Is Catholicism hellenized?

[porthos11]

Christianity adheres to the principle of examining everything: reject evil, retain what is good. That’s why St. Paul had no problem quoting pagan philosphers in his Discourse at the Aeropagus. Greek thought has contributed much to our theological expressions. Hence things like substance, person, accident, nature, hypostasis, logos, and other essential concepts are borrowed from Greek thought.

 

[mlcampbell]

Bingo.

The fact is that, from a Catholic perspective, Greek philosophy (Plato and Aristotle in particular) came about as close to real “truth” as humans are capable of without Grace. Their systems and language is so conducive to explaining and understanding Catholic Truth that some have even argued that they were Divinely inspired in some way (I’m not advocating such an assertion, incidently, just bringing it up to highlight how significant their contribution is).

For example, Aristotle developed a philosophical system that, as a conclusion, understood that there was a single Infinite Being that is the source of all being and goodness. He wasn’t a monotheist in the sense we use the term, but consider that conclusion in itself for a moment. He developed a purely human philosophical system based on observation and deduction that concluded something very similar to Judeo-Christian belief, and also allowed for explaining how and why things are good, why they are, how they are, ect. In itself that system is flawed and has gaping holes, but when cleaned up by Divine Revelation, and seen through the eyes of Grace, it’s a system that is startlingly conducive to Catholic theology.

Catholics don’t just let a good thing die. If pagan architecture allows us to build incredible churches, we’re gonna use it. Likewise, if pagan philosophy is going to give us the linguistic and logical tools to explore Theological Truth, we’re going to use it. This doesn’t make us “Hellenized” in the sense of following pagan religions, or using pagan assumptions, anymore than we are “Chinafied” by using paper. The Greek philosophers were brilliant with logic, observation, and conclusions, and there is nothing wrong with utilizing those tools, especially when they consistantly prove our Judeo-Christian Tradition (compare Aristotle’s logical conclusion of the Infinite, Eternal Being with God’s name “I Am that Am”).

Peace and God bless!

Thank you. This is excellent.

 

[mlcampbell]

That point aside, name one pagan belief “borrowed” by the Catholic Church.

– Mark L. Chance.

Well, one belief that critics often claim Catholicism has borrowed is the concept of the eucharist, which was practiced in many mystery cults around the time of the inception of Christianity. Now of course, as a Catholic, I reject this view. But on the other hand, I’ve never done any historical research of my own in order to contradict these claims. How would one respond?

 

[JPrejean]

Acts 17 (RSV)

[16] Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols.
[17] So he argued in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the market place every day with those who chanced to be there.
[18] Some also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers met him. And some said, “What would this babbler say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities” – because he preached Jesus and the resurrection.
[19] And they took hold of him and brought him to the Are-op’agus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is which you present?
[20] For you bring some strange things to our ears; we wish to know therefore what these things mean.”
[21] Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new.
[22] So Paul, standing in the middle of the Are-op’agus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious.
[23] For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, To an unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. [24] The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man, [25] nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything. [26] And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation, [27] that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us, [28] for **In him we live and move and have our being’;
as even some of your poets have said, `For we are indeed his offspring.’**
[29] Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and imagination of man.
[30] The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent,
[31] because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead.”
[32] Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked; but others said, “We will hear you again about this.”
[33] So Paul went out from among them.
[34] But some men joined him and believed, among them Dionys’ius the Are-op’agite and a woman named Dam’aris and others with them.

What is particularly interesting about the Eucharistic doctrine of the Real Presence is that it is tied back to the Greek philosophical belief described here: the transcendent presence of the Creator in all created things. The description of Eucharist as “transubstantiation” is simply invoking another form of the mysterious and transcendent presence that Paul cites here, which allows us to be “in Christ” even as He is “in us.” The doctrine of the Incarnation is similarly explained in classical Christian dogma.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, one belief that critics often claim Catholicism has borrowed is the concept of the eucharist, which was practiced in many mystery cults around the time of the inception of Christianity. Now of course, as a Catholic, I reject this view. But on the other hand, I’ve never done any historical research of my own in order to contradict these claims. How would one respond?

Great Googley Moogley!!

The Eucharist is discussed in great detail in the Gospels. A good example is the Bread of Live Discourse in John 6, 22-59.

This is in addition (and prior to) the actual performance of the Eucharist at the Last Supper.(example, Matthew 26,26-30.)

Anyone who says we “borrowed” the Eucharist has either never read the Gospels, or considers them false.

 

[mlcampbell]

But what about what Paul says in this passage from Scripture?

I Cor 2:13 “And we speak about them not with words taught by human wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms.”

Would this apply to our discussion about the use of Greek philosophical language in order to describe Christian Truth? Or is Paul talking about something totally different here?

 

[mlcampbell]

Great Googley Moogley!!

The Eucharist is discussed in great detail in the Gospels. A good example is the Bread of Live Discourse in John 6, 22-59.

This is in addition (and prior to) the actual performance of the Eucharist at the Last Supper.(example, Matthew 26,26-30.)

Anyone who says we “borrowed” the Eucharist has either never read the Gospels, or considers them false.

Well, but a secular critic could argue that the fact that the Eucharist is described in detail within the Gospels doesn’t necessarily imply its an independent Christian concept. In other words, someone might say that the Eucharist was a Greek religious notion that predates Christianity and then made its way into Judaic thought well before the Gospels were even written.

So what then about our Eucharist is different from that of mystery cults?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

mlcampbell:

Well, one belief that critics often claim Catholicism has borrowed is the concept of the eucharist, which was practiced in many mystery cults around the time of the inception of Christianity. Now of course, as a Catholic, I reject this view. But on the other hand, I’ve never done any historical research of my own in order to contradict these claims. How would one respond?

Actually, we believe we consume Jesus Christ body, blood soul & divinity when we receive the Eucharist. We believe we are receiving the same sacrifice on Calvary at every Mass when we receive the Eucharist. We believe that when we receive the Eucharist, we are receiving the body and blood of the Creator of the Universe who came down to earth and took the form of Man-God and was fully man and fully God. When we receive the Eucharist we believe we are receiving life itself. When we receive the Eucharist we believe we are united to every other Christian through the Church He founded on the Apostle Peter who has his successor sitting on the throne in Rome at this very day. We believe we receive the body of the transfigured Christ after the resurrection everytime we receive the Eucharist. How is this similar to any pagan doctrine?

 

[mlcampbell]

Actually, we believe we consume Jesus Christ body, blood soul & divinity when we receive the Eucharist. We believe we are receiving the same sacrifice on Calvary at every Mass when we receive the Eucharist. We believe that when we receive the Eucharist, we are receiving the body and blood of the Creator of the Universe who came down to earth and took the form of Man-God and was fully man and fully God. When we receive the Eucharist we believe we are receiving life itself. When we receive the Eucharist we believe we are united to every other Christian through the Church He founded on the Apostle Peter who has his successor sitting on the throne in Rome at this very day. We believe we receive the body of the transfigured Christ after the resurrection everytime we receive the Eucharist. How is this similar to any pagan doctrine?

This is a quote from wikipedia.org about the mystery cult of Osiris:

The Osirian Sacrament
*Although there were ethical and ceremonial considerations none of these could compare to the power of the divine eucharist, since it was literally believed to be the body (bread) and blood (ale) of the god. Since the ancient Nilotics believed that humans were whatever they eat, this sacrament was, by extension, able to make them celestial and immortal. The doctrine of the eucharist ultimately has its roots in prehistoric cannibalism, whose practitioners understood that virtues and powers of the eaten can be thus absorbed by the eater. This phenomenon has been described throughout the world.

One of the oldest of the Pyramid Texts is the Unas from the 6th Dynasty (circa 2500 BC). It shows that the original ideology of Egypt commingled with Osirian concepts. Although ultimately given a high place in heaven by order of Osiris, Unas is at first an enemy of the gods and his ancestors, who he hunts, lassoes, kills, cooks, and eats so that their powers may become his own. This was written at a time when the eating of parents and gods was a laudable ceremony, and this emphasizes how hard it must have been to stamp out the older order of cannibalism. “He eats men, he feeds on the gods…he cooks them in his fiery cauldrons. He eats their words of power, he swallows their spirits…. He eats the wisdom of every god, his period of life is eternity…. Their soul is in his body, their spirits are within him.” A parallel passage is found in the Pyramid Text of Pepi II, who is said to have “seizeth those who are a follower of Set…he breaketh their heads, he cutteth off their haunches, he teareth out their intestines, he diggeth out their hearts, he drinketh copiously of their blood!” (line 531, ff). Although crude, this was a core concept, the conviction that one could receive immortality by eating the flesh and blood of a god who had died became a dominating obsession in the ancient world. Although the cult of Osiris forbade cannibalism, it did not outlaw dismemberment and eating of enemies, and practiced the ritual rending and eating of the sacred bull, symbolizing Osiris.
Although this sacramental concept only originated once in history, it spread throughout the Mediterranean area and became the dynamic force in every mystery cult. It was only by this sacerdotal means that the corruptible deceased could be clothed in incorruption and this idea appears again and again in infinite variety. The scribe Nebseni implores: “And there in the celestial mansions of heaven which my divine father Tem hath established, let my hands lay hold upon the wheat and the barley which shall be given unto me therein in abundant measure” (Ibid. LXXII). Nu corroborates that this is the eucharist by saying: “I am established, and the divine Sekhet-hetep is before me, I have eaten therein, I have become a spirit therein, I have abundance therein.” (Ibid. LXXVII) Again Nu states: “I am the divine soul of Ra…which is god…I am the divine food which is not corrupted” (Ibid. LXXXV). The ancientness of the concept is again reaffirmed in the Pyramid Text of Teta (2600 BC) where the Osiris Teta “receivest thy bread which decayeth not, and thy beer which perisheth not” In the Text of Pepi I we read: “All the gods give thee their flesh and their blood…. Thou shalt not die.” In the Text of Pepi II the aspirant prays for “thy bread of eternity, and thy beer of everlastingness” (Line 390).*

I’m in no way arguing against Catholic doctrine. I’m merely trying to address a point that many secular scholars and historians seem to use in order to show that Christianity is neither original nor revelation-based.

 

[Truthstalker]

Didn’t the Greeks reason some things out, as has been cited? I think there is a verse about “God put heaven in their hearts” - this is something all have longed for and desired, and so men have always reached for God Who put a God-shaped hole in their hearts, and they are restless until they find Him. God could also put concepts in cultures so that when the Gospel came to them, they would better understand the concepts. And also the devil, that liar, is out to distort all truth. Do you think he would neglect the Eucharist? He also laid seeds in cultures - seeds of death and destruction, but distortions of the truth where he did not outright distort the truth.

All men believe in the sun. Some, at some points, have worshipped it. That does not mean that the sun does not exist. Many have believed they could eat their God. That does not mean that it cannot be done. In Christianity are the highest aspirations of man, carried on upward by God past the dream and hope of man by himself.

 

[francisca]

But then a critic of the Church would then ask, what is unique and new about Christianity? How is Catholicism legitimate from a theological point of view if it has borrowed beliefs from pagan systems?

Christianity in the early days took it’s form with greek philosophy in the background. And it was not a coincidence, because when Jesus came, greek had ruled over the people of Israel for sometimes before the romans took over. Greek culture was there in Israel, many of the Jews spoke (some) greek. Since the teaching of Jesus was rejected among the elders of the Jews, but accepted among the “pagans” then christianity grew among greek thinkers.

A few hundred years before Jesus, God has prepared this to happen. Socrates in opposition with those “empty” rhetorics and sophists had chosen death over life for “the truth”. His higly controversial death brought about a search of “the absolute truth” (this include questioning who gods truly are, and what justice really means) into greek thinking. Aristotele and Plato then become the teachers of discipline of thinking : for the sake and the search of truth (this then give birth to philosophy and science). So when Jesus came, the greek thinking absorbed His teaching like sponge.

Thus it was not Christianity borrowed greek teaching, but on the contrary, the greek adopt Jesus teaching into their philosophy, and the church grew in this situation. It was only logical that The New Testament then was written in greek, and also the readers, the early followers of the Christ was those with some greek language & thinking in the background.

Greek philosophy then give birth to science, where all things are empirically tested. Because of this, then the questions about God nowadays are left behind on the shelf of religion , as if separated from “reason” because science methodologies fails to empirically test God. Thus it appear as if God has “nothing to do with reason”. That “reason” only belong to science.

But the truth is, God is “Logos” which means “The Word” which also mean “The Reason”. Reason always open to dialogue and allthough the church was decicively formed in greek roman europe culture, she now willingly to look into other cultures and religions for the sake of God Himself who is the Logos (reason).

This word “logos” is actually where the words “logic” and all those “…logy and …logies” of modern sciences come from.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, but a secular critic could argue that the fact that the Eucharist is described in detail within the Gospels doesn’t necessarily imply its an independent Christian concept. In other words, someone might say that the Eucharist was a Greek religious notion that predates Christianity and then made its way into Judaic thought well before the Gospels were even written.

The answer is, a panda looks like a bear, but it isn’t a bear.

It is not enough to show that one thing looks like another, to make the case of relationship, you have to show the chain of descent. And in the case of the Eucharist, that can’t be done.

As in the case of the panda, the closer you examine it, the more you realize that the resemblence is only superficial

So what then about our Eucharist is different from that of mystery cults?

First of all, it is related to Jewish tradition, not Greek tradition – read the Bread of Life Discourse. Secondly, it is mandated by the true God, not by a mythical being. Third, it is intimately tied to our salvation.

Christianity is very different from Greek mythology, in that it is not a religion of propitiating an capricious god, but a religion of mutual love between God and man.

 

[prv]

But then a critic of the Church would then ask, what is unique and new about Christianity? How is Catholicism legitimate from a theological point of view if it has borrowed beliefs from pagan systems?

One could say that God made a certain amount of truth and reason available to the Greeks before Christianity, so as to make them ready to hear the Gospel.

 

[francisca]

This is a quote from wikipedia.org about the mystery cult of Osiris:

The Osirian Sacrament
Although there were ethical and ceremonial considerations none of these could compare to the power of the divine eucharist, since it was literally believed to be the body (bread) and blood (ale) of the god. Since the ancient Nilotics believed that humans were whatever they eat, this sacrament was, by extension, able to make them celestial and immortal. The doctrine of the eucharist ultimately has its roots in prehistoric cannibalism, whose practitioners understood that virtues and powers of the eaten can be thus absorbed by the eater. This phenomenon has been described throughout the world.

One of the oldest of the Pyramid Texts is the Unas from the 6th Dynasty (circa 2500 BC). It shows that the original ideology of Egypt commingled with Osirian concepts. Although ultimately given a high place in heaven by order of Osiris, Unas is at first an enemy of the gods and his ancestors, who he hunts, lassoes, kills, cooks, and eats so that their powers may become his own. This was written at a time when the eating of parents and gods was a laudable ceremony, and this emphasizes how hard it must have been to stamp out the older order of cannibalism. “He eats men, he feeds on the gods…he cooks them in his fiery cauldrons. He eats their words of power, he swallows their spirits…. He eats the wisdom of every god, his period of life is eternity…. Their soul is in his body, their spirits are within him.” A parallel passage is found in the Pyramid Text of Pepi II, who is said to have “seizeth those who are a follower of Set…he breaketh their heads, he cutteth off their haunches, he teareth out their intestines, he diggeth out their hearts, he drinketh copiously of their blood!” (line 531, ff). Although crude, this was a core concept, the conviction that one could receive immortality by eating the flesh and blood of a god who had died became a dominating obsession in the ancient world. Although the cult of Osiris forbade cannibalism, it did not outlaw dismemberment and eating of enemies, and practiced the ritual rending and eating of the sacred bull, symbolizing Osiris.
Although this sacramental concept only originated once in history, it spread throughout the Mediterranean area and became the dynamic force in every mystery cult. It was only by this sacerdotal means that the corruptible deceased could be clothed in incorruption and this idea appears again and again in infinite variety. The scribe Nebseni implores: “And there in the celestial mansions of heaven which my divine father Tem hath established, let my hands lay hold upon the wheat and the barley which shall be given unto me therein in abundant measure” (Ibid. LXXII). Nu corroborates that this is the eucharist by saying: “I am established, and the divine Sekhet-hetep is before me, I have eaten therein, I have become a spirit therein, I have abundance therein.” (Ibid. LXXVII) Again Nu states: “I am the divine soul of Ra…which is god…I am the divine food which is not corrupted” (Ibid. LXXXV). The ancientness of the concept is again reaffirmed in the Pyramid Text of Teta (2600 BC) where the Osiris Teta “receivest thy bread which decayeth not, and thy beer which perisheth not” In the Text of Pepi I we read: “All the gods give thee their flesh and their blood…. Thou shalt not die.” In the Text of Pepi II the aspirant prays for “thy bread of eternity, and thy beer of everlastingness” (Line 390).

I’m in no way arguing against Catholic doctrine. I’m merely trying to address a point that many secular scholars and historians seem to use in order to show that Christianity is neither original nor revelation-based.

Have you ever consider that Jesus came to end such practices?

There was cannibalism everywhere in the primitive world. Have you ever consider that it was because men has fallen from the real God’s presence?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Have you ever consider that Jesus came to end such practices?

There was cannibalism everywhere in the primitive world. Have you ever consider that it was because men has fallen from the real God’s presence?

It seems to me that the post you responded to used a lot of words to say, “A panda looks like a bear, so it has to be a bear.”

 

[francisca]

Yes.

There are resemblance in primitive religions about giving some sacrificed animals to the gods/ spirits. Some include thanksgiving element, some atonement (to apease gods anger, etc) and so on.

I believe people generally has “captured” here and there “God’s qualities” for a long long time. Although they may not know Him in His Name yet. Because they captured “the qualities only” they then name “the qualities” as “gods”, and therefore they have many gods.

If I watch chinese movie the kind of “gong fu master” type sometimes they mention about god of mercy, war of heaven and earth as about “war between evil and good” although it is also about some dynasty kingdom versus bad guys and so on. I can see some of the dialogue is basically similar to some bible passages, at least in the reasonings.