"Scholars have found that over 75% of rites and ceremonies practiced by the Roman Catholic church are of pagan origin..."

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It is not my intention to attack anyone. I do have some rather vigorous response to revmarty’s positions, though, and his manner.

I read that too…off topic in this thread.

Some protestants have the Bible at the center…are traditions.

This is a good question, but belongs on another thread.

Transubstantiation is a difficult concept to grasp. This is also a good question, and also belongs on another thread.

I have trouble with this myself, and have often thought it is a way to balance an otherwise overly male dominated religion. I don’t care for praying the rosary myself, and the veneration of Mary does not commend itself to me. I also agree with you that some people do seem to cross the line from veneration into worship. In some cultures, I think she has taken the place of the female goddess.

Perfect love casts out all fear!

Welcome to the forum Markway. I encourage you to take these questions and concerns you have expressed here, all good ones, and post them in the various fora most appropriate to the topics. I am sure if you have an open mind, you will learn a lot. You may not agree with it all, but you will find substantial dialogue.

About these words of Markway’s:​

1. How much of either system of belief and worship comes from Christ and how much from man? Maybe that’s the real issue. It’s pretty hard for me to visualize Jesus approaching any person or group and saying, “Well done good and faithful servant, you got it all right”. Can you?

And yours:

1. I cannot visualize that either. Everywhere in scripture it states that each of us will be judged individually, on the basis of our deeds, not as a group.

##…is the emphasis on the phrase “got it all right”; or, on the word “group”, or, on both ? my emphasis]

1 is a a big question - put very roughly, there are differences between:

• beliefs
• institutions
• rites

• and the two latter groups are further subdivided, into:
  things that are:

• of immediate divine institution
• instituted by the authority of the Church
• customary
  So no Catholic theologian is going to claim that everything in the CC is all directly God-given; that would be absurd. Parishes (for instance) were not instituted by Christ - they are a division of territory, adopted into the Church (with changes), from the administration of the Roman Empire. The diocesan division of the Church is from the same source. That does not make these things evil or anti-Christian.

OTOH, the CC does claim that certain institutions, such as the episcopate, belong to the very being of the Church: to be precise, the episcopate is held to be:

• Divinely instituted
• the subject matter of a dogma to that effect
• &: a feature of the Church’s government
  So distinctions are made - not everything stands on the same level.
• Some have been adopted only in one Catholic rite (clerical continence in the Roman Rite)
• Some are common to all (a Eucharistic Liturgy of some kind)
• Some are dogmas
• Some are customary practices (pilgrimages)
• Some are instituted by Christ (the Sacraments)
• & so on
  Catholicism is complex, it’s a great many things, it is not easy to understand, it is anything but surprising that people don’t know what to make of it. It’s like the Bible - one get along perfectly well knowing absolutely nothing of the order in which the kings descended from David reigned, or what myrrh is, or a thousand other things about it: it is given us for the sake of something far more important than these details: God’s Glory & our salvation.

That does not make seeking a deeper understanding of the Bible illegitimate - or of the Church. And the confusion tends to arise once one looks at the Church in some detail, because it is not obvious what the relation between the NT Church (which had no parishes) & that of today (which does) may be. So people often write off the Church once it is not easily recognisable as that of the NT. But that is to confuse development through growth, with corruption - an infant Church like that in Acts, does not need the degree of management that a Church of (say) a million people does.

Where there have been no widespread heresies, no means to deal with them are needed. No one is going to call an Ecumenical Council to deal with a heresy that has extended to several countries, when that heresy has not arisen & those countries will not even be evangelised for centuries to come.

 

[Markway]

To quote Zooey - piffle! pfui! pshaw!

Have you not read the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans (aka the Martyrdom of Polycarp) laddie? (St Polycarp having learned at the knee of St John the Apostle dont’cha know - the account was written one year after his martyrdom - in 156, as both John and Polycarp lived to be near centenarians).

Para 18.2 might be of particular interest. I’ll quote verbatim:

"18:2 And so we afterwards took up his [Polycarp’s] bones which are more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold, and laid them in a suitable place;

18:3 where the Lord will permit us to gather ourselves together, as we are able, in gladness and joy, and to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom for the commemoration of those that have already fought in the contest, and for the training and preparation of those that shall do so hereafter."

Sounds an awful lot like the Early Church source regarding extreme veneration paid to special saints (and relics made of their bones no less) that you’ve been so mysteriously unable to find until now, m’lad.

B’gad, m’lad thou arte confused! I’ve got no trouble a findin’ the veneration 'o the saints to be sure! What I have trouble with is finding a justifiication for praying to anyone other than God.

 

[Markway]

Gottle, you make some great points and I’ll think about them. You were cagey, but did you mean that the Catholic Church might make mistakes? Scary when you start THAT fox.

What I meant was that I doubt that very many people can really do what Christ wants esp, and when comittee rules it gets worse.
Church doctrine:any brand of Christian, Non Catholic, is probably full of error. And RC’s are probably no better.

 

[Unitas]

B’gad, m’lad thou arte confused! I’ve got no trouble a findin’ the veneration 'o the saints to be sure! What I have trouble with is finding a justifiication for praying to anyone other than God.

Saints are part of the living body of Christ the same as we are. They are even more fully united to that body than we are. When we pray to a saint it isn’t a request that they themselves answer our prayers of their own power, for they have none save God.

“I pray thee…” is a request, and the phrase can refer to other people.

We pray for their intercession to God on our behalf, that they will pray for us. You can pray for me and I can pray for you; asking a saint to pray for you is no different. Although they are no longer on this earth, they are more alive and united to the Father than we are. And the prayers of a righteous man availeth much, and the prayers of the saints rise up to God from the hands of angels like incense.

Quite powerful intercession, indeed.

 

[guanophore]

No I didnt say that everyone was a saint, that was someone else.

Although I did say that nobody is holier than anyone else, we are all equal. Maybe that was what the other person was trying to say.

Peter wasnt told no, but he wasnt told yes either. Although this isnt mention of Peter doing what he suggested.

Its not exactly a basis for revering other people as saints.

Wouldn’t you agree that passage does support the notion that the holy that pass on are not “dead” so that they cannot interact with holy living? Jesus says that “all are alive unto Him”, and that He is the God of the living, not the god of the dead".

 

[guanophore]

The Bible itself is clear that the prayer of a righteous person is powerful to God. Now, are the saints who are in heaven close to God? Since a righteous person who is here on Earth is already powerful with God, how much more then the saints in heaven who are perfectly united with Christ?

Indeed, there ARE some people who are holier than others! However, that is a topic for another thread…

 

[guanophore]

B’gad, m’lad thou arte confused! I’ve got no trouble a findin’ the veneration 'o the saints to be sure! What I have trouble with is finding a justifiication for praying to anyone other than God.

You are just not understanding how “prayer” is being used in this context. In the olden days, the word pray was used to mean to ask, inquire, or approach/entreat. It is no different than asking someone to pray with you. It is like talking to someone whose body is not present. It does not have the other trappings usually associated with the word “prayer”. It is only a request for intercession, nothing more.

 

[Zooey]

“I think that they should be respected/admired like other great people in history, but I wouldnt pray to them any more than I would pray to Robert E Lee, Thomas Clarkson or Leonidas from Sparta.”

Well, since the subject has been raised, I have, in point of fact, prayed to Lee. I actually prefer Jackson for a military kind of intervention myself, but there is nothing like a pair of Southern Gentlemen to plead a lady’s case in the court of Heaven.

 

[teachccd]

But see? Where’s Mary? Where’s praying to Saints? Where’s the Pope?Where was the use of ANY symbol including ALL crosses? Not to be found. This stuff seems to have either developed with time or to have been adopted for a variety of reasons, heck, a love of ceremony is probably genetic. My problem is that I don’t think that the Apostle Paul could receive communion in a Catholic Church based on the regulations. I can’t begin to imagine what they’d make of the Trinity Broadcast Network. Nothing good I’m sure. Did you know that all of the earliest pictures of Christ Jesus show Him clean-shaven? Painted by Greeks. Jews were not allowed to make images of people.

Where’s the written New Testament??

---

**You have one but Paul didn’t. **

 

[guanophore]

During this early period two groups were targeted; Greeks and Jews. Somehow, element of the church entered Egypt and became both the Coptic Church and the Christian flavor of the Gnostics.

I think that was St. Mark, who took “Peter’s Gospel” to Egypt.

Bottom line is that during the first hundred years or so no one used the cross as a religous symbol, about the only ritual that the early church had was communion.

I think you are missing about six sacraments here.

 But again little structure, little form, most of what they had were copies of letters and the gospels written in a very elaborate minuet of sharing info.

I think you are missing some critical information in your history of the early church. We can see from the Fathers that definite liturgy was in place, and that it was taken right out of the synagogue liturgy. In fact, you can still see this today, if you attend an orthodox synagogue service, and compare it to the Mass. All the first Christains were Jews, and they continued to attend synagogue on the Sabbath, then met for their own service “on the Lord’s Day” (Sunday).

But see? Where's Mary? Where's praying to Saints?

They were in heaven, offering our intercessions to God!

Where's the Pope?

In Rome, of course!

Where was the use of ANY symbol including ALL crosses? Not to be found. This stuff seems to have either developed with time or to have been adopted for a variety of reasons, heck, a love of ceremony is probably genetic.

That is why it is important to recognize that the liturgy and the sacraments were present from the beginning.

I think another poster may have responded to the cross issue. The cross was considered shameful and insulting. After Constantine de-crimminalized Christianity, the use of the cross became popular. I guess I don’t understand why this is a problem? What difference does it make if the early Christians used a fish, or a cross?

My problem is that I don’t think that the Apostle Paul could receive communion in a Catholic Church based on the regulations. I can’t begin to imagine what they’d make of the Trinity Broadcast Network. Nothing good I’m sure. Did you know that all of the earliest pictures of Christ Jesus show Him clean-shaven? Painted by Greeks. Jews were not allowed to make images of people.

I am not sure why you say this about Paul. Do you think he was in mortal sin? He was usually the presider in whatever service he attended, or an honored guest…

As far as TBN, Peter and Paul would have counseled everyone to listen to EwTN instead.

I did read a post responding to the images of Jesus. Another interesting study is the portraits of Mary, and Mary with the Divine Child. To the Easterners, she appears more probably like she was in life, being from the near East. But in Egypt and Africa, she is negroid.

 

[guanophore]

Am I the holiest person that I know?

Of course Im not, because we are all equal in that respect. So how could I be?

Perhaps all who are called (if they answer the call) have equal holiness it that we have all been set apart, or called out for special purpose (the Kingdom). But in terms of personal peity, there are VAST differences.

The people who are called saints should be admired for their dedication and used as an example for how we should live, but they are not holier than any other person. But I already said that:

“I think that they should be respected/admired like other great people in history, but I wouldnt pray to them any more than I would pray to Robert E Lee, Thomas Clarkson or Leonidas from Sparta.”

Well, what type of admiration would you consider appropriate? I admire my grandmother, and have a picture of her. I don’t worship her…

Those other people in history, unless they have died in Christ, are not necessarily where He is. If they are joined with Him, then they are even closer to heaven than we are (since we are behind the veil of the flesh). Some people have more grace active in their lives than others, but perhaps that is a topic for another thread.

Thomas Clarkson was definatly an example of how to live, should we pray to him and call him a saint? No, we should admire him but not claim that he is holier than anyone else.

Praying to others is not praying to God, their prayers are no more powerful than yours or mine.

Whenever two believers join together for intercession, it IS praying to God. It does not matter whether they are on this side of the veil or not. There is only ONE BODY and we are all members of it.

 

[guanophore]

No I didnt say that everyone was a saint, that was someone else.

Although I did say that nobody is holier than anyone else, we are all equal. Maybe that was what the other person was trying to say.

We may all be equal in the opportunity to become saved, but we are not equal in personal piety. Some people have powerful gifts and graces, and some are so close to the fires of hell that their garments may have the odor of smoke on them. There are reasons that prayers are hindered, and the person who removes more hindrances will have more effective prayers.

 

[Markway]

Man I cannot believe that anyone can claim that all of the sacraments and liturgy were there at the beginning, or that all of the early Christians were Hebrews! Heck, most of them were Greeks and what-nots!

The Sacraments were practiced,sure, perhaps not in whole, and certainly not codified in the early church era. The liturgy, well… hey, this stuff shows obvious signs of evolvement. Just read the old book of prayer’s explanation of a priest’s clothing for crying out loud, it’s all like that, every move and gesture and word.

I say and still maintain that you would not allow St. Paul to take communion with you because he could not pass Catholic requirements of belief.
I swear, The Catholic Church is beginning to remind me of Apple Computer. If they hadn’t insisted on proprietary everything we’d all be using Macs insted of PC’s.

When I mentioned Mary and the Saints, I was obviously asking where was the practice of praying to Mary and the Saints during the early church period? The most truly troubling element of the Catholic Church today is the direction in which the veneration of Mary is moving; “co redemptioness?” Scripture is very clear, we have one redeemer, and one intercessionary.( Neither a saint nor Mary in case you didn’t get it.)

Whoever offered up the bit about considering Mary and the saints as prayer warriors, (my words), was helpful, but, isn’t it a slippery slope as a practice, and doesn’t the bible categorically limit us to just the one intercessor?

 

[NotWorthy]

Mark, are you saying that there was no
a) praying for the souls of the dead?
or
b) asking those saints that had passed on before you to pray for you?

Also, can you show us where the first writings were that condemned these practices? You’ve seen how slow the Church is to changing, how reluctant She is to change. It seems if at some point this practice were invented, then one of those codgity old traditionalist would have said, “Hey, who started this schtick”?

 

[NotWorthy]

Mark, among the early Church leaders, nearly all of them were among the Jewish Converts. It took a little while before the Gentile converts assumed any significant type of leadership rule.

With that being said, you are partially correct on the Sacraments. Confession, for example, may have changed through the ages, but it was there from the beginning. The Church at one point realized that private confession was less troublesome than public.

I mean, what if Mr. Darius was ready to confess of his relationship with Mrs. Dion, but Mrs. Diion was ready? Can you imagine the uproar?

 

[LilyM]

Mark, among the early Church leaders, nearly all of them were among the Jewish Converts. It took a little while before the Gentile converts assumed any significant type of leadership rule.

With that being said, you are partially correct on the Sacraments. Confession, for example, may have changed through the ages, but it was there from the beginning. The Church at one point realized that private confession was less troublesome than public.

I mean, what if Mr. Darius was ready to confess of his relationship with Mrs. Dion, but Mrs. Diion was ready? Can you imagine the uproar?

You mean if Mrs Dion was UNready? And what if Mr Dion and Mrs Darius happened to be among the congregation too!

 

[guanophore]

Man I cannot believe that anyone can claim that all of the sacraments and liturgy were there at the beginning,

Why not? You can read in the NT that Jesus and His Apostles attended the synagogue and temple. Do you not think there were liturgies?

or that all of the early Christians were Hebrews! Heck, most of them were Greeks and what-nots!

There were years that passed before Peter was sent to the house of Cornelius, the first Gentile convert. Peter was surprised, because at the time, he did not fully understand that Gentiles were also to be converted. If you read Acts, you can see that Paul, after he was converted, went on pilgrimmage for three years before he began preaching.

Which if the Apostles and disciples that followed Christ did you think was a Greek? Maybe Luke, but he did not convert until he ran into Paul on a Missionary journey.

The Sacraments were practiced,sure, perhaps not in whole, and certainly not codified in the early church era.

It is true that the forms of the liturgy have changed, but even in the NT we can see the foundation of them. Already there was the laying on of hands (holy orders), eucharist, baptism, confirmation, annointing of the sick, sacrament of reconciliation, and marriage.

The liturgy, well… hey, this stuff shows obvious signs of evolvement. Just read the old book of prayer’s explanation of a priest’s clothing for crying out loud, it’s all like that, every move and gesture and word.

Liturgy does evolve. Sometimes for the worse!

I say and still maintain that you would not allow St. Paul to take communion with you because he could not pass Catholic requirements of belief.

I don’t understand why you say this.

I swear, The Catholic Church is beginning to remind me of Apple Computer. If they hadn’t insisted on proprietary everything we’d all be using Macs insted of PC’s.

In this context, that is quite a compliment. It is better to have a small remnant of purity than a whole planet of lukewarmness, or error.

When I mentioned Mary and the Saints, I was obviously asking where was the practice of praying to Mary and the Saints during the early church period?

Since most of the saints and Apostles were alive when the NT was written, it states that they just gathered in someones house to pray together.

When the martyring began, that is when the believers asked those who had passed to pray for them.

The most truly troubling element of the Catholic Church today is the direction in which the veneration of Mary is moving; “co redemptioness?” Scripture is very clear, we have one redeemer, and one intercessionary.( Neither a saint nor Mary in case you didn’t get it.)

Yes, only one, who is Christ. However, He chooses to share that divine ministry of reconciliation with his chosen. Mary has a unique role in His redeeming work, having brought Him forth into the world. Mary can do nothing apart from Christ, just as none of us can.

Whoever offered up the bit about considering Mary and the saints as prayer warriors, (my words), was helpful, but, isn’t it a slippery slope as a practice, and doesn’t the bible categorically limit us to just the one intercessor?

 

[MarysRoses]

its these types of things which really trip me up. Is there any good refutation agaisnt these so called pagan saviors before christ

Well, its history, so it can’t really be refuted, there are religious groups with themes similar to Christianity. I think the point is that there are many similarities between religions. Just because a religion uses a circle, or a cross, or even because one of their figures dies a terrible death, does NOT mean the religions borrowed from one another or copied from one another. Themes of birth and death, sacrifice and redemption are very common. Geometric shapes of circles, triangles, crosses are also very common. The sun, moon, stars, earth are given various meanings.

To ‘prove’ that something in Catholicism is pagan, there has to be more than a vague similarity of form. Catholicism is often accused of sun worship, because sun worship is common in paganism and we use sun imagery to represent Jesus. The monstrance used at adoration is an example of this. Does that mean we are thinly disguised pagan sun worshipers? No, the BIBLE uses the sun as a symbol for Jesus. The similarity is there, but the link is not. Referring to Jesus as the “Sun” is biblical, not pagan.

12When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” John 8:12

2There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Matthew 17:2

2 But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings. And you will go out and leap like calves released from the stall. Malachi 4:2

MarysRoses

 

[mercygate]

Man I cannot believe that anyone can claim that all of the sacraments and liturgy were there at the beginning, or that all of the early Christians were Hebrews! Heck, most of them were Greeks and what-nots!

The Sacraments were practiced,sure, perhaps not in whole, and certainly not codified in the early church era. The liturgy, well… hey, this stuff shows obvious signs of evolvement. Just read the old book of prayer’s explanation of a priest’s clothing for crying out loud, it’s all like that, every move and gesture and word.

I say and still maintain that you would not allow St. Paul to take communion with you because he could not pass Catholic requirements of belief.
I swear, The Catholic Church is beginning to remind me of Apple Computer. If they hadn’t insisted on proprietary everything we’d all be using Macs insted of PC’s.

When I mentioned Mary and the Saints, I was obviously asking where was the practice of praying to Mary and the Saints during the early church period? The most truly troubling element of the Catholic Church today is the direction in which the veneration of Mary is moving; “co redemptioness?” Scripture is very clear, we have one redeemer, and one intercessionary.( Neither a saint nor Mary in case you didn’t get it.)

Whoever offered up the bit about considering Mary and the saints as prayer warriors, (my words), was helpful, but, isn’t it a slippery slope as a practice, and doesn’t the bible categorically limit us to just the one intercessor?

Post 172 on this thread, Markway?

Also: John Henry Newman *An Essay on the Development of Doctrine. *

“Co-redemptioness?” I can understand asking a question, but you mention it with a somewhat snide nuance, as if you think you are actually asking the right question. May we might suggest that you re-frame your question? For example, like this: I have heard that the Church is considering naming Mary “co-redemptioness”. Since Christ is our Redeemer, how can this be?

The term is not “co-redemptioness.” And there are several threads on the topic. When explained clearly, this is not nearly as odd as it sounds at first blush.

 

[NotWorthy]

You mean if Mrs Dion was UNready? And what if Mr Dion and Mrs Darius happened to be among the congregation too!

Ow! That’s exactly what I meant. I need to quit jumping online for 5 minutes and rushing off.

Thanks, Lily!