'Hail Persephone': Pagans Retool the Rosary

[Morning_Star15]

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.

Two problems: 1) you’re using a Wikipedia article, which I (and pretty much every university professor who has taught me) don’t consider to be an reliable source of information.

1. Even if the article is itself accurate, I don’t really trust Martin Luther, probably even less than Wikipedia, not because my religious views differ from his, but because he removed books from the Bible to fit his agenda (i.e. to prove that his religious views were correct as opposed to Catholic views). If he could alter the sacred Word of God, then there’s no telling what he could do to historical or theological information.

 

[KarenNC]

Two problems: 1) you’re using a Wikipedia article, which I (and pretty much every university professor who has taught me) don’t consider to be an reliable source of information.

Actually, I am using quotes referenced in a wikipedia article that include citations for the sources of those quotes. If you desire to follow the citations, feel free.

2) Even if the article is itself accurate, I don’t really trust Martin Luther, probably even less than Wikipedia, not because my religious views differ from his, but because he removed books from the Bible to fit his agenda (i.e. to prove that his religious views were correct as opposed to Catholic views). If he could alter the sacred Word of God, then there’s no telling what he could do to historical or theological information.

Then you should have asked for a specifically Catholic example, not a Christian one, as that would appear to be the only source that you would trust to be “Christian.” I have already answered that question and, frankly, consider the whole thing to be far from my original point.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Historically, the Catholic church has made no bones about taking aspects of pagan antiquity, ingesting them as it were, and making them the Church’s own. The Roman basilica, the bishop’s mitre, the pagan moniker pontifex maximus–these were all adoptions or continuations of pagan originals. So one supposes it’s fair enough that today’s would-be neopagans should return the favour and borrow elements of Catholicism as forms into which to pour their religious content. In fact, I hope they borrow Catholic vestments too–the self-styled pagans I’ve known were the last folks on Earth you’d ever want to see “skyclad.”

 

[Morning_Star15]

Two problems: 1) you’re using a Wikipedia article, which I (and pretty much every university professor who has taught me) don’t consider to be an reliable source of information.

Actually, I am using quotes referenced in a wikipedia article that include citations for the sources of those quotes. If you desire to follow the citations, feel free.

2) Even if the article is itself accurate, I don’t really trust Martin Luther, probably even less than Wikipedia, not because my religious views differ from his, but because he removed books from the Bible to fit his agenda (i.e. to prove that his religious views were correct as opposed to Catholic views). If he could alter the sacred Word of God, then there’s no telling what he could do to historical or theological information.

Then you should have asked for a specifically Catholic example, not a Christian one, as that would appear to be the only source that you would trust to be “Christian.” I have already answered that question and, frankly, consider the whole thing to be far from my original point.

Well, I asked for an accurate source, and if you consider someone who is known to have messed around with sacred texts to be an accurate source, then that’s your prerogative. I don’t share that opinion.

 

[KarenNC]

In fact, I hope they borrow Catholic vestments too–the self-styled pagans I’ve known were the last folks on Earth you’d ever want to see “skyclad.”

Agreed. I cannot imagine any (sane) followers of the ancient religions in antiquity running around naked in Europe in the winter as part of religious rituals. For me, my Hellenic Neopaganism is very much a religon that embraces practicality over rhetoric or appearance. I’ve been in Wales in July and almost froze my (well-clothed) rear end off! Gardner and his followers can keep that particular custom.

 

[Morning_Star15]

Historically, the Catholic church has made no bones about taking aspects of pagan antiquity, ingesting them as it were, and making them the Church’s own. The Roman basilica, the bishop’s mitre, the pagan moniker pontifex maximus–these were all adoptions or continuations of pagan originals. So one supposes it’s fair enough that today’s would-be neopagans should return the favour and borrow elements of Catholicism as forms into which to pour their religious content. In fact, I hope they borrow Catholic vestments too–the self-styled pagans I’ve known were the last folks on Earth you’d ever want to see “skyclad.”

The Roman basilica was used as a market place and a judicial administrative centre. The basilica derives its name from the Greek “basileus”, meaning “king”, and is an arhcitectural term meaning simply a kingly and elegant hall.

newadvent.org/cathen/02325a.htm

So its orgins are civic, and it was the Christians who gave it a religious function, not the pagans. Just because it was pagans who used these civic buildings originally does not mean that Christians are borrowing from paganism itself by using them now.

As far as the bishop’s mitre and the title of pontifex maximus, these are just symbols denoting authority, not actual religious beliefs. The fact that two religions choose to call someone a high priest and give him a pointy hat to wear to show that doesn’t mean that one religion is borrowing from the religious beliefs of another.

I see a big difference between the examples you cited above and that of people using sacred Christian prayers and instruments of prayer to pray to a pagan goddess.

 

[CCM08]

And, out of curiosity, which Pagan practices do you expect would cause a problem?

Well when pagans ruled the world it was common practice for disabled children to be left outside for the elements or wild animals, The Spartans were a little kinder, they just chucked them off a cliff. The worship of war gods and the pagan love affair with war made war after war the constant in a series of conquests that defined the pagan world. Female gods were just as blood thirsty as their male counterparts before that argument comes up. Chattel slavery was was rampant and prostitution, willing or otherwise, was an ingrained part of the state religion. The lack of any concept of sin leaves these religions devoid of any standard of morality and any action is permissable. That’s the world we should all really want to live in.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Agreed. I cannot imagine any (sane) followers of the ancient religions in antiquity running around naked in Europe in the winter as part of religious rituals. For me, my Hellenic Neopaganism is very much a religon that embraces practicality over rhetoric or appearance. I’ve been in Wales in July and almost froze my (well-clothed) rear end off! Gardner and his followers can keep that particular custom.

And if it had actually been an widespread pagan custom, imagine how much faster the Church would have spread. I can hear it now: “Christianity … or hypothermia?”

 

[CCM08]

“Neopaganism” is a joke. It’s silly pop culture reinvention of pagan religions that has absolutely nothing in common with the ancient pagan religions, the practice of those religions, or the pagan gods being worshipped. It’s really nothing but a silly ploy to take Judeo Christian prinicpals on the treatment of fellow human beings and remove it from sexual morality. Pagans didn’t believe in human rights, they created chattel slavery and left their unwanted children to die in the woods. Pagans weren’t peaceful, nor did they advocate non-violence. Roman soldiers started worshipping Mithras because the Romans lacked a sufficently violent diety. Aries was a very popular Greek god, and the Germanic religions certainly did not lack for war gods. Nor did this paganism find any moral problems with starting wars, or attacking unarmed Christian monks for that matter.

It’s nothing but silly modern invention combine with a few nuts that like to dress up and play pagan. The religious equlivant of those tourist traps that act out life in colonial America.

 

[hosemonkey]

“Neopaganism” is a joke. It’s silly pop culture reinvention of pagan religions that has absolutely nothing in common with the ancient pagan religions, the practice of those religions, or the pagan gods being worshipped. It’s really nothing but a silly ploy to take Judeo Christian prinicpals on the treatment of fellow human beings and remove it from sexual morality. Pagans didn’t believe in human rights, they created chattel slavery and left their unwanted children to die in the woods. Pagans weren’t peaceful, nor did they advocate non-violence. Roman soldiers started worshipping Mithras because the Romans lacked a sufficently violent diety. Aries was a very popular Greek god, and the Germanic religions certainly did not lack for war gods. Nor did this paganism find any moral problems with starting wars, or attacking unarmed Christian monks for that matter.

It’s nothing but silly modern invention combine with a few nuts that like to dress up and play pagan. The religious equlivant of those tourist traps that act out life in colonial America.

Agreed:thumbsup: I do not feel threatened by something that manifestly does not exist ie: pagan “gods,” witchcraft, spells etc. If these poor deluded people choose to place their faith and future in the afterlife in such nonsense, more power to 'em (to coin a phrase) I choose to follow Jesus Christ and His Church, who has a proven track record and verifiable miracles.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

The Roman basilica was used as a market place and a judicial administrative centre. The basilica derives its name from the Greek “basileus”, meaning “king”, and is an arhcitectural term meaning simply a kingly and elegant hall.

newadvent.org/cathen/02325a.htm

So its orgins are civic, and it was the Christians who gave it a religious function, not the pagans. Just because it was pagans who used these civic buildings originally does not mean that Christians are borrowing from paganism itself by using them now.

As far as the bishop’s mitre and the title of pontifex maximus, these are just symbols denoting authority, not actual religious beliefs. The fact that two religions choose to call someone a high priest and give him a pointy hat to wear to show that doesn’t mean that one religion is borrowing from the religious beliefs of another.

I see a big difference between the examples you cited above and that of people using sacred Christian prayers and instruments of prayer to pray to a pagan goddess.

Well, for starters, I wasn’t implying that Christians were borrowing pagan religious beliefs. As I thought I’d made clear, they borrowed a couple of external forms from said pagan religions here and there, and enlisted them for other, better purposes. These modern pagans-manqués (look it up) are doing something similar, even though it’s in a far less worthy cause, to my mind.

 

[AnIrishCatholic]

Well when pagans ruled the world it was common practice for disabled children to be left outside for the elements or wild animals, The Spartans were a little kinder, they just chucked them off a cliff. The worship of war gods and the pagan love affair with war made war after war the constant in a series of conquests that defined the pagan world. Female gods were just as blood thirsty as their male counterparts before that argument comes up. Chattel slavery was was rampant and prostitution, willing or otherwise, was an ingrained part of the state religion. The lack of any concept of sin leaves these religions devoid of any standard of morality and any action is permissable. That’s the world we should all really want to live in.

The world the Church ruled in the middle ages weren’t much better.

I think you are treating all pagan religions as one, the readings i have done on the regard that there were many different religions. Just as today when one group of Christians cannot respresent all oof us.

 

[AnIrishCatholic]

“Neopaganism” is a joke. It’s silly pop culture reinvention of pagan religions that has absolutely nothing in common with the ancient pagan religions, the practice of those religions, or the pagan gods being worshipped. It’s really nothing but a silly ploy to take Judeo Christian prinicpals on the treatment of fellow human beings and remove it from sexual morality. Pagans didn’t believe in human rights, they created chattel slavery and left their unwanted children to die in the woods. Pagans weren’t peaceful, nor did they advocate non-violence. Roman soldiers started worshipping Mithras because the Romans lacked a sufficently violent diety. Aries was a very popular Greek god, and the Germanic religions certainly did not lack for war gods. Nor did this paganism find any moral problems with starting wars, or attacking unarmed Christian monks for that matter.

It’s nothing but silly modern invention combine with a few nuts that like to dress up and play pagan. The religious equlivant of those tourist traps that act out life in colonial America.

This makes me sad to hear a ‘fellow Catholic’ say things like this. It either shows a totally ignorant point of view or a complete lack of true faith (i find the most hate to other religions by people who don’t have true faith themselves). You say they didn’t advocate non violence, well we didn’t either with the Crusades. The people nowadays i find are peaceful people who live in respect for the world around them, i don’t see the point in harking back to the past. EVERY religion has had its negitive times, we should be looking at the present. And if you can see beyond your nose, you would probably see that Islam not pagans or Christians is the religion today that supports violence.

 

[AnIrishCatholic]

Agreed:thumbsup: I do not feel threatened by something that manifestly does not exist ie: pagan “gods,” witchcraft, spells etc. If these poor deluded people choose to place their faith and future in the afterlife in such nonsense, more power to 'em (to coin a phrase) I choose to follow Jesus Christ and His Church, who has a proven track record and verifiable miracles.

Do you think that people should be FORCED to believe in Jesus. I believe in him, but i would never tell someone their faith is wrong or ‘deluded’ as the only one who is deluded here is you.

 

[THurifer2]

For her, adapting the Catholic rosary brings a peace that adhering only to the Christianity of her youth did not.
[/INDENT]

She will eventually find out that the only sliver of peace she recieves comes from the God of Abraham. I hope she realizes that before its too late.

 

[KarenNC]

Well, for starters, I wasn’t implying that Christians were borrowing pagan religious beliefs. As I thought I’d made clear, they borrowed a couple of external forms from said pagan religions here and there, and enlisted them for other, better purposes. These modern pagans-manqués (look it up) are doing something similar, even though it’s in a far less worthy cause, to my mind.

Well, I certainly don’t see my religion as: " ‘lacking’; defective; having failed to achieve ambition; falling short of hopes or expectations." If I were to choose to use such a term, that is a description I would apply to Christianity, in all honesty, from my perspective, as I do not believe it offers an accurate description of the spiritual reality that I experience. Of course, I would also say that about many other religions including many Neopagan ones. Pretty much by definition, I would expect that anyone would find something lacking in other religions compared to one’s own, or one would likely not be following one’s own religion rather than the others.

I would agree with you, however, in that no modern Neopagan religions are in fact borrowing Christian teachings. A major difference between the ancient pagan religions and most modern Neopagan ones is the concept of the priesthood of all believers, which I see as primarily a product of the Reformation and the idea that one can choose one’s religion rather than simply inheriting the Gods of one’s people, which is something that I see as introduced with Christianity.

As Irish Catholic said:
I think you are treating all pagan religions as one, the readings i have done on the regard that there were many different religions. Just as today when one group of Christians cannot respresent all oof us.

IrishCatholic is correct. There were, and are, a large number of very diverse religions that fall under the heading of either pagan or Neopagan. Many are actually as different from each other than Hindus are from Christians, much less the differences between denominations of Christianity.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Well, I certainly don’t see my religion as: " ‘lacking’; defective; having failed to achieve ambition; falling short of hopes or expectations." If I were to choose to use such a term, that is a description I would apply to Christianity, in all honesty, from my perspective, as I do not believe it offers an accurate description of the spiritual reality that I experience. Of course, I would also say that about many other religions including many Neopagan ones. Pretty much by definition, I would expect that anyone would find something lacking in other religions compared to one’s own, or one would likely not be following one’s own religion rather than the others.

Point taken, but obviously I’ve been too cryptic. I simply meant that the modern editions of paganism fail to much resemble those classical and Druidical religions of which many current “pagans” (I think you mentioned Gardner) claim to embody a continuation or renascence.

 

[hosemonkey]

Do you think that people should be FORCED to believe in Jesus. I believe in him, but i would never tell someone their faith is wrong or ‘deluded’ as the only one who is deluded here is you.

Where in my post did you detect any mention of “force”? Read my post again. You will find that I said those who follow false “gods” are therefore responsible for the eternal consequences. You sound like a relativist and a rude one at that. I see that you are a new poster, show some courtesy.

 

[Morning_Star15]

Well, for starters, I wasn’t implying that Christians were borrowing pagan religious beliefs. As I thought I’d made clear, they borrowed a couple of external forms from said pagan religions here and there, and enlisted them for other, better purposes. These modern pagans-manqués (look it up) are doing something similar, even though it’s in a far less worthy cause, to my mind.

I was making a distinction in my post between borrowing external forms such as buildings from another culture, to borrowing sacred prayers and tools for prayers from one religion and manipulating them for a purpose that the original religion opposes. There’s a big difference between turning a civic building built by pagans into a Christian place of worship and turning the “Hail Mary” into the “Hail Persephone”.

 

[KarenNC]

Point taken, but obviously I’ve been too cryptic. I simply meant that the modern editions of paganism fail to much resemble those classical and Druidical religions of which many current “pagans” (I think you mentioned Gardner) claim to embody a continuation or renascence.

Agreed, many do not. I think, though, you will find that even most modern Wiccans who understand anything about the actual origins of their religion no longer claim a continuation. I certainly do not do so (do note that I am not Wiccan, and that there is a very diverse body of religions under the umbrella of “Neopaganism” so for specifics of belief or practice one must narrow one’s focus). Nor do I claim that my religion is an exact duplicate of that practiced by an ancient Athenian, for instance. It can’t be, I don’t live in that society with that worldview.

Even with a continuation, you must acknowledge that the modern Christian Church differs in many ways–form, government, issues it faces—from that of the first century Christians.