The Catholic Origins of Halloween

Gloria Romanorum ^ | October 25, 3017 | Florentius

[Antoninus]

It matter little if it's Halloween or All Saints Day. They are both non-biblical inventions of men.

The Bible, as you read it, was compiled by the same men whom you condemn for having created All Saints Day. Think about that.

[Antoninus]

1 Cor 9:27: "But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified."

"We'll just pretend Saint Paul didn't say that, mmmkay?"

[Antoninus]

The Reformation enlarged that class.

Did it? Or did it divide the Church into tens-of-thousands of bickering sects, all with their own personal interpretations of Sacred Scripture, in defiance of Christ's plea that "all may be one" [John 17:21].

[Antoninus]

The Reformation was an attempt to bring it back to NT Christianity.

Sure it was. Just like post-Vatican II was said to be an attempt to bring the Mass back to NT times--which it wasn't, really. It's funny how what we got in both cases was a disastrous mess and the scandal of Christians doing battle with each other and millions falling away from the Faith.

Once again, you are depending upon Sacred Scripture which was made into a canon by the very men you accuse of allowing error to creep into the Church. How do you know that those Church Fathers of late antiquity didn't allow error to creep into Sacred Scripture as well? Or do you simply trust them on Scripture, but not on anything else? The argument defies logic.

[ealgeone]

Once again, you are depending upon Sacred Scripture which was made into a canon by the very men you accuse of allowing error to creep into the Church.

Nope. Rome didn't formally declare its canon until Trent.

How do you know that those Church Fathers of late antiquity didn't allow error to creep into Sacred Scripture as well?

There was error in their writings. That's why the early church did not incorporate them into the canon.

Or do you simply trust them on Scripture, but not on anything else? The argument defies logic.

Their writings are compared and evaluated against Scripture. If it's correct then the ECF was correct; but if it contradicts Scripture the ECF is wrong.

However, for the RC "Tradition" has been elevated to Scripture. Further, the lay Roman Catholic really cannot determine what is or is not accurate. Only the priests can do that. Which leaves the RC in a bit of a quandary in light of what is happening now with your current pope.

The lay Roman Catholic really has no say in whether Francis is right or wrong. It's what happens when you concentrate that much power into a fallible man.

[wardaddy]

Who cares.

[Antoninus]

Who cares.

You obviously care enough to post "who cares." If you truly didn't care, you wouldn't even bother posting.

[DouglasKC]

It's endlessly amusing to hear someone trash the "bastardized Christianity" of late antiquity when that person's own version of Christianity (2,000 years after the fact) is based entirely upon a muddled understanding of the canon of Sacred Scripture generated during that period of so-called "bastardization."

I'm glad you're amused. But perhaps you should consider why God listed specific holy days for his followers to keep and then examine history to see where and why these biblical practices commanded by God were changed.

[DouglasKC]

The Bible, as you read it, was compiled by the same men whom you condemn for having created All Saints Day. Think about that.

I don't think that's how it happened. I think Christianity was well developed and there were already books being used as scripture that the Christian community recognize as sacred and truthful. Notice this:

2Pe 3:15  and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 
2Pe 3:16  as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. 

Notice that Peter lumps in Paul's letters as "scripture". After Rome saw that it would be profitable to create and use a bastardized version of Christianity they simply put their stamp of "approval" on the texts that were already being used.

[Elsie]

Looks like the flames were added post processing

[Elsie]

Oh ?

have you not read the first three chapters of revelation ?

[daniel1212]

Did it? Or did it divide the Church into tens-of-thousands of bickering sects, all with their own personal interpretations of Sacred Scripture, in defiance of Christ's plea that "all may be one" [John 17:21].

No, it did not since those who most strongly esteem Scripture testify to being far more unified in polled core beliefs and values than overall those whom Rome counts as members in life and in death. Thus evangelicals have been religious enemy #1 for liberals and Catholic alike in the West.

You do have your Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian sodomite Episcopalian big tent Protestantism, but that is not the result of sola scriptura with its accompanying hermeneutics. And while we "Bible Christians" (as "Catholic Answers" calls us) sadly disagree have on certain points of doctrine, partly due to commitment to Truth and partly ignorance, yet in Catholicism you have the same. That of unity in many core beliefs yet conflicting interpretations of what valid church teaching is and means, with an unholy amalgamation of Teddy K Catholic liberals and conservatives, all of whom (well, some conservatives are excommed) are manifestly considered to be members by Rome. Which treatment shows/teaches how the church understands her own laws.

But if you want to define unity as based upon what leadership professes, rather than what it does and fosters (which is how faith is determined in Scripture) then consider that, as one poster wryly remarked,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html

SS evangelicals - a movement which arose due to shared doctrinal assent - have historically evidenced a profound unity is basic truths across denominational lines, which is seen in many ministries which employ members from various denominations, from radio stations to overseas evangelical missions. One can work for Sammartians Purse as a Baptist alongside a Pentecostal.

And just what is the unity of John 17:21most essentially? Not that of organizational unity and or perfunctory professions (which is mainly what I saw as a weekly Mass-going RC, ans sometime lector and CCD teacher), but "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." (John 17:21)

That is only a unity resulting from manifest regeneration, with its "fellowship of the Spirit." We who have experienced the birth from above with its profound basic changes in heart and life (which I did as a RC and remained therein for 6 years looking for fellowship while seeking to serve God) find an instant bond with others who have likewise been converted by the Word of Truth. And which I found very rare as a Catholic (the typically scorned charismatic Catholics mainly provided what little there was). At the same time we can easily disagree, mostly (outsider of ignorance) because we take doctrine seriously.

Likewise the strongest unity among RCs is among traditionalists, but who also have the strongest disagreements,. because they take doctrine seriously.

Both they are we ascertain the veracity of what is taught by examination of historical church teaching, but for them it is selectively the so-called "church fathers" and premodern popes and councils, while for us it must be the only wholly inspired-of-God and substantive record of what the New Testament church believed. Yet I do hold that the ideal should include a central magisterium of Biblically qualified men - unlike that of Rome - to deal with unresolved conflicts.

In summation, both evangelicals and traditional ("true") RCs ascertain the veracity of what is taught by subjecting it to their judgment of whether it conforms to historical church teaching, though they primary sources differ, and both have core unity as well disagreeing with others in the same camp as well as those without, with the scope of which being a matter of degrees.

But if unity itself is the goal, then requiring and enforcing implicit assent to leadership - which paradoxically is what so much historical Catholic teaching requires overall (not just to "infallible" teaching) - is the best means of unity, and thus cults have the most unity.

But this is not the Scriptural NT means of it, and is not how the church began. See this recent post on this subject for more, by the grace of God.

And if you think evangelicals should leave their conservative fellowships and become brethren with your liberal amalgamation and your distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed , then I feel sorry for you.

[daniel1212]

I notice that you don't make that case, either. Because you can't. The best you can do is retreat to old arguments that the Church adopted pagan practices and Christianized them. No doubt, that was done in some cases--but not in this one. And that is the point of the article.

Actually, you cannot make the case that the Church did not adopted pagan practices and Christianized them, and despite the testimony to them doing so, we are expected to believe that "All Saints Day" was not one of them, which you have not proved.

[daniel1212]

It's endlessly amusing to hear someone trash the "bastardized Christianity" of late antiquity when that person's own version of Christianity (2,000 years after the fact) is based entirely upon a muddled understanding of the canon of Sacred Scripture generated during that period of so-called "bastardization." Good grief.

What kind of ignorance and absurd reasoning is that? Bad grief. Do you really want to argue that that being the real or sppsd discerners, preservers and stewards of Sacred Writings means that such are the only reliable or even infallible means of knowing what these writings are and mean? For that premise must be behind your argument.

And do you actually think that agreeing with the judgement of a entity one some things means you necessarily must agree with all its other judgements?

And as for a muddled understanding of the canon of Sacred Scripture, do you actually think that scholarly Catholic disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books did not continue down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon - after the death of Luther? And that the weight of evidence does not point to the the 39 book Prot canon corresponding to the most ancient authoritative canon?

If so, then there is another recent thread you need to study rather than parroting RC propaganda.

Finally, as for my version of "bastardized Christianity," the reality once again is that that label belongs to Rome above all, whose distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation. and which best shows how the NT church understood the OT and gospels).

[Antoninus]

I don't think that's how it happened. I think Christianity was well developed and there were already books being used as scripture that the Christian community recognize as sacred and truthful.

I see. So your faith is bound up in a belief that the canon of Sacred Scripture already existed during Apostolic times, despite the fact that some of the books contained therein weren't written until near the end of that period. That makes no sense.

Consider that when Peter wrote the lines above, the Apocalypse of St. John had not been written, nor, probably, the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles. Pretty clearly, St. Peter is referring to the Septuagint--the Hebrew Scripture which had been opened to the Early Church by the teachings of Jesus.

[Antoninus]

Do you really want to argue that that being the real or sppsd discerners, preservers and stewards of Sacred Writings means that such are the only reliable or even infallible means of knowing what these writings are and mean?

Not at all. But I would posit that they are much more reliable guides than a bunch of politically-motivated rebels writing 1,500 years after the fact, or internet scribblers putting down their own personal opinions 2,000 years after the fact.

[DouglasKC]

I see. So your faith is bound up in a belief that the canon of Sacred Scripture already existed during Apostolic times, despite the fact that some of the books contained therein weren't written until near the end of that period. That makes no sense.

No, my faith is tied up in a belief that the Christian community was guided by God. The Catholic church had still not "canonized" scripture until well after 325 AD...more than 300 years after the death of Christ. My quoting Peter's reference to Paul's writings as "scripture" makes it clear that even back then God was in process of completing the new testament scriptures. By the time Catholicism got around to recognizing God's work the canon was already well established.

Consider that when Peter wrote the lines above, the Apocalypse of St. John had not been written, nor, probably, the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles. Pretty clearly, St. Peter is referring to the Septuagint--the Hebrew Scripture which had been opened to the Early Church by the teachings of Jesus.

Peter is referring to the Septuagint but again he compares Paul's writing to these scriptures and calls Paul's writings scripture as well. In other words God guided the Christian community long before Rome came to the party.

[daniel1212]

Do you really want to argue that that being the real or sppsd discerners, preservers and stewards of Sacred Writings means that such are the only reliable or even infallible means of knowing what these writings are and mean?

Not at all.

Well you essentially did argue that, but if not, then so much for the argument of sure RC authority, based upon the premise of ensured magisterial veracity, and which church teaches that faith in her, who must tell us, is necessary to know the contents of Scripture. Contrary to history.

But I would posit that they are much more reliable guides than a bunch of politically-motivated rebels writing 1,500 years after the fact, or internet scribblers putting down their own personal opinions 2,000 years after the fact. Christianity" Christianity"

Politically-motivated? If that was the reason and invalidates judgment then you simply have no RC papacy as it came to be, and hence no Trent. Lets take your "saint" pope Damasus 1 for one is reported to have begun his reign by employing a gang of thugs in seeking to secure his chair, which carried out a three-day massacre of his rivals supporters. Yet true to form, Rome made him a "saint."

• Upon Pope Liberius's death September 24 A.D. 366, violent disorders broke out over the choice of a successor. A group who had remained consistently loyal to Liberius immediately elected his deacon Ursinus in the Julian basilica and had him consecrated Bishop, but the rival faction of Felix's adherence elected Damasus, who did not hesitate to consolidate his claim by hiring a gang of thugs, storming the Julian Basilica in carrying out a three-day massacre of the Ursinians.

On Sunday, October 1 his partisans seized the Lateran Basilica, and he was there consecrated. He then sought the help of the city prefect (the first occasion of a Pope in enlisting the civil power against his adversaries), and he promptly expelled Ursinus and his followers from Rome. Mob violence continued until October 26, when Damasus's men attacked the Liberian Basilica, where the Ursinians had sought refuge; the pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus reports that they left 137 dead on the field. Damasus was now secure on his throne; but the bishops of Italy were shocked by the reports they received, and his moral authority was weakened for several years....

Damasus was indefatigable in promoting the Roman primacy, frequently referring to Rome as 'the apostolic see' and ruling that the test of a creed's orthodoxy was its endorsement by the Pope.... This [false claim to] succession gave him a unique [presumptuous claim to] judicial power to bind and loose, and the assurance of this infused all his rulings on church discipline. — Kelly, J. N. D. (1989). The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. USA: Oxford University Press. pp. 32 ,34; (More on this from "The First Pontiff: Pope Damasus I and the Expansion of the Roman Primacy" , pp. 15,33-34)

However, Luther did not intend to provide an set canon, and what did became quite quickly established was not the result of some "infallible" conciliar decree, but as with the writings that came to be established as authoritative by the time of Christ (who invoked "all the Scriptures" - Lk. 24:27) it was and is essentially due to to their unique enduring heavenly qualities and attestation, such as Ps. 119 describes in part.

Instead of your dismissal of those who wanted a faith which was consistent with what the NT church of Scripture, your scorn has no more weight than that of those who sat in the seat of Moses but who dismissed the common people who followed an itinerant Preacher and His itinerant preachers.

Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:47-49)

Bad company.

[daniel1212]

Your contention seems to be that protestants, using the canon of Sacred Scripture developed by the early Church, have figured out that those who developed said canon actually worshiped God incorrectly. That argument is ludicrous on its face.

What?! That argument is what is ludicrous on its face. Just who were the valid authorities on what constituted Scripture in the time of Christ (and who are seen in scholarly research as holding to the smaller OT canon, which even Catholic sources affirm corresponds to the Prot. one), who affirmed they sat in the seat of Moses and enjoined conditional (as with toward civil authorities) obedience? (Mt. 23:2) Yet they did worship God incorrectly, even failing to recognize Him in their midst, contrary to common people who "heard Him gladly." (Mark 12:37)

Yet the church actually began in dissent from those who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved from Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

In contrast, based upon your "submit to the magisterial authority over Scripture" model, then first c/ souls should have submitted to those who sat in the seat of Moses. Meaning then that you have effectively nuked the NT church.

. But while we're here, let's look at what some of the early Church Fathers -- you know, the fellows who actually assembled the canon of Sacred Scripture -- thought about the saints in heaven.

Once again that is ludicrous! You actually want to make the uninspired words of a few men determinitive of what believers in the Bible believed, rather than the only wholly inspired-of-God and substantive record of what they did, and the New Testament church believed?

Are you serious?!

But faced with the utter absence of even one prayer by even one believer addressed to even one other being in Heaven but the Lord, let alone them having the power to hear all such, then we can understand this desperate and absurd appeal. Give it up, as you never should have tried to defend it.

[daniel1212]

HA! Some "reality". You don't even have the Scriptures except through the Catholic Church's authority.

HA! Another one who essentially nukes the NT by arguing that the magisterial discerners stewards and authorities on Holy Writ are to be submitted to in all their judgments! You would have no OT except for the Jews, and guess who the authority for them was in the time of Christ? Guess whose canon even Catholic as well as weight secular sources say corresponds to what they evidently held to? See #79 above.

You literally have to rely on our word for it *just* to have a Scriptura to Sola. How do you know to stick to Acts through Revelation and not include the Epistles of Ignatius, or the Didache, or the Gospel of Peter?

Really?! Ignorance so abounds. So if Rome must tell us, since souls cannot discern what is of God without faith in her (as the Catholic Encyclopedia also infers), tell us how an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings came to be established by the time of Christ (who thus invoked "all the Scriptures")?

If we cannot tell that Acts is Scripture but the Gospel of Peter is not with an infallible magisterium, then how could 1st c. souls tell that Exodus was Scripture but many other Book were was not, and likewise that John the Baptist spoke the word of God as did Christ, contrary to what their valid magisterium said?

Sounds like you with your argument of authority would affirming those who rejected these itinerant preachers who were not ordained by the leadership but rejected.

Your argument went up in flames as would the NT church consistent with your premise.

And if you study English, you know that the verb "pray" was commonly used to ask something of living people right in front of you..."I pray thee, do this for me.". It just means "ask, beseech". It is not adoration.

Please: One would have a hard time in Bible times explaining, kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them

Which manner of adulation can constitute worship in Scripture , yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?