Neo-Pagan Apologetics

[rlg94086]

I have no idea…and it seems like a strange question. Other Christians would not recognize the authority of the Catholic Church determining whether they are Christians or not. Heck, some Christians don’t consider us Catholics to be Christians.

I do know that the Church recognizes Baptism in other churches if the Christian was baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. For example, I originally converted to the Presbyterian Church, so I did not need to be baptized when I became a Catholic.

Sorry, but for any more than that you will have to check with an apologist, or someone else on the Forum will have to speak up for me.

** Even today, the Orthodox and Catholics disagree on the Holy Spirit. We say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. They believe the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father. That certainly doesn’t make one of us less Christian.**

Well, actually there are definitely Greek Orthodox who would disagree with you on that one, though I’m not sure if that’s a normative Greek Orthodox position. For what it’s worth, I don’t see either group as less Christian either.

**The Catechism lays out the “fundamentals” for Catholics (so, I can’t very well list it all in this post ), but other Christian churches differ on the “fundamentals.” **

What we were asking for was what is considered the absolute universal core minimum, those things Roman Catholics consider as requirements for any person, regardless of church affiliation, to be considered a Christian. For instance, you’ve already said belief in the Trinity is required. What about the Virgin Birth? The Immaculate Conception of Mary? These are discussed in the catechism, but are all Christians, regardless of church affiliation, required to believe them to be saved, according to Roman Catholic doctrine?

I know that there are numerous issues and doctrines discussed in the catechism I learned, but there were certain core fundamentals that were considered essential for any Christian, not just Presbyterians. We were curious as to whether Roman Catholics differed on this.
BTW…in the age of the internet, my Catechism is always handy

Thanks, and yes, it is handy. However, not necessarily laid out in the format to answer the question asked. If you could suggest specific search terms that are likely to produce the answer, I will be glad to look there. I am having trouble finding a concise answer using the terms I have tried so far.

I have a feeling the answer is likely buried in the verbiage of the Dominus Iesus declaration, but I have to admit I was hoping for something a bit more concise. The best I have been able to glean so far from it is that the Roman Catholic church accepts that some Christians who are not either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox may be saved, but they aren’t really sure why God would do so.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

 

[rlg94086]

I have a duty to honor and respect those gods with whom I have a relationship, certainly, and it behooves me to be respectful of other gods of the places in which I find myself, but I am not bound to worship them in the same way, nor am I bound to worship any and every entity that someone on the planet deems a god. I also do not see as my creators the gods that I worship in the sense that Christians describe their God as being. It is not a parent/child or master/slave relationship.

Hi KarenNC,

Is this your gut feeling, or do you have a source for these ideas of duty and what you are bound or not bound to? Some of these statements seem doctrinal, so are they givens for all neo-pagans, or are you just describing your own personal take on it?

God bless,

Robert

 

[KarenNC]

**I have no idea…and it seems like a strange question. Other Christians would not recognize the authority of the Catholic Church determining whether they are Christians or not. Heck, some Christians don’t consider us Catholics to be Christians. **

True, I’ve run into many of them. I didn’t say that the other Christians would accept the Roman Catholic Church’s authority to do so, just whether Roman Catholics had determined a baseline as far as they were concerned.

 

[rlg94086]

Well the best I can do is this from the Catechism:

[838](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/838.htm’) "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 ***Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”***323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

I know that doesn’t give a list of dogma which must be believed in order to be considered Christian, but I hope it helps.

**I have no idea…and it seems like a strange question. Other Christians would not recognize the authority of the Catholic Church determining whether they are Christians or not. Heck, some Christians don’t consider us Catholics to be Christians. **

True, I’ve run into many of them. I didn’t say that the other Christians would accept the Roman Catholic Church’s authority to do so, just whether Roman Catholics had determined a baseline as far as they were concerned.

 

[dessert]

Yes, but evidently he objected more strongly to Elisha being called “Baldy” by a group of children. Cain was exiled and it was forbidden that anyone should kill him.

At Elisha’s request, God sent two bears to maul 42 of the children.(2 Kings 2: 23-24)–different translations differ on whether the children were youths (NIV) or little children (KJV).

As an aside, I find it interesting that Cain’s words seem to indicate that he views God as only acting locally (Gen 4:14). Nothing in the previous verses that God says indicate that he is to be driven from God’s presence, only from the land (Gen 4:10-12). Cain, correctly, based on later verses, believes that leaving the land also means leaving the presence of God (Gen 4:16). Thanks, that is something I had not noticed before in my studies of this passage.

But none of these things is really relevant to the assertion that I understood you to make and to which I replied–that the Ten Commandments as given to Moses were the only possible source or codification of ethical or moral behavior. Since other codes of ethical and moral behavior are known to have preceded the appearance of the Ten Commandments by several centuries and to have existed in civilizations that were not connected with that of ancient Israel, that claim is a bit spurious.

Thank you for looking up those scriptures as I am not sure where all the referenes are. I don’t even own a CCC yet as I have not studied the catachesium I will admit this as a fault right now . desert so maybe I will ask you to look up in the CCC isn’t that ironic desert again

 

[dessert]

Yes codes of moral and ethical behavior have been around a long time I agree with you on this . Have a good holiday!!

 

[dessert]

** Even today, the Orthodox and Catholics disagree on the Holy Spirit. We say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. They believe the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father. That certainly doesn’t make one of us less Christian.**

Well, actually there are definitely Greek Orthodox who would disagree with you on that one, though I’m not sure if that’s a normative Greek Orthodox position. For what it’s worth, I don’t see either group as less Christian either.

** The Catechism lays out the “fundamentals” for Catholics (so, I can’t very well list it all in this post ), but other Christian churches differ on the “fundamentals.” **

What we were asking for was what is considered the absolute universal core minimum, those things Roman Catholics consider as requirements for any person, regardless of church affiliation, to be considered a Christian. For instance, you’ve already said belief in the Trinity is required. What about the Virgin Birth? The Immaculate Conception of Mary? These are discussed in the catechism, but are all Christians, regardless of church affiliation, required to believe them to be saved, according to Roman Catholic doctrine?

I know that there are numerous issues and doctrines discussed in the catechism I learned, but there were certain core fundamentals that were considered essential for any Christian, not just Presbyterians. We were curious as to whether Roman Catholics differed on this.
BTW…in the age of the internet, my Catechism is always handy

Thanks, and yes, it is handy. However, not necessarily laid out in the format to answer the question asked. If you could suggest specific search terms that are likely to produce the answer, I will be glad to look there. I am having trouble finding a concise answer using the terms I have tried so far.

I have a feeling the answer is likely buried in the verbiage of the Dominus Iesus declaration, but I have to admit I was hoping for something a bit more concise. The best I have been able to glean so far from it is that the Roman Catholic church accepts that some Christians who are not either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox may be saved, but they aren’t really sure why God would do so.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

We have a creed that we state our believes every sunday and it is too long to post but I will when Ii have more time thanks and I don’t know if you will find it in and old CCC but maybe if you borrow a newer CCC from someone you can read it.

I really appreciate your interest and the others, much best to you! desert My shepherd says hello and also I say hello to all our little sheep !desert

 

[dessert]

**I have no idea…and it seems like a strange question. Other Christians would not recognize the authority of the Catholic Church determining whether they are Christians or not. Heck, some Christians don’t consider us Catholics to be Christians. **

True, I’ve run into many of them. I didn’t say that the other Christians would accept the Roman Catholic Church’s authority to do so, just whether Roman Catholics had determined a baseline as far as they were concerned.

We believe that Jesus is the gatekeeper as do many christians.
Your question is a little broad could I ask you to be more specific.
There are acually a variety of catho,ics out there and you don’t really have to capitalize the large c either someone told me that one time.
There are eastern and charismatic and so many others.
Traditional Latin rites etc.
We all believe very strongly absolutely in the receiving of the Sacrament of the Eucharist and The sacrament of Confession, these are what as interpreted as some differences between the “christians” and catholic christians.
There are five other sacraments as I am late for sing at mass I must beg to state later for now thanks for letting me post so much I will not try to hog it all:thumbsup: desert

 

[IanCorrigan]

**Because you don’t prescribe any authoritative explanation, just about anything goes, so your cohesion is very loose. **

I think you’re missing the point - we do prescribe closely the order, symbolism and structure of our liturgy. One of our (ADF’s) could attend a ritual at any one of our congregations and see a ritual that would resemble their home Grove, and would be comprehensible and at least somewhat familiar. We have cohesive set of symbols, and they are deep and multi-valent ones, that allow for many private interpretations, even as they remain familiar.

**Strength: It’s pretty difficult to discuss neo-paganism beliefs because there is such variation. **

The point is that beliefs are not the primary focus of our religions. What we do - in ritual, in custom, in deed - is vastly more important than what we think about what we do. We are entirely able to talk together in detail about these things we do, to critique and to learn from one another’s systems, all while we allow nearly complete freedom of interpretation as to the theology or meaning of the things we do together.
Ian

 

[KarenNC]

**There are acually a variety of catholics out there and you don’t really have to capitalize the large c either someone told me that one time.
**

Thanks. I had pretty much assumed it was summarized in the Nicene Creed (I believe that is the one used at Mass, yes?) and I am familiar with the sacraments, but was a bit thrown by the comment that Jesus’ divinity wasn’t a fundamental issue for Catholics. That seems to be cleared up now.

I use the capital “C” when referring to the institution (Catholic Church) or a member of it (Catholic priest), but a small “c” when referring to the word in its meaning of “universal” ( which is also the original Greek meaning of katholikos, btw). For instance, when Protestants use the phrase “holy catholic church” as part of the Apostle’s Creed ( “…I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; …”), they are most definitely not saying that they believe in or give any special significance to the institution of the Roman Catholic Church, but rather mean the worldwide church overall as the body of Christ. This is also the meaning of the “catholic” (small “c”) reference in the Nicene Creed (which is also used by some other churches, definitely Episcopal, Lutheran varied according to my husband).

This is also why I made the point of noting “small ‘o’ orthodox” in a few comments to make it clear I was referring to the meaning of “orthodox” as “conforming to established doctrine” rather than something pertaining specifically to the Eastern Orthodox Church in any of its forms.

** Thank you for looking up those scriptures as I am not sure where all the referenes are. **

I find www.biblegateway.com to be most useful for me, as I can look up the same verse in various translations and also search on various keywords or phrases. The biggest problem you will find with it is that the Douay-Rheims 1899American version is the only one they have in English with the Apocrypha included (1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, etc). I don’t know about the translations in any other languages there. The rest are the Protestant versions, and the Protestant churches don’t include those books at all as they aren’t considered canon (the Episcopal Church uses them as useful for teaching–and include them in a separate section of their Bible–but not as canon). Frankly, I am not nearly as familiar with the books of the Apocrypha as I am with the rest of the Bible, as the bulk of my studies as a Christian were Protestant (child and adult) rather than Episcopalian. I have read them, of course, but quotes from them do not spring swiftly to mind.

You might actually find catholic.net/RCC/Catechism/bible.html to be more useful to your purposes, as it has several translations of the Catholic Bible, but I haven’t used it, so can’t vouch for the ease of searching in it for a specific phrase or concept.

As to the Catholic Catechism, I am afraid you probably know more of it than I. The best I can do is search it online. Now in the Presbyterian one (especially the children’s catechism in use in the late 60s–it may have been revised), I could probably do a better job. I got $5 for memorizing that when I was 5 or 6 (a goodly time ago!), and a lot sticks with me.

Hope the singing goes well.

 

[rlg94086]

I guess it’s just too foreign to me. For us, our liturgy and doctrine are completely intertwined. To go through the Catholic rituals without understanding why and believing in what the Church teaches (doctrine/dogma) would not make sense. Our sacraments were all instituted by Christ, not someone who is creating ritual for a broad group who have differing beliefs.

**Because you don’t prescribe any authoritative explanation, just about anything goes, so your cohesion is very loose. **

I think you’re missing the point - we do prescribe closely the order, symbolism and structure of our liturgy. One of our (ADF’s) could attend a ritual at any one of our congregations and see a ritual that would resemble their home Grove, and would be comprehensible and at least somewhat familiar. We have cohesive set of symbols, and they are deep and multi-valent ones, that allow for many private interpretations, even as they remain familiar.

**Strength: It’s pretty difficult to discuss neo-paganism beliefs because there is such variation. **

The point is that beliefs are not the primary focus of our religions. What we do - in ritual, in custom, in deed - is vastly more important than what we think about what we do. We are entirely able to talk together in detail about these things we do, to critique and to learn from one another’s systems, all while we allow nearly complete freedom of interpretation as to the theology or meaning of the things we do together.
Ian

 

[rlg94086]

but was a bit thrown by the comment that Jesus’ divinity wasn’t a fundamental issue for Catholics.

Sorry I threw you with the word “fundamental,” which I already apologized for. However, my next sentenced should have clarified it for you a bit.

Jesus didn’t teach directly about the nature of His divinity, so it is logical that there was a divergence of opinions which the Church eventually set straight.

Everyone agreed He was the Son of God, and they all were most certainly Christian (i.e. followers of Christ). The question was regarding whether His divinity was separate from his humanity. Christians didn’t have to wait until the Nicean Creed to have doctrine they believed in - Christ’s divinity, virgin birth, Eucharist, etc. They all existed prior to the Creed. The Creed just rejected some of the heretical claims being made by some Christian theologians at the time and then gave us a comprehensive profession of faith.

 

[latin_rite]

An assertion without basis - those Gods were the Gods of millions of people for thousands of years - just because their worship was overcome (for a while) by an oppressive dogma machine, does not mean they don’t exist.

Oppressive? umm ok. The fact is they died out because people saw it was a waste of time worshipping rocks and trees.

[No God is omnipotent - not mine, not yours.

Yes my God is omnipotent. Don’t try and limit the one true God with the myths you worship.

Rest assured, your God cannot stop me from blaspheming, from choosing not to worship him, from setting up my images of the Old Gods,

Of course he won’t stop you, he granted us free will. but because he wont stop you, doesn’t mean he won’t punish you. And the whole 'working to undermind the Christian God… about time you people came forward with your true agenda.

Paganism and polytheism is growing fast in the West, and the Christian God can no more stop it than the Old Gods could stop the new wave of Christianity.

One we don’t want to stop you. You are free to do as you wish, and as fast as you think it’s growing it still isn’t growing as fast as Christianity, islam or judaism

I think, personally, that religions grow old and tired. the ideas, forms and images that once exited come to be hum-drum. The once innovative notions become establishment. I think this happened in Hellenic Paganism in the early christian days, and I think it has happened to Christianity now. When such things happen, new religions arise to fill the gap. .

Yes religions grow old and tired. but i doubt yours will. well i doubt it will grow old, if you know what i mean.

There are still a billion or so traditional polytheists on the planet - one must include Hinduism, Buddhism, African tribal ways, native american and asian tribal ways along with neopaganism. The only reason Christianity overcame Paganism so completely in the west was the lucky stroke of winning the conversion of the roman empire.

Lucky you keep riding the back of the hindus,Buddhism and the african religions because if you only counted YOUR religion followers it would be quite embrassing…for you. And don’t forget before rome "forced " Christianity on the rest of the world, Rome tried to enforce paganism onto the Christian world…And failed, well not only failed it gave in to it.

Not exactly. The Gods are often associated with specific kinds of natural phenomena, but it is a mistake to think of polytheistic Gods as only the spirits of natural things. Thor is called a God of Thunder, and his Hammer is envisioned as being powerful as a lightning bolt.

You say “not exactly” then agree with him? Is it because you know how ever you try to spin it he is right? I think you do think that.

Later Greek poets did a disservice to polytheism, i think, by turning the Twelve Olympians into mere personifications of natural principles,

Yes how dare those Greeks do that…I mean what would they know with their first hand knowledge and their unbroken living link with thos religions. And yes i will continue thinking aphrodite cannot Hurl lighting bolts. because the simple fact is aphrodite doesn’t excist.

Here we approach a more animistic perspective. It can be useful to be in a relationship of respect and honor (i.e. worship)with electricity. We often think of the divine as being present in/as impersonal energies or powers, as well as in/as the persons we call the Gods.

In other words you haven’t a clue?

we have a shred of the very same power the Gods have in abundance…

Um . No you don’t…Can you make lighting shoot out of your finger or thunder out of your …um you know what. ? the answer to that is no, because like your “gods” you have no power.at all

In ancient Greece, the Eleusinian Mysteries annually provided the vision of the Gods to thousands of people each year for century after century. I predict less than a decade before the Old Gods begin to reappear in popular vision.

Ian

And i look forward to seeing you in here coming up with another reason why these “gods” haven’t appeared in less than a decade.
[/quote]

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

all while we allow nearly complete freedom of interpretation as to the theology or meaning of the things we do together.

essentially, neo-paganism is worshiping one’s self because in the end, all we know are ideas, not the things in themselves. it’s a religion without truth–a fantasy.

without logic and reason, which are necessary with catholicism, we would not have modern science because we wouldn’t believe that things have causes and that there is a any way we can understand the world. this is why modern science developed in catholic europe and not in the far east or sub saharan pagan africa.

the world according to paganism can’t be orderly and logical because their beliefs and gods are not orderly. to be pagan is to accept that we can’t really know things as they are; there is no truth, so your god is as good as mine.

neo-paganism is incompatible with modern science.

 

[KarenNC]

One we don’t want to stop you. You are free to do as you wish, and as fast as you think it’s growing it still isn’t growing as fast as Christianity, islam or judaismQUOTE]

Could you elaborate on how the growth rate of Islam and Judaism should be considered a good thing or victory for Christianity? The only thing I can possibly see is that you consider any monotheism, even one you (or at least your Church) considers blasphemy, to be better than polytheism?

 

[KarenNC]

Is this your gut feeling, or do you have a source for these ideas of duty and what you are bound or not bound to? Some of these statements seem doctrinal, so are they givens for all neo-pagans, or are you just describing your own personal take on it?

No, not for all Neopagans. As I have said in an earlier post, there are many distinct religions that are grouped beneath the umbrella term of Neopaganism. They are in their own ways probably even more distinct than the differences between Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Just because there is not one doctrine that applies to all Neopagans doesn’t mean that none of us have any specific beliefs.

My sources are likely pretty similar to yours. Stories of how the people in ancient times related to the gods, the teachings of my religious organization, the experiences of others who have worshipped the same gods and my personal relationship with my gods.

 

[KarenNC]

**without logic and reason, which are necessary with catholicism, we would not have modern science because we wouldn’t believe that things have causes and that there is a any way we can understand the world. this is why modern science developed in catholic europe and not in the far east or sub saharan pagan africa.

the world according to paganism can’t be orderly and logical because their beliefs and gods are not orderly. **

Heraclides, Hippocrates, Euclid, Pliny, Galen, Erastothenes, Kiddinu, Aristotle, Archimedes, Pythagoras, Hipparchus, etc.

Look up science in ancient China, Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, India, etc

Unfortunately much of the knowledge gained by the ancients was lost to the West for centuries and not regained until the crusades brought the West back into contact with the Islamic world, where the knowledge had been preserved and expanded upon by innovation and contact with the cultures of the Far East. The Irish monks, however, were a notable exception to this. They also strove to hang on to the ancient knowledge.

There is no basis for your argument that only monotheistic cultures can produce innovations or make new discoveries about the way in which the world works. No one culture, time period or religion has a monopoly on great minds and great curiousity that combine to lead to great discoveries. Also, there is no culture, time period or religion without its periods of darkness, persecution of new ideas, etc.

** to be pagan is to accept that we can’t really know things as they are; there is no truth, so your god is as good as mine. **

To my mind, polytheism is a much better explanation of “things as they are” than monotheism. I don’t think I have ever claimed in this discussion that “your god is as good as mine.”

neo-paganism is incompatible with modern science.

Specific examples, please.

 

[KarenNC]

To go through the Catholic rituals without understanding why and believing in what the Church teaches (doctrine/dogma) would not make sense.

Agreed. I assure you that we are not going through rituals without understanding why we are doing any particular part of it. Naturally there are going to be folks who have a greater or lesser interest in the “whys and wherefores” of a particular action, just as there are in any religion. Not everyone in a Christian congregation is going to be interested in a detailed theological and historical explanation of why the priest elevates the host at a particular time in a particular way or uses this adverb instead of another, this color or symbol on his chasuble, why or how the altar guild uses a specific method of cleaning the paten rather than another, etc.

I guarantee you, in ADF at least, each part of the ritual structure has been carefully selected for a specific reason by someone and that someone is usually more than happy to talk to you at length about it .

I agree it wouldn’t make sense for you to go through an ADF ritual without understanding why you are doing so and accepting the common values of the group. I discovered I could no longer participate in the Eucharist precisely because I truly and fully understood what I was doing and why and what my participation indicated about a belief I no longer held to be valid (and, in retrospect, realized that I had not held an orthodox view of since at least the age of 10).

 

[Dawnpiper]

Um . No you don’t…Can you make lighting shoot out of your finger or thunder out of your …um you know what. ? the answer to that is no, because like your “gods” you have no power.at all

I wasn’t aware that those were requirements for divine power… must have missed where Jesus did those things. Perhaps it’s in the Apocrypha?

I would rephrase Edwin the Episcopalian’s question - do you really believe that you have an existence separate from the Divine?

 

[Dawnpiper]

No, not for all Neopagans. As I have said in an earlier post, there are many distinct religions that are grouped beneath the umbrella term of Neopaganism.

The concept of a single “neopagan religion” has been hammered home by the popular media and by shouting Christian “talking heads” seeking an easy target.

If it helps, RLG, think of it like this - the term “paganism” is roughly equivalent to the term “polytheism” - it mostly addresses a mode of religious thinking, rather than a religion per se.

You are a member of a church (Roman Catholic), within the religion of Christianity, that falls under the umbrella of monotheism. We are members of a church (ADF) within the religion of Druidry, that falls under the umbrella of paganism. It’s not an exact comparison, but it’s close enough.

Just as you do not expect that every aspect of Catholic doctrine applies to non-Catholic Christians, much less Jews and Muslims, so the teachings of ADF are meant to apply to the members of ADF - not necessarily to members of other Druid “denominations”, still less - if at all - to members of other pagan religions such as Asatruar (followers of the Norse Gods), Kemetics (worshippers of the Gods of ancient Egypt), and so on.