The Pagan Front Of Christianity. Options

[Primus Pilus]

Crucifixion was common as were simpler methods such as stabbing and beheading. Some were buried alive others were thrown from the Tarpeian Rock. Pretty much if the Romans could think of a way to kill someone, they would give it a try.

[Favonius Corneli...]

How did the Romans exeucute their criminals? Crucifixion or impalement? Does anyone know?

In the days of the Republic, it seemed common to execute fourign political captives by strangulation with a garrote.

[Onasander]

I know a few who call themselves Armenian catholic (it the same as the orthodox; however, there has arisen seperate protestant churches). I know very well the differance between Catholic, which I am, and Orthodoxy, which my girlfriend is Russian Orthodox, plus, I lived with a greek priest for about a year.

There is not an official schism, but just as with the coptic orthodox church, they are orthodox only by the skin of thier teeth. Unlike the coptics, I don't know what the division is based on, I just had it told to me by both a Serbian and Greek Orthodox priest that there was some kind of fall out, but they didn't go too indepth. Does anybody know?

[Jimbow]

Crucifixion was common as were simpler methods such as stabbing and beheading.

I thought any execution method involving the spilling of blood was quite unusual, hence the main use of strangulation, and crucifixion (which is a mixed method of strangulation and torture)? Aside from gladiatorial death in combat, originally a funerary tradition and quite unique in that aspect, Beating to death was another means of topping a transgressor. I suppose whipping was another bloodletting, so I'm talking myself into being wrong here...

Patricide was so extreme (a patriarchal state) it involved the most unusual death for the son: Forced to stand on two podia which are placed just far enough apart to force the victim into a humiliating crouch. Flayed to reveal the blood of his father which runs in him, then made to crawl into a sack. A chicken, snake, monkey and dog are thrown in, and the whole thing is sewn up and thrown into the River Tiber from the Tarpeian Rock. Ouch.

I just had it told to me by both a Serbian and Greek Orthodox priest that there was some kind of fall out, but they didn't go too indepth. Does anybody know?

Until the fourth century, there was one apostolic Christian church united by one faith. However, a great schism occurred at the Fourth Ecumenical Council which took place at Chalcedon in AD 451, up until which time there had only been one Apostilic faith based on one Church. The division focused on the nature of Christ, and another great schism occurred in the year 1054 over the Holy Spirit. While Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, the Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only. Coptic is sometimes also referred to as 'Egyptian Orthodox' I believe.

The Orthodox Church rejects the doctrine of Papal Infalibility, and have no doctrine of Mary's immaculate conception. They also baptise through triple immersion, and a major difference between Catholic and the rest is that Catholic priests may not be married. However, an Orthodox priest may be married if he was so before ordination, but may not marry if he was single when ordained.

Copts also believe in two natures, 'human' and 'divine', that are united in one, whereas the others believed in nature as only one (there is apparently a major difference). This was the cause of the fifth century schism, or could have been used an excuse by other creeds to banish them, as the Copts believed Church and State should remain separate which did not go down well with the Emperor (don't forget we're still in Roman times here). Under Islamic rule in Egypt the Copts enjoyed a specially protected status, due to their being especially favoured by Mohammed's Egyptian wife, which continued for centuries. Interestingly, the Copts tend not to make blanket judgements on controversial issue. Abortion is one such issue, where they believe every case should be resolved on a case-by-case basis by the personal confessional priest, a by-product being the avoidance of the creation of mass sinners in one fell swoop.


Cheers,
Jim.

[Onasander]

No, I know all about the Coptics, I mean the seperation between the Armenias and the rest of Orthodoxy, I'm stumped on that one.

(P.S., there is a loophole, if a Lutheran Priest is already married, and converts becoming a Catholic priest, he gets to keep his wife. This means, if you want to become a Catholic Priest, train at a Lutheran Seminary. )

[Jimbow]

(P.S., there is a loophole, if a Lutheran Priest is already married, and converts becoming a Catholic priest, he gets to keep his wife. This means, if you want to become a Catholic Priest, train at a Lutheran Seminary. laugh.gif )

No way

Try here: Armenian Orthodox Church
"....The Armenian church does not hold to monophysite doctrine, however, but confesses the two natures of Christ. The Armenian church also rejects the juridical authority of the pope and the doctrine of purgatory...."

I think Eastern Orthodox churches stayed loyal to the Pope and Roman Emperors for a long time after the 5th Century schism, calling itself Roman Catholic until the Great Schism.

Jim.

[Ursus]

Some differences between Catholic and Orthodox that I am aware of:

1) Catholics believes in the Pope as the Supreme Head. Orthodox believe in a collegiate atmosphere of Bishops. If you look at the early centers of Christianity, Rome was the only real center in the West, so its natural the Pope took the reigns in the West. The early centers of Christianity in the East had to work together, which is where the collegiate mentality comes from. Furthermore, Rome has the tradition of the College of Pontifs and the Pontifex Maximus, which the Pope assumed. In Ancient Greece there was no central religious authority and each polis conducted its own affairs.

2) The Catholics portray Mary as "The Virgin." The Orthodox portray Mary as "The Mother of God" (Theotokos). The Catholic's emphasize Mary's sexual purity while the Orthodox emphasize Mary's maternal aspects.

3) The Catholics believe that original sin is almost genetic, somehow transmitted through the human line via Adam. Thus if Christ were free from Sin, his mother had to be as well, and this is where the Immaculate Conception comes from. The Orthodox believe in original sin as a more metaphysical doctrine and less of a genetic one. Thus, in their theology, there is no need for Mary to be immaculately conceived.

4) Catholic iconography depicts the suffering of Christ on the cross; the emphasis is on the terrible price Christ paid to redeem the sins of Humanity. Orthodox iconography emphasizes the joyous triumph of Christ over sin via resurrection. Thus for Catholics Christ is a suffering figure while for Orthodox he is a triumphal figure.

5) Catholics have a very legalistic understanding of Christianity, the religion is almost like a legal contract with God. This is a continuation of Roman paganism, which was legalistic in the extreme. Roman culture at its heart is legalistic, which is why Rome gave Western Civilization so many of her laws. The Orthodox, by contrast, have a more mystical and philosophical relationship with god. This stems from earlier Greek pagan culture which was of course more mystical and philosophical than Rome.

6) The Catholic church is a supranational organization that has no nationality (even if Italians informally dominate). By contrast, the Orthodox churches are very much tied to local ethnicity and nationality. In Orthodox countries there is often a deliberate blurring between ethnicity, religion and government. The Catholic countries are not as prone to this.

7) In the Catholic West, creation is often considered fallen, degenerate, and debased due to the actions of Adam and Eve – the Original Sin motif. In the Orthodox East creation is seen in less severe terms. Creation is part of Gods’ plan and men must sanctify the world that God has wrought. In practice, this means Orthodox Christians have a much more favorable view of the environment and environmental concerns than western Christians.

8). Catholics believe in hell as a definite physical reality filled with eternal torment. The Orthodox don’t believe in Hell as a physical place; those who reject God can have no part of his love and are doomed to wander in sadness and loneliness all their lives. Thus for Orthodox “Hell” is more of a state of mind than a physical place.

9) Protestants do not believe in Church Tradition, they believe in Scripture only (Sola Scriptura). Catholics believe in both Scripture and Church Tradition as separate but equal realities. The Orthodox simply do not conceive of any difference between Scripture and Tradition (the details of this are a little fuzzy for me, so I can’t explain better).

10). The Orthodox use icons as a major part of their religious practice. To them the images on the icons represent a divine message, and when they pray before an icon they are venerating the divine reality behind the icon. To the Catholic West icons are craven images and Idol Worship. This again may have a lot to do with the ancient differences between Latin and Hellenic culture, with the Hellenic culture being far more pictoral and graphic than its Latin neighbor.

11) Obviously Catholics use Latin and Orthodox use Greek as their mother tongues, though in practice much of the ceremony is conducted in the local, modern language.

12) Catholics and Orthodox have a slightly different understanding of the Christian trinity, which carries over in to how they cross themselves (something to do with whether they use two fingers or three fingers in the ritual crossing of the heart). It has something to do with the relationship of the Son to the Father and Holy Ghost. I’m a little fuzzy on the details, but apparently the difference is significant enough to those who understand it.

13) Then there is a lot of other differences in holidays, ceremonies, priestly and monastic regulations, but I didn’t care to remember this level of minutiae.

And the only reason I know the above is because my professor of religion at college was an Orthodox priest. I do fine it interesting how the very broad differences between Latin and hellenic civilizations carried over into the Catholic/Orthodox dichotomy.

But my Religion professor admitted to me in private that the main sticking point between the Orthodox and Catholics were not theological or cultural differences. All those can be negotiated. The real sticking point is the authority of the Pope. As long as the Pope claims to be supreme, my professor said, there will be no reunification of the Catholic and Orthodox worlds. So the central schism in Christianity is really political .... who gets to be the Big Cheese.

[Onasander]

The Orthodox, by contrast, have a more mystical and philosophical relationship with god. This stems from earlier Greek pagan culture which was of course more mystical and philosophical than Rome.

Much of it comes later on during the Byzantine era when they were looking over the old pagan philosophical works and started applying the philosophy to the interpretation of the bible and life. Christianity, as the jews, didn't have much in the way of useful philosophy, so has always taken from other philosophies so long as they didn't contradict, which I think will be quite a surprise to many who think Christianity as crypto-greek paganism;
it's mearly highly adaptable. Christianity was more of a code, not so much a philosophy. Take this book by a disciple of Fr. Saraphim Rose

http://www.archangelsbooks.com/proddetail....od=HERDAMASC-02

The Catholics historically were even better at this, many of Catholic customs are derived from pagan traditions, thought harmless if continued. Up here in Alaska, the Russian Orthodox church supports the Eskimos building Necropolis still, these little brightly colored villages that they put the dead into.

And, as to the Catholic's not having a nationality, this is not true. The 'Celtic Catholic' traditions of Ireland has it's own traditions, though not officially recognized as national, but the Byzantine Catholic church... common now. And let's not forget the recent Schism, the break away Chinese Catholic Church, which I'm scared the Fraternity of St. Sabastian might blow up someday.

[Julian]

How did the Romans exeucute their criminals? Crucifixion or impalement? Does anyone know?

There were many forms of execution. Some of these include beheading, crucifixion, death in the arena, drowning, strangulation etc etc.

I cannot think now of any list outside of that included by Gibbon in his D & F, when speaking of torture.

I must admit I've not read much Roman literature of late, due to my being too busy. Although I was reading through some of Seneca's letters recently, and I did read some Terence as well. Oh I did re-read parts of the Aeneid. But that was purely for pleasure. I hope to get back into it very soon. Hopefully then I can remind myself of the details, and then add to this forum in greater detail and depth.

I must admit to being ashamed to have been a member for so long, and yet I have contributed so little. Especially considering my great interest in it all. This forum deserves better.

Yours. Julian.

This post has been edited by Julian: Aug 27 2006, 08:01 PM

[phil25]

Interesting thread, which work has kept me from contributing to, until now.

On the "fusion" of the Christian church (pre-Constantine) and the older Roman religeon, I think our analysis has to be both subtle and sophisticated.

First, Christianity was already changing from the approach (essentially adaptations to Judaism) which jesus taught and preached. The early Church Fathers were adding doctrine and dogma to a message already given a new "spin" by Paul. It was thus a religeon already Hellenised and Romanised to a large extent.

Second, did "paganism" impose certain images (for instance mother and child/Isis and Horus) on Christian belief or did Christians pick up on existing iconography? I suspect a bit of both. There are, after all, only a certain number of ways that you can depict such a scene.

But I think the cult of the Virgin - non-existent in Biblical terms - owes much to the cults, symbolism and imagery of Isis and the Magna Mater. The idea of Mary as the Queen of Heaven for instance. One could imagine this being taken on by Christians and then given an added imetus by the Constantinian decision that Jesus equalled God (again non-Biblical) thus making Mary logically, Mother of God. mental read acrosses to Juno etc would have been natural - the old site of the temple of Juno on the capitoline in Rome, is now the church of S. Maria Aracoeli.

Third, life experience suggests to me that "establishments" (pre-existing and powerful cliques) are self-perpetuating. I have a strong suspicion that the men responsible for the old pagan religeon simply adopted new titles and found new positions in the hierarchy of the new religeon - adapting ceremonial to their taste and taking on older titles - Pontifex Maximus is a telling survival in my view.

We also know that Christianity borrowed dates and myths from Mithraism and the cult of Sol Invictus (Christmas etc).

Look then at the churches of Rome and elsewhere.

They are either Basilical or temple-like in form - the alter is in the exact position where the old cult statue would have stood.

The naming of churches is also interesting - in England (I don't know about elsewhere) temples of Apollo are often now under churches dedicated to St Michael (who Biblically defeated Satan or Lucifer (the Light Bringer + Apollo). Then there are churches dedicated to the Virgin or other Marys - often on the site of temples dedicated to a female deity.

Did not Gregory the Great exhort missionaries to use pagan sites for their own churches because the local populace was used to going there, and thus would make the change to the new faith more easily? So the process was two-sided (unless pope Gregory is considered a descendent of the old "establishment", of course).

Above all, I find the skewing of the churches teachings and their emphasis and the hierarchy and ceremonial that goes with them, the most telling evidence of a "pagan" takeover.

Much of catholic teaching and ritual - as I understand it - is not Biblically based. Indeed, Jesus was much against ritual and ceremony and condemned it. Saints, bishops, and all the other paraphenalia was not mentioned in the giospels and healing is not central to the faith (as it was central to Jesus own instructions). Healing appears to have gone on until about 300 interestingly.

Enough for now.

But I hope I have said enough to indicate why I think we need a multi-faceted model here, not a simple two dimensional one.

Phil

[idahojeri]

It is interesting to note that the idea of the family having numerous specific deities never really died out. The way Roman Catholics "venerate" different Saints and the Blessed Virgin alongside the Trinity is a direct descendent of this form of worship.
Most Roman Catholic families have a number of Saints that they have traditionally venerated, often through many generations.
The idea of a "Patron Saint" is also reminiscent of the ancient pre-Christian Roman tradition. The individual Catholic will often have a a specific Saint with which he/she identifies strongly and has a strong relationship with that will often last a lifetime, just as the pre-Christian Romans had their own personal deity.

Anyone who puts a saint or the virgin on the level with God would not be a Catholic at all, but a heretic. This is simply basic Catholic theology.

Also in Catholic theology, a saint is anyone in heaven. Your grandmother, if she was good, may well be a saint. "Patron Saints" are people who lived saintly lives and are designated saints by the church. St. Augustine, for example, might become the "patron saint" of a man who has led a bad life but now wants to reform and takes St. Augustine as an inspiration.

Blessings, Jeri

n.

. Some of them even had a deity who was born of a virgin at the end of the year, had three wise men visiting him who were skilled in astrology - or following stars, who rode to his execution on a donkey and died hung on to a tree/cross/piece of wood. Which was the original one? Now, THERE'S a question!!

o
I believe you are incorrect. What books are you basing these claims on?

Blessings, Jeri

[idahojeri]

I have been thinking a great deal lately about just what the "Roman" in Roman Catholic means. Im sure it is much more than a word used to signify allegiance to the Pope.

The word Roman simply refers to one kind of rite in the church. There are other rites which have slightly different ways of giving the sacraments or saying Mass. Armenian, for example.

Blessings, Jeri

Well there are certain elements of paganism that can be identified in Christianity, or at least the high churches.

There are little things, like the depictions of Isis and her child Horus being similar to later depictions of Mary and Christ.

You might enjoy the book "The Clash of Gods: A Reinterpretation of Early Christian Art" by Thomas F. Mathews. He challenges the idea that there was an emperor mystique which the artists used as Christ the king, and he also disagrees with the Isis/Mary theory. Interesting book, well written.

Blessings, Jeri

[Gaius Octavius]

I have been thinking a great deal lately about just what the "Roman" in Roman Catholic means. Im sure it is much more than a word used to signify allegiance to the Pope.

The word Roman simply refers to one kind of rite in the church. There are other rites which have slightly different ways of giving the sacraments or saying Mass. Armenian, for example.

The proper name is: 'The Holy Roman Catholic Church'. In my very bad Latin: 'Sancta Eglesia Romana'. This is inclusive of all the rites. The Latin (or Roman) Rite is the majority rite. In addition to the Armenian Rite (the late Cardinal Agajanian), there are the Ambrosian ( in northern Italy and now defunct), Greek, Coptic, Malabarese (India), etc., rites.

[Andrew Dalby]

The word Roman simply refers to one kind of rite in the church. There are other rites which have slightly different ways of giving the sacraments or saying Mass.

I'm glad you raised this issue because I have a question to which I can't find an answer. I'm told that in Roman Catholic communion/Mass only the bread is distributed to the congregation, the wine being drunk by the priest.

If, as I understand, that practice is now general in Roman Catholicism, when did it begin? Was it done like that even by Christians in the Roman Empire?

[Pertinax]

If one attends a High Anglican church service. the order of service nevertheless alludes to " one Holy Roman Church" - a fact I find rather puzzling ( given the competetive nature of the two franchises).

Was it not the "consumption of the flesh and blood" that so scandalized our polytheistic ancestors?