'Hail Persephone': Pagans Retool the Rosary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Timidity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Upon reflection, I think I have a slightly new perspective of this.

Assume that a hypothetical someone is really stupid. He was once a Pagan and he possesses a ritual blade (I forget what you call it,) a wand and an alter with all kinds of incense and whatever else your typical neo-pagan keeps around. What if, one day, this person just happens to hear some quote from the Bible, or he meets a Catholic who really inspires him. Would it be wrong if he inserted Jesus’ name into his (to our ears) outlandish prayers, or decided to replace “the lesser banishing ritual of the pentagram” with “the lesser banishing ritual of the cross?” What if he truly felt inspired by Christ, but sincerely knew of no other way to express these newfound sentiments? Remember that this person is really stupid, and simply does not know any better. Could you really blame him?
  1. The ritual blade is called an Athame
  2. If he was the typical neo-pagan, he would then persue further knowledge regarding these bible passages or this Jesus-fellow, or attempt to have this inspiring Catholic mentor him. Most neo-pagans I know, and I know this was true when I was one, are history buffs and thrive on learning more about religions, gods/goddesses and rituals. Even the redneck pagans are not as stupid as you are making this hypothetical pagan out to be.
 
  1. The ritual blade is called an Athame
  2. If he was the typical neo-pagan, he would then persue further knowledge regarding these bible passages or this Jesus-fellow, or attempt to have this inspiring Catholic mentor him. Most neo-pagans I know, and I know this was true when I was one, are history buffs and thrive on learning more about religions, gods/goddesses and rituals. Even the redneck pagans are not as stupid as you are making this hypothetical pagan out to be.
I guess it’s pretty convenient that he’s hypothetical then, huh.

Okay, for your sake, let’s say he’s hindu, in a lower caste, and he simply has limited access to christian teachings
 
I guess it’s pretty convenient that he’s hypothetical then, huh.

Okay, for your sake, let’s say he’s hindu, in a lower caste, and he simply has limited access to christian teachings
Well, fael- if we’re going there…
Where did he hear these bible verses or this devout Catholic? A missionary? If that was the case, I am sure the missionary would be sure to follow up on these things, and not just be random about them.

And why in the world would a devote Hindu (as I would assume this man would be) be incorporating Catholicism/Christianity into his practices? That doesn’t even begin to make sense.

Anyway- This thread is discussing the neo-pagan practice of appropriating other religious practices into their own practices (rosaries, Jesus and Mary as the divine masculine and feminine, prayer beads, a goddess from this religion and a goddess from another, etc…), not a people of other religions in other countries. Please stay on topic.
 
And thank you for sharing that with us, PatienceandLove. I’m sure it was difficult. I also delved into paganism in the past, I feel where you’re coming from. hugs
That it was. Some of the things I did when I was a Witch, I am not proud of, as you may see in some of the other threads I belong to.

You pointed out they are not their gods. I think this is an important point. I don’t know about you CB, when when I was into paganism, and I tried mixing gods, or using gods of other pantheons, they never really seemed to play nice with one another. I can’t even imagine Mary playing nice with say, Aphrodite? LoL… there’s a funny image.
 
If I may ask, when exactly did Christians have multiple wives?
It is part and parcel of the religious tradition. If you accept that the rest of the Hebrew Scripture applies to Christianity (and if you do not, I am not sure whose Messiah Jesus is supposed to be), then you accept that multiple wives, etc was also a part of your religious tradition and heritage at one point. The same with slavery, stoning, etc.

The point is that religions do indeed adapt to changing societal mores. Sometimes they are part of the impetus for the change, sometimes they are used to argue against it, sometimes both at the same time—see Christianity and slavery.
 
Let it also be known that the Church has ALWAYS opposed chattel slavery.
Interesting, then, that a simple sentence along the lines of “You should free all slaves” or *You should not hold slaves" was not included in the Scripture, which is not marked by a reticence to tell people what they should and should not do.

1 Timothy 6
1All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them.

Colossians 4
1Masters, **provide your slaves **with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

Ephesians 6
9And **masters, treat your slaves **in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, also, does not seem to agree with you, unless you do not count the Church as having existed from the beginning of the Christian ministry (which I do not think you are likely to do):

"Primitive Christianity did not attack slavery directly; but it acted as though slavery did not exist. By inspiring the best of its children with this heroic charity, examples of which have been given above, it remotely prepared the way for the abolition of slavery."http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm

Therefore, I believe it is disingenuous to imply that there was not a period of time in which Christians held slaves without sacrificing or endangering their affiliation with the Church. Certainly that gradually changed, and the Church was a force in that change. It is also, however, unfortunately true, that there were Christians who used Scripture to fight against the end of slavery in the US. Were any of those Christians Catholics? I have no idea, but Louisiana, which was I believe the most Catholic of the southern states, was certainly not an abolitionist state, seceding on Jan. 26, 1861, in the first wave of secession.

Again, the point is that societal mores change, religions change along with them in what is acceptable, so it should not be surprising that the vast majority of Neopagans are not out there advocating even animal sacrifice, much less human, regardless of what the ancients did.
 
You pointed out they are not their gods. I think this is an important point. I don’t know about you CB, when when I was into paganism, and I tried mixing gods, or using gods of other pantheons, they never really seemed to play nice with one another. I can’t even imagine Mary playing nice with say, Aphrodite? LoL… there’s a funny image.
Agreed, which is why I don’t see a compelling argument for all Gods and Goddesses to be either different facets or names for one Lord and Lady (the duotheism of Wicca) or of one singular God.
 
Agreed, which is why I don’t see a compelling argument for all Gods and Goddesses to be either different facets or names for one Lord and Lady (the duotheism of Wicca) or of one singular God.
The most common argument I hear is the idea of ourselves being different types of people. IE: PatienceAndLove the Mommy, PatienceAndLove the Wife, PatienceAndLove the Student, etc… and that the different names/facets of gods/goddesses is the same thing. shrug has always been my reaction
 
The most common argument I hear is the idea of ourselves being different types of people. IE: PatienceAndLove the Mommy, PatienceAndLove the Wife, PatienceAndLove the Student, etc… and that the different names/facets of gods/goddesses is the same thing. shrug has always been my reaction
I’ve seen the same argument, but to me is seems more like saying that because a hummingbird, a penguin and an ostrich are all birds, then they are really only aspects of the same bird and we only think they are different because people call them by different names, there really is no fundamental difference.
 
I’ve seen the same argument, but to me is seems more like saying that because a hummingbird, a penguin and an ostrich are all birds, then they are really only aspects of the same bird and we only think they are different because people call them by different names, there really is no fundamental difference.
Too true
 
That would seem to imply that you believe “current Pagan practice” would want to “mirror its antecedents in both scope and brutality.” Societal mores change, and religious practices change along with them, else modern Christians would be holding slaves, having multiple wives, and many other things that are no longer considered acceptable by modern society.
Social Mores do change, but should popular devotion of Paganism return, then I would expect for religious authority to begin to reinstitute the holidays and public worship.

Polygamy was very restrained in even Jewish Culture and was the constant source of downfall when it was done. See David for an example. Many of the early Popes after Peter are believed to have been slaves.
 
Social Mores do change, but should popular devotion of Paganism return, then I would expect for religious authority to begin to reinstitute the holidays and public worship.

I’m afraid I am not seeing your point in this?

Polygamy was very restrained in even Jewish Culture and was the constant source of downfall when it was done. See David for an example. Many of the early Popes after Peter are believed to have been slaves.

And again, I am not seeing your point? My point was not whether polygamy and slavery were admirable or desirable, simply that you cannot say that a specific ritual practice would obviously be part of the religion in a modern society merely because those practices existed in antiquity.
 
I think it is good for each faith to work to create it’s own articles and practices. It is honest, respectful and a worthy investment of energy.

Building a religion takes time, practice, and people living the faith. People need to be patient and allow their faith to grow organically, not just borrow willy nilly from older faiths in order to have everything instantly and conveniently. Holy days, and practices arise as people need them and recognize them. That is part of the process.

I think religions do go through akward stages though, when they are a mish mosh of what one knows, what one thinks is cool from another faith, and what one imagines will work for one’s own faith. And…I guess this sort of borrowing is probably one of the growing pains. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and most of the time this is done with sincerety, and not aiming to disrespect.
Very true. While unfortunately I know that there are some Pagans who do intend disrespect, I really don’t believe that all or even most do. But whether it’s intentional or not, it’s still there.

Part of what’s disrespectful to me, is that when someone takes deities and practices from other religions, it seems to be justified because the person doesn’t view them as real or valid. It’s okay to call Ganesh/Jesus/Allah/etc your God, because they aren’t real anyway. Well, they might not be real to you (general you, of course), but they are to the believers and practioners of the faiths. Or with the example earlier, of a pagan woman taking Communion. I’m sure she knew that only Catholics can take Communion, but she obviously didn’t care. My protestant brother in law does the same thing, and it makes me sick. I don’t care if THEY don’t believe it’s the body and blood of my Lord and Savior, I DO, and it’s horribly disrespectful. Another example would be a westerner producing an image of Muhammad. I don’t think he’s a prophet. But plenty of people do, and they’re very serious about not producing pictures of him, so I never would.
I’ve seen the same argument, but to me is seems more like saying that because a hummingbird, a penguin and an ostrich are all birds, then they are really only aspects of the same bird and we only think they are different because people call them by different names, there really is no fundamental difference.
Very true!
 
It is part and parcel of the religious tradition. If you accept that the rest of the Hebrew Scripture applies to Christianity (and if you do not, I am not sure whose Messiah Jesus is supposed to be), then you accept that multiple wives, etc was also a part of your religious tradition and heritage at one point. The same with slavery, stoning, etc.

The point is that religions do indeed adapt to changing societal mores. Sometimes they are part of the impetus for the change, sometimes they are used to argue against it, sometimes both at the same time—see Christianity and slavery.
Christianity is a new religion that was formed with Judaism as its precedent - it’s not just Judaism with Jesus as its new poster boy. Therefore when Christianity began, it began with its own set of rules, some of which, like the 10 Commandments, were taken from Judaism, but some new ones as well, such as no more need for circumcision, which was different from the Jewish circumcision rule.

But that’s just an aside.

You said in your post that “CHRISTIANS would STILL have multiple wives” today if its practices hadn’t changed, which means that you’re claiming that CHRISTIANS, not just their Jewish predecessors, had multiple wives at one point or another. Please provide an accurate source for that claim as I requested, or retract what you said.
 
Social Mores do change, but should popular devotion of Paganism return, then I would expect for religious authority to begin to reinstitute the holidays and public worship.

I’m afraid I am not seeing your point in this?

Polygamy was very restrained in even Jewish Culture and was the constant source of downfall when it was done. See David for an example. Many of the early Popes after Peter are believed to have been slaves.

And again, I am not seeing your point? My point was not whether polygamy and slavery were admirable or desirable, simply that you cannot say that a specific ritual practice would obviously be part of the religion in a modern society merely because those practices existed in antiquity.
If Paganism become the majority, then I would expect that Pagan practice would become more publicly prevalent. That is not an insult. Wherever Catholicism is the main religion, it is practiced publicly, so I would believe would be the same for Paganism.
 
Well, fael- if we’re going there…
Where did he hear these bible verses or this devout Catholic? A missionary? If that was the case, I am sure the missionary would be sure to follow up on these things, and not just be random about them.

And why in the world would a devote Hindu (as I would assume this man would be) be incorporating Catholicism/Christianity into his practices? That doesn’t even begin to make sense.

Anyway- This thread is discussing the neo-pagan practice of appropriating other religious practices into their own practices (rosaries, Jesus and Mary as the divine masculine and feminine, prayer beads, a goddess from this religion and a goddess from another, etc…), not a people of other religions in other countries. Please stay on topic.
You’re being willfully difficult.

You know good and well what I’m trying to say. And I missed the part where we know for a fact that she appropriated Catholic rituals. It’s perfectly possible that she was raised Catholic and decided to become a pagan.

So let me spell it out for you, since you seem to have a bit of a problem with analogy and figurative language:

Perhaps this girl was raised Catholic, but now she wants to be pagan and she doesn’t know how to go about doing so. Obviously, many people here would have a problem with this, but I’m asking how they would feel if the tables were turned.

Any more hairs to split? Do I really need to come up with some super-specific scenario in which a person would try to convert to Catholicism but not know how for you to concede that such a situation could plausibly occur somewhere on planet Earth??

Way to approach a normal, every day discussion with another human being as though we’re all sitting in a courtroom and it’s your job to fervently look for technical loopholes in my argument, you nitpicking, selectively-reading dunce . “Please stay on topic–”

Give me a freakin’ break. You just failed your reading comprehension test.

EDIT: See, now the thread really did derail, and it’s about 30% YOUR fault 😉
 
Christianity is a new religion that was formed with Judaism as its precedent - it’s not just Judaism with Jesus as its new poster boy.

Glad to see someone who admits that Christianity was actually a new religion

Therefore when Christianity began, it began with its own set of rules, some of which, like the 10 Commandments, were taken from Judaism, but some new ones as well, such as no more need for circumcision, which was different from the Jewish circumcision rule.

Which is why I find it interesting when Christians go to the Hebrew Scriptures, especially Leviticus and the like, to argue that Christians don’t believe… or Christians shouldn’t do…

You said in your post that “CHRISTIANS would STILL have multiple wives” today if its practices hadn’t changed, which means that you’re claiming that CHRISTIANS, not just their Jewish predecessors, had multiple wives at one point or another. Please provide an accurate source for that claim as I requested, or retract what you said.

Well, the New Testament certainly would give rise to question about whether such was practiced by at least some Christians in the time of the letters of Paul. Now whether this reflects those who married multiple wives after conversion or whether they came into the faith already married to multiple wives is open to discussion (sort of like the practice of allowing those priests who were already married before converting and becoming Catholic priests to remain married, but not allowing a subsequent marriage).

1 Tim 3:2
“2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,”

Titus 1:6
“6An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.”

If it were not known in the Christian community that the situation might occur in which men might have more than one wife and have been part of the faith long enough to be seeking Church leadership positions, then one has to ask why the prohibition was put forth. Now note that I do not say that this indicates mass polygamy or even that the practice was necessarily widespread–could be an indication that it was a practice only among the prominent or wealthy, those who might reasonably be expected, then as now, to rise to a leadership position within a religious community.
 
If Paganism become the majority, then I would expect that Pagan practice would become more publicly prevalent. That is not an insult. Wherever Catholicism is the main religion, it is practiced publicly, so I would believe would be the same for Paganism.
And, out of curiosity, which Pagan practices do you expect would cause a problem?
 
Christianity is a new religion that was formed with Judaism as its precedent - it’s not just Judaism with Jesus as its new poster boy.

Glad to see someone who admits that Christianity was actually a new religion

Therefore when Christianity began, it began with its own set of rules, some of which, like the 10 Commandments, were taken from Judaism, but some new ones as well, such as no more need for circumcision, which was different from the Jewish circumcision rule.

Which is why I find it interesting when Christians go to the Hebrew Scriptures, especially Leviticus and the like, to argue that Christians don’t believe… or Christians shouldn’t do…
I’m not saying that Christianity threw out the Hebrew Scriptures - Judaism is the predecessor of Christianity, so we kept all of the Jewish Scriptures, since they are a foreshadowing of the New Testament, and all of the laws that are revealed there, except for the ones that God specifically revealed in the New Testament to be no longer necessary - such as circumcision, for example. So much of what Leviticus says is still valid for Christians. It’s not a matter of us rejecting Judaism entirely or picking and choosing what we want - the rules were set out for us.
Well, the New Testament certainly would give rise to question about whether such was practiced by at least some Christians in the time of the letters of Paul. Now whether this reflects those who married multiple wives after conversion or whether they came into the faith already married to multiple wives is open to discussion (sort of like the practice of allowing those priests who were already married before converting and becoming Catholic priests to remain married, but not allowing a subsequent marriage).

1 Tim 3:2
“2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,”

Titus 1:6
“6An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.”

If it were not known in the Christian community that the situation might occur in which men might have more than one wife and have been part of the faith long enough to be seeking Church leadership positions, then one has to ask why the prohibition was put forth. Now note that I do not say that this indicates mass polygamy or even that the practice was necessarily widespread–could be an indication that it was a practice only among the prominent or wealthy, those who might reasonably be expected, then as now, to rise to a leadership position within a religious community.
Or these passages could be simply reinforcing the rule that polygamy is unacceptable for Christians, regardless of their status or function. In many socities, people with special functions or status got special treatment where these types of rules were concerned. In Ancient Egypt, for example, only Pharaoh practiced polygamy, while the rest of the population didn’t - it came with his role as Pharaoh. So St. Paul could be making it clear that there was no exception to this rule for the bishops and elders - they were still bound to live a moral life as he outlines, which all the other Christians were bound to follow.

So you don’t have any actual reference to polygamy actually being an practiced by Christians, and it being acceptable?
 
So you don’t have any actual reference to polygamy actually being an practiced by Christians, and it being acceptable?
Not the Catholic Church, no, however it does appear (and I am using a Wikipedia article, but it seems to be one that is documented en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#_note-6)), that Luther at least at one point did not consider it a major problem:

"Periodically, Christian reform movements that have aimed at rebuilding Christian doctrine based on the Bible alone (sola scriptura) have at least temporarily accepted polygamy as a Biblical practice. For example, during the Protestant Reformation, in a document referred to simply as “Der Beichtrat” ( or “The Confessional Advice” ),[5] Martin Luther granted the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, who, for many years, had been living “constantly in a state of adultery and fornication,”[6] a dispensation to take a second wife. The double marriage was to be done in secret however, to avoid public scandal.[7] . Some fifteen years earlier, in a letter to the Saxon Chancellor Gregor Brück, Luther stated that he could not “forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture.” “Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere, si quis plures velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat sacris literis.”[8]

“On February 14, 1650, the parliament at Nürnberg decreed that because so many men were killed during the Thirty Years’ War, the churches for the following ten years could not admit any man under the age of 60 into a monastery. Priests and ministers not bound by any monastery were allowed to marry. Lastly, the decree stated that every man was allowed to marry up to ten women. The men were admonished to behave honorably, provide for their wives properly, and prevent animosity among them.” Larry O. Jensen, A Genealogical Handbook of German Research (Rev. Ed., 1980) p. 59 [24]. See also Joseph Alfred X. Michiels, Secret History of the Austrian Government and of its Systematic Persecutions of Protestants (London: Chapman and Hall, 1859) p. 85 (copy at Google Books), the author stating that he is quoting from a copy of the legislation. But see William Walker Rockwell, Die Doppelehe des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen (Marburg, 1904), p. 280, n. 2 (copy at Google Books), which reports the number of wives allowed was two. And contrast Leonhard Theobald, “Der angebliche Bigamiebeschluß des fränkischen Kreistages” “The So-called Bigamy Decision of the Franconian Kreistag”], Beitrage zur Bayerischen kirchengeschichte [Contributions to Bavarian Church History] 23 (1916 – bound volume dated 1917) Erlangen: 199-200 (Theobald reporting that the Franconian Kreistag did not hold session between 1645 and 1664, and that there is no record of such a law in the extant archives of Nürnberg, Ansbach, or Bamberg, Theobald believing that the editors of the Fränkisches Archiv must have misunderstood a draft of some other legislation from 1650). See also Alfred Altmann, “Verein für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnburg,” Jahresbericht über das 43 Vereinsjahr 1920 [Annual Report for the 43rd Year 1920 of the Historical Society of the City of Nuremburg] (Nürnberg 1920): 13-15 (Altmann reporting a lecture he had given discussing the polygamy permission said to have been granted in Nuremberg in 1650, Altmann characterizing the Fränkisches Archiv as “merely a popular journal, not an edition of state documents,” and describing the tradition as “a literary fantasy”)."

Now whether you as a Catholic are willing to admit that the teachings of Luther represent any sort of accurate Christian teachings or not is quite another question, but he is certainly regarded as a major Christian theologian by the general populace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top