read. Anyways, any help on the vaticans sexual practices that I mentioned before, that he claims, would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance,

God bless,

Michael Filo

[BurkeFan]

I, uh, actually had to read that book for my Jesuit High School. It was handled well though, I think. One of my friends wrote his paper on it and titled it, "A Book Written Only With Lies"...

[Cure of Ars]

BeenaBobba, my hat off to ya, your responses were very good.