Paganism and Catholic Ritual/Traditons.....Similar?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steel_Arrow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The point is that christianity has used incense from it’s inception. This is plain from the liturgy I posted.

Sub
Sub:

There seems to be this supposition by many Protestants and others that Jesus began everything anew. That poof, He invented a whole new tradition on the spot and that the only valid Scripture is the NT.

So to those who maintain that supposition: Whatever Jesus did not abrogate or amend in the OT is still part of Christian canon.

Thus, we inherit a lot of tradition that is good from our Judaic origins. The proper liturgic use of incense being only one of them.
 
Sub:

There seems to be this supposition by many Protestants and others that Jesus began everything anew. That poof, He invented a whole new tradition on the spot and that the only valid Scripture is the NT.

So to those who maintain that supposition: Whatever Jesus did not abrogate or amend in the OT is still part of Christian canon.

Thus, we inherit a lot of tradition that is good from our Judaic origins. The proper liturgic use of incense being only one of them.
True, so true. The law was never abolished, just amended to Christ. The point is that the law is only worthwhile if followed in sincerty, not just to obey.

Sub
 
Thank you for the information. My understanding of Revelation is not only of things to come, but it is also a very symbolic book. The use of incense again is used in a spiritual realm…Heaven. I see Rev. 8:3-5 as this; an angel stood at the altar before God. He was give incense as an offering before God. The prayers of the saints are the prayers of Christians, not canonized Catholic saints. The smoke and prayers were co-mingled and rose before God. Then the censer became a receptacle for Holy Fire to be flung from Heaven to the earth, causing much noise throughout the earth.

The word saint was used throughout the OT and in the NT. Refer to Psalm 16:3. I respect your interpretation. I see it tough in a different light.
Somemore on the subject of Revelation.

Here is a link to an audio series by Evangelist turned Catholic Scott Hahn, along with Mike Aquilina, another convert.

It tells of the struggle Scott had with Revelation and his discoveries when one day attending a mass. Insightful…

The Lamb’s Supper: The Mass and the Apocalypse

Sub
 
Y’know something? It is a really nice day. It’s the first day of summer and I’m gonna get away from the computer and go for a bike ride to enjoy God’s creation.

I’ll be back…love you guys! 🙂
Sub
 
Yup. They gave as good as they got.

Sub
Actually better. One can’t fault them for thoroughness of implementation. The means and ends, however, are another matter entirely.

As an aside to thsoe who do not know:

The Inquisition (Spanish or otherwise) was brought about because secular rulers (kings) would charge dissidents with heresy and execute them.

The Church asserted – rightly – that only it had the authority to determine heresy. The numbers, methodology and Church’s role in the Inquisition has been grossly misrepresented in Western (Protestant-based) history.

Protestant-based Inquisitions had no authority, scriptural or otherwise, to undertake such endeavors.
 
Yup. They gave as good as they got.

Sub
No, they didn’t. There are all sorts of reasons for this that don’t necessarily imply any moral superiority in the Reformers, but in fact far fewer people were executed for religious reasons by Protestants than by Catholics. Restrict the comparison to people killed officially for heresy, and the numbers go down much farther. Restrict them to Catholics executed by Protestants vs. Protestants executed by Catholics (implied in your statement aobut them “giving as good as they got”), and they gow a
 
No, they didn’t. There are all sorts of reasons for this that don’t necessarily imply any moral superiority in the Reformers, but in fact far fewer people were executed for religious reasons by Protestants than by Catholics. Restrict the comparison to people killed officially for heresy, and the numbers go down much farther. Restrict them to Catholics executed by Protestants vs. Protestants executed by Catholics (implied in your statement aobut them “giving as good as they got”), and they gow a
The view is not supported by historical fact. Protestantism did not exist in Spain at the time of the Inquisition. Though, had there been such, they would have held to tribunal. Those that could be saved would be given every opportunity to rejoin the kata holos church.

The Protestant Inquisition was primarily directed against Catholics and “witches.” So the assertion made is incorrect, as the primary aim of Protestant Inquisitions was the elimination of the Catholic Church and those deemed “witches.”
 
Sorry for the incomplete message. My seven-month-old daughter hit the keyboard and sent the message prematurely, and then I needed to do some other things, with the result that 20 minutes elapsed before I finished the message.

Here is what I was going to say:

restrict the numbers to Catholics killed by Protestants vs. Protestants killed by Catholics, and they go down even more. Restrict them to Catholics specifically executed as heretics, and they go down do zero (as far as I am aware). Protestants did not execute Catholics as heretics. In England they executed them as traitors for reasons that were clearly religious (attending Mass, celebrating Mass). I believe that in Scotland a couple of Catholics may have been executed for blasphemy. On the Continent Catholics were killed in battles and mob violence (even with regard to mob violence, though, I don’t think it’s true that Protestants gave as good as they got–their violence was primarily directed toward Catholic symbols rather than toward people, though they certainly did kill people). But they were not executed as heretics. This is arguably a pro-Catholic argument–Protestants could see how ridiculous it was to describe something as “heresy” that everyone had believed until recently. But it also reflects the fact that Protestants tended to execute people for other religion-related charges rather than heresy.

Now to quantumDeus’s response to me:
The view is not supported by historical fact.
Sorry, but it is. The statistics are hard to compile with certainty, I admit. But for a starting point I refer you to Brad Gregory’s *Salvation at Stake *as the best survey (Gregory is a Catholic, for whatever that’s worth to you).
Protestantism did not exist in Spain at the time of the Inquisition.
That is false. Protestantism indeed did not exist in Spain (or anywhere else) when the Spanish Inquisition was first established. It came along some decades later, and the relatively small numbers of Protestants who popped up in Spain were indeed dealt with by the Inquisition (one reason why their numbers stayed small!).

I can’t for the life of me see how this is relevant. When did I or anyone else mention the Spanish Inquisition? That was only one of the Inquisitions, and the church’s official Inquisitions were only one of the ways in which Catholics persecuted heretics (local bishops, and more to the point Catholic governments, did a lot of the persecuting).
Though, had there been such, they would have held to tribunal. Those that could be saved would be given every opportunity to rejoin the kata holos church.
Again, how is this relevant? No one is claiming that the Church didn’t want heretics to repent and rejoin the Church.
The Protestant Inquisition was primarily directed against Catholics and “witches.” So the assertion made is incorrect, as the primary aim of Protestant Inquisitions was the elimination of the Catholic Church and those deemed “witches.”
First of all, there never was such a thing as the Protestant Inquisition. The Inquisition was a Church court using Roman law to investigate and punish heresy. Inquisition should not be used as a blanket synonym for religious persecution. For one thing, it’s very unfair to the Inquisitors, who were not responsible for the often more brutal (if less pure-minded and thus arguably less relentless) persecutions launched by civil authorities. For another, it gives the Protestant churches too much credit–they never had the kind of autonomous authority that would have enabled them to establish an Inquisition, although the Calvinists came closest.

In the second place, Protestant governments did a lot more persecuting of radicals than of Catholics. They shut down the public functions of the Catholic Church (when they could), often forcing Catholics into exile. But there simply aren’t a lot of cases (outside the special circumstances of England) where Catholics were tried and punished judicially for practicing their faith, much less executed. You are wrong here.

With regard to witches–sure, many Protestant countries, like many Catholic countries, executed people as witches. The main advantage of the Catholics was that where the Inquisition operated the prosecution of witches was much more rational, which meant that very few people were ever executed. In areas where the prosecution was left up to the civil authorities, or even to local bishops’ tribunals, things were much worse. And of course this was the case in Protestant countries. The worst of the bloodshed took place along the Rhine valley, an area where there were both Protestant and Catholic governments–and historians have not found a difference between Protestants and Catholics.

Edwin
 
An interesting post, Karen. One little quibble, the Indo-“European language group” is not generally accepted by modern sociolinguists.
Could you cite some sources for this? It would be pretty hard to overturn the abundant evidence showing linguistic relationships among the Indo-European languages. In my experience, what has come under fire is the idea that this undisputed linguistic fact has some kind of relevance for the study of society, culture, religion, etc. In other words, people are less likely to talk about “Indo-Europeans,” but they still speak about Indo-European languages. However, you’re right that the whole discipline of Indo-European linguistics has fallen under suspicion because of its historic links with racism.

Edwin
 
Doh! :banghead:

You’re right. I think Wycliffe, actually.

I remember reading something, somewhere that had a letter by Calvin that showed his dismay about it.
Wycliffe wasn’t burned alive either (his body was burned after he died). Are you thinking of Tyndale?

Anyway, I’m sure Calvin would milk the execution of his fellow-Protestants for all it was worth, but he had no objection to the execution of heretics in principle. He just didn’t think Protestants were heretics. (As far as I can see, he only approved of the execution of non-Trinitarians as heretics.)

Edwin
 
Wycliffe wasn’t burned alive either (his body was burned after he died). Are you thinking of Tyndale?

Anyway, I’m sure Calvin would milk the execution of his fellow-Protestants for all it was worth, but he had no objection to the execution of heretics in principle. He just didn’t think Protestants were heretics. (As far as I can see, he only approved of the execution of non-Trinitarians as heretics.)

Edwin
Ok, I don’t know what I’m talking about! 🤷

I know I read something somewhere about it, tho.

Thanks, Ed.

Sub
 
Sub:

There seems to be this supposition by many Protestants and others that Jesus began everything anew. That poof, He invented a whole new tradition on the spot and that the only valid Scripture is the NT.

So to those who maintain that supposition: Whatever Jesus did not abrogate or amend in the OT is still part of Christian canon.

Thus, we inherit a lot of tradition that is good from our Judaic origins. The proper liturgic use of incense being only one of them.
Y’know something? It just hit me that if Jesus ended the old law, then we shouldn’t be arguing over the use of images. Why? Because the old law is ended, of course! It’s OK to use images now! 👍

Sub
 
Y’know something? It just hit me that if Jesus ended the old law, then we shouldn’t be arguing over the use of images. Why? Because the old law is ended, of course! It’s OK to use images now! 👍

Sub
:extrahappy: :extrahappy: :extrahappy:
 
Yes, the date and feast are from passover, but the word is pagan.

“Ishtar”, which is pronounced “Easter” was a day that commemorated the resurrection of one of the pagan gods that was called “Tammuz”, who was believed to be the only begotten son of the moon-goddess and the sun-god.
Could you provide some citations showing that that particular mythology is where the name of the feast originated? That is contrary to what I have understood about it.

see etymonline.com/index.php?search=easter&searchmode=none
Easter
O.E. Eastre (Northumbrian Eostre), from P.Gmc. *Austron, a goddess of fertility and sunrise whose feast was celebrated at the spring equinox, from *austra-, from PIE *aus- “to shine” (especially of the dawn). Bede says Anglo-Saxon Christians adopted her name and many of the celebratory practices for their Mass of Christ’s resurrection. Ultimately related to east. Almost all neighboring languages use a variant of L. Pasche to name this holiday. Easter Island so called because it was discovered by Europeans on Easter Sunday, 1722.
 
With regard to witches–sure, many Protestant countries, like many Catholic countries, executed people as witches. The main advantage of the Catholics was that where the Inquisition operated the prosecution of witches was much more rational, which meant that very few people were ever executed. In areas where the prosecution was left up to the civil authorities, or even to local bishops’ tribunals, things were much worse. And of course this was the case in Protestant countries. The worst of the bloodshed took place along the Rhine valley, an area where there were both Protestant and Catholic governments–and historians have not found a difference between Protestants and Catholics.
A very interesting look at the European witch hunts can be found at chass.colostate-pueblo.edu/natrel/pom/old/POM5a1.html, a look at more recent evidence turned up by historians (at least up through 1998, when the article was written). It essentially lays out who was killed, when, by whom and why. Great site to share with anyone who wants to trot out the Burning Times mythos (which is in itself an example of the self-referential material I mentioned earlier perpetuating outdated scholarship). Written by a Neopagan who has a masters in medieval history and a minor in the history of the European witch hunts, and basically turns all the stereotypes of who was killed and why on their heads.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top