Posted on 01/21/2013 7:45:16 PM PST by narses
Some areas of disagreement:
1. First off, I disagree with the underlying premise of the entire book - a premise that says the early church was untainted and uncorrupted by human tradition. I often ask this question to those who want to get back to the early church: Which early church do you want to be like?
(Excerpt) Read more at amazon.com ...
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Frankly, I don't trust him.
As I have often written here and in other forums and said from time to time (with apologies to Santayana): Those who cannot remember Church history are condemned to make it up.
And they do!
There are a plethora of tantalizing clues that are open to many interesting interpretations. To think that early Christianity was unaffected by the practices and even the beliefs of ... o say ...Mithraism, the Isis Cult, Roman gods and goddesses, Greek myths, Judaism, etc. would just be plain stupid.
After all, Pope Benedict shares a title ... Pontifex Maximus ... with Julius Caesar who once held the job. None of this denigrates Christianity or weakens it. Protestants in the Calvinist line would love to believe that their sects are untainted by the Romans or Greeks, even while reading St. Augustine. Good luck with that!
Once St. Paul decided that one need not become Jewish before becoming Christian and decided to "market" Christianity to the Hellenistic and then the Roman World, who can say with certainty exactly how wildly differing groups of converts actually practiced the faith or what actually went on with their prayers and ceremonies in their churches? It was a good while ago!
After Constantine made Christianity the state religion of Rome, things may be a bit clearer because of somewhat improved record-keeping, or at least more consistent record-fudging. Though one always wonders just how many "pagan" priests just converted ... themselves and their temples to the new official faith. In like fashion, many a Roman Catholic priest became an "Anglican," ... and now vice-versa!
Based on your "recommendation" I will now check it out. Thanks!!
“After Constantine made Christianity the state religion of Rome,...”
And yet you want to be taken seriously? Who taught you that falsehood?
“After Constantine made Christianity the state religion of Rome,...”
And yet you want to be taken seriously? Who taught you that falsehood?
Pagan priests NEVER just converted to Catholicism. That is a Protestant thing. ONLY a bishop can give holy orders for priesthood. The record keeping was just fine prior to Constantine - that is why we have the bible today along with many other non-biblical documents and papal letters.
Why not make it up? Because if one studies the Ante-Nicene Fathers and reads Acts and the Epistles in light of them, one knows the history of the early Church. Start with St. Ignatius of Antioch (the third bishop of Antioch who knew the Apostles personally) and the martyrdom of Polycarp.
And you’ve fallen into (or for) making up stuff even when contrary facts are known: Constantine didn’t make Christianity the state religion of Rome, just made it legal (and gave it a boost up by having a newly built Christian city — in the sense it had lots of churches and no pagan temples — made the new capital). The Empire didn’t become formally a Christian state until decrees of Theodosius I in 380.
Quite frankly, I’ve always regarded the horror among some protestants of the idea that the Church might have blotted out a pagan feast by scheduling a Christian one opposite it — as was most assuredly done in the West with All Saints — or “baptized” a pagan custom — as was done in the East with the offering of wheat as a memorial for the dead — as a sort of new Judaizing heresy. Contrariwise, we Orthodox sing about Christ delivering us from the delusion of idols down to the present day.
Actually, if anyone wants to object to Greek elements in Christianity, they’ve got a big problem: “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. . .” The Holy Apostle John, the Disciple whom Jesus loved, when he sat down to give his account of who Jesus is, didn’t stick to Jewish sources. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, he spoke of Christ as the Divine Logos, “baptizing” a notion from pagan neoplatonism.
You tell 'em.
This is what happens when pop culture meets Christianity.
This is what happens when the Discovery Channel or the History Channel attempts to interpret Christianity. People walk away badly misinformed, but thinking they've learned a lot. Bad information is more dangerous than no information at all!
Google: Didache. Sort of a handbook the early Christians used to standardize practices.
Better yet, if you are really serious about early church history, go ask an Orthodox Christian priest for more information.
They have a saying in the OC: "How many Orthodox priests does it take to change a light bulb." "CHANGE?!" I learned more about Christianity than I suspected I would when I made the (small) step from being an evangelical protestant to an orthodox christian. It's like...Christianity Lite versus Christianity. And I never knew.
I was a member of an apologetics group that investigated humanism, Islam, Wicca, Buddhism, New Age, etc., ad nauseam, and by chance we made contact with an Orthodox priest. Long story, that.
Suffice it say my intention was never to do anything other than "kick the tires."
And you know this how?
ONLY a bishop can give holy orders for priesthood.
And on what day did that first Bishop do that? The Apostolic Succession is a wonderful thing. To claim one knows exactly how it came about is a bit far-fetched. I would imagine that the earliest assistants of the Apostles as named in the NT were the first bishops ... but then again I imagine.
The record keeping was just fine prior to Constantine - that is why we have the bible today along with many other non-biblical documents and papal letters.
Miraculously indeed we have the New Testament, but the official version of today took a while to develop. But to claim that Church records of the first 3 centuries "are fine" is simply preposterous. Surely, there are some records, perhaps even enough to give a fairly accurate chronology of the papacy, but let's not push our luck!
BTW, scholars of church history have plenty of differences of opinion about these matters, none of which are matters of dogma.
Show me that from the Bible.
By definition you can’t just convert to be a Catholic priest. You need to receive Holy Orders by a bishop. Below is an example from Acts of a diaconate ordination, but you get the point:
And the plan met the approval of the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip and Prochorus and Nicanor and Timon and Parmenas and Nicholas, a proselyte from Antioch. These they set before the Apostles, and after they had prayed they laid their hands upon them.
(Acts 6:5-6)
Obviously you have not read Jimmy Akin’s book on Church Father quotes. It is not a small book. There are many letters and documents from the first 300 years of the Church. It is Roman history that is often suspect at various times as they were not good at hiding or copying their records (they didn’t think they needed to) so they often got burned during various sackings. The Church, on the other hand, copied their documents and spread them to the various churches and that is why the record is so well preserved today.
Indeed they do make up church history. I get the biggest kick out of non-Catholics trying to tell us what we believe or should believe. LOL!
***This is what happens when the Discovery Channel or the History Channel attempts to interpret Christianity. People walk away badly misinformed,****
My Brother-in-law (If you know him he probably owes you money) knows more about Christianity than anyone! If you don’t believe it just ask him! He gets all his info from the History Channel and Discovery Channel.
When you talk with him you realize how the Philistines felt when they were slain by the jawbone of an ass.
I disagree. Do you recall something about two masters, how about lukewarm water?
Half pagan/satanic isn't that bad? C'mon!!!
Trying to deny the intertwining of paganism and Christianity is a fool’s errand. The evidence is everywhere, including St. Peter’s Basilica.
Take the Scavi Tour at the Vatican. It’s not easy to get a ticket, but you can take a 360 degree virtual tour at the Vatican website.
The tour is of the second level below the main floor of the Basilica. There are many interesting things on this level, including pagan mausoleums complete with receptacles for animal blood sacrifice as well as the grave of St. Peter.
The Church itself accepts the connection, no reason to have hysteria over it. The evidence below St. Peter’s was found in the 1950’s when one of the pillars of the main altar sank and repairs were attempted from below. At first the wonders were covered up. But Pope Pious XII ordered the entire level excavated and it is now open for 12 person tours, always with a guide/lecturer. The tour is most informative and educational.
Yes—St. Peter’s is built over an old burial site which includes not only St. Peter’s tomb but the tombs of others as well. Many of these people were pagan. But it is not as if St. Peter’s location was selected for the purpose of being over pagan tombs and treating St. Peter’s as one among many. Yes, the Church burial place was in the same general area as pagan burial places. However, unless by “intertwined” you mean “existed at the same time and place,” (which is quite a stretch for the word), Christianity and paganism are not shown to be intertwined by your example.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.