What exactly is Pagan about the RCC/Eastern Orthodox

They have too much in common with the Orthodox?

 

Please understand that I always want to be gentle and to speak the truth in love ... but it has to be the truth. I have many Catholic friends, including a daughter-in-law. BUT ... since you asked ... one of the greatest issues, that looks an awful lot like paganism to me, is the veneration of the "saints". The notion that there is a class of people who are elevated into a special relationship with God and who are capable of interceding for the rest of us and of performing miracles is so problematic. Can you see how close that looks to the polytheism of the ancient world or the animism of unsophisticated peoples around the world?

 

I agree about the veneration of the saints as being one way that RCC is close to being pagan. But you don't see it as much in the US of A. The Catholic church in America is tempered to a great extent by the "competition" with Protestant churches.

Where you will really see the paganism of RCC is in countries where Catholicism is the dominant religion like in South American countries. For example in Guatemala, many Catholic churches have simply added the mayan religion to their ceremonies. In some African countries, they have added other pagan religions.

 

#1. Prayers to the dead
#2. Inventing purgatory
#3. Idolatry in the form of the bread
#4. Image worship
#5. Priests with "magic powers" that remain after being excommunicated
#6. Priests with magic powers to "mark the soul" of an infant - (so no faith involved).
#7. Claiming that they are "really drinking blood" not just symbolically referencing the PAST death of Christ "in memorial".
#8. Burning the Bible
#9. Opposing a sola scriptura "rule" for judging doctrine faith and practice and choosing instead "the traditions of man" Mark 7:8-12
#10 Calling for the "extermination" of all Christians that opposed her and all Jews that opposed her during the dark ages.
#11 Setting up "torments and tortures" to try and get dissenting Christians to "recant" instead of pointing out the RC errors

I am sure I am missing something in this list - but I think you get the general idea.

 

My understanding of paganism is that the person tends to believe in many gods, or nature worship, animals, idols etc.

I (as a RC) believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ His only Son Our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead;He ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost; the Holy Catholic Church; the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.

The above pretty well sums up the RCC, I guess.

 

But what about 1-7? Also, I would think number 8 would be high on some pagans list....


Jamie

 

I would argue that 1 through 7 are not specifically pagan at all, but grow from specifically Christian sources.

Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglicans developed their Scriptures using the Hebrew Bible as translated into Greek, the Septuagint. Thus the books we call "Apocryphal" are regarded as authoritative in these chuches, and are the source for #1 and #2. Nothing pagan about it.

I object on prinicple to the "magic powers" crack, and would argue that the image is not regarded as the object of worship, but as a reminder. Those in ordinal churches and, to much more pointed degree, those in Reformed churches, would regard the elements of the Lord's Supper as a similar reminder.

Further, if one's theology believes a literal interpretation of Jesus' words: "This is My body... this is My blood..." then #3 and #7 aren't idolatry, but a rational outgrowth of that belief.

Finally, in re #7if one takes literally the Scripture which tells us that the gifts and callings of God are without repentance, then #5 and #6 are quite an accurate interpretation. Finally, if one regards baptism as the sign of a new life in Christ, and a seal of covenant into the Body of Christ, then the faith involved is within the lives of those presenting the child for baptism, and again the "magic powers" crack is nonsensical.

 

Kinda fun to watch RC posters ASK non-RC's for a list of things taught by the RCC that make them appear to be using/adopting paganism.

Then when we give them - watch the RC posters say "Well that does not make me think of paganism when I see the RCC teaching the things in that list".

Why in the world WOULD you be thinking your own church is emmersed in pagan doctrines-- why would you STILL be in it if you did?

 

While you may not "think" that torturing Christians and burning their Bibles is something that pagans would dare to suggest -- I do.

As for the fact that pagans (and cults in general) are KNOWN for rejecting a sola-scriptura bible basis for their doctrines and prefer instead to adhere to "man made traditions" -- again I think you are not letting yourself see the big picture... THEY ALL do that!

 

"Magic power" as in something that the priest HAS and RETAINS even if the church rejects that priest and declares him to be unsaved - excommunicated etc.

No way around that one.

"Magic Powers" as in the division between the "Sacred Clergy" and the "profane laity" such that the Clergy can say magic words over an infant and "MARK THE SOUL" but the profane laity saying those same words - have not effect at all on the soul.

The Catholic historian Thomas Bokenkotter's best selling pro-Catholic work "a concise history of the Catholic church" makes it abundantly clear..

Ibid -Pg 49 speaks of the change that occurred in the 4th century

So there we have it on two short pages (49-50) of that telling work done by a Catholic historian - revealing the ongoing evolutionary process in the church that brings us to where we are today.

 

The Catholic historian Thomas Bokenkotter's best selling pro-Catholic work "a concise history of the Catholic church" makes it abundantly clear..

Ibid -Pg 49 speaks of the change that occurred in the 4th century

 

Grace and Peace Everyone,

The elevation of Mary appears to be an innovation which developed as Christianity made it's way into the Pagan Society of Rome (East and West) particularly appealing to the followers of the Cult of Isis and those who admired their practices of viginity. Studying history reveals a lot of Pagan Culture which is frankly admirable but I question the merit of bringing it's worldly practices into our faith practice.

The popularity of statues, crucifixes, Iconography, etc also appears to be an innovation which developed as Christianity made it's way into the Pagan Society of Rome. Although I believe a lot of religious art to be inspiring and frankly beautiful I do recognize it to be problematic when reflecting on our Commandments.

Being that we, as Baptists, recognize all men as equals under the eyes of our Lord I see no reason to elevate local heros to the status of holy-than-thou members of the Kingdom of Heaven. This to me smacks of hero worship and frankly I do believe it was way out of hand in Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It's an easy means to reintroduce polytheistic elements into the monotheistic religion of Christianity. Remember we have 'one' mediator not two or three or twelve. This is a 'major' criticism Baptists have against Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Regardless I hope we can have a fruitful dialogue.

God Bless.

 

The term "pagan" implies "not being Christian." The test of whether something is Christian or not is whether or not it accepts Jesus as the Christ, the son of the living God who was crucified as a sacrifice for our sins and raised from the dead on the third day victorious over sin and death. If someone believes and accepts that, they are not pagan, regardless of what traditions or practices have been added to the practice of their religion.

 

Bob Ryan, I am not Catholic, I'm Presbyterian.

I expected jsut that kind of response from you: one that ignores historical fact and context, and the body of my post in general.

Have a nice day.