[M. Porcius Cato]

Sextus Roscius, on Dec 10 2005, 10:47 PM, said:

I believe the vatican is only Roman in the sense that they never lost their title. Thought you can hardly call some one Roman becuase they speak Latin. The people of the vatican don't hold any old Roman traditions, they don't follow the Roman social system, and to call the Vatican Rome would be an insult (in my mind) to Rome's legacy which I don't think was lived up to by the Vatican or its members.

I agree with Sextus--but I'd go further. In many respects, the Church to this day is the polar opposite of the pagan Roman world.

*The Church beatified a girl for pledging herself to chastity at age 3, and it still promotes abstinence until marriage.
*The Romans had brothels next to temples and built giant baths where they could mix wine and sex with slave-girls.

* The saints of the church were extolled for drinking laundry water, sleeping with a rock as a pillow, beating themselves bloody, and dying as martyrs.
* The Romans loved luxury, wealth, power, and preferred others martyr themselves to Rome than vice-versa.

*The Church condemns homosexuality, bisexuality, sex outside marriage, and sex for pure enjoyment.
*The Romans loved to do it all, and (though they teased Caesar for being the Queen of Bithynia) they had no problem with their generals and emperors enjoying sex with anyone they wished.

*The Church had people burned at the stake for heresy.
*The Romans were open to anyone worshipping as many gods as they could find a purpose.

*Faithful Catholics deck their halls with religious images of the human body either being tortured on a cross (Jesus) or clad in garments designed to hide every inch of flesh (Mary, the apostles, etc).
*Decent Romans liked to depict their deity Priapus (and his enormous penis) just inside their doorway, and it was impossible to walk 5 feet in ancient Rome without seeing nudity and depictions of sex.

* Pope John Paul warned scientists not to apply biology to the 'soul,' and there were reports that the Church was back-pedalling on whether humans evolved from non-human primates. Tertullian, "father of the Latin church", justified his belief in the Trinity by remarking, "Credo quia absurdum--I believe BECAUSE it is absurd."
* Roman Epicureans denied the immortality of the soul and were pure materialists. And Stoics, such as Manilius, author of Astronomica, would be scandalized to admit absurdity: in their view, "Ratio omnia vincit--Reason conquers all."

If a Roman from the era of Hadrian found himself in the Vatican today, he'd think his nation had been over-run by Vestal Virgins and eastern mystics. Really, don't you think there is something substantial in the fact that the Vatican plasters fig leaves on Roman sculptures? Don't you think there is a reason that the rediscovery of the ancient world coincided with the renaissance, with the enlightenment, and with the demise of Church authority?

If you're Catholic, I mean no offense at all, but the notion of the Vatican being the last vestige of the Roman empire strikes me as a very, very long stretch.

Quote

It seems to me that Christianity in its final and current form is packed full of Roman traditions and elements of earlier paganism. That Rome shifted its seat of government from the senate house to the Vatican is merely a geographic debate.

See above. There is much more to debate than mere geography.

This post has been edited by M. Porcius Cato: 29 December 2005 - 04:37 AM

[Virgil61]

Sextus Roscius, on Dec 10 2005, 10:47 PM, said:

I believe the vatican is only Roman in the sense that they never lost their title. Thought you can hardly call some one Roman becuase they speak Latin. The people of the vatican don't hold any old Roman traditions, they don't follow the Roman social system, and to call the Vatican Rome would be an insult (in my mind) to Rome's legacy which I don't think was lived up to by the Vatican or its members.

Sorry if I offended anyone... I have some what biased views on the Vatican.

Actually they Catholic church is more Roman than you've let on. I agree with some of what Cato has written countering some areas where Catholics are not Roman--though the reason for the enlightenment is a much more complex process--but there's also a dichotomy going on where the church maintains traditions started among the Romans.

The church adopted many of it's original holy days from Pagan holidays, the obvious value of this linkage is apparent to anyone. While never-ever-worshipped as Gods of any sort, the veneration of saints is partially linked to the existence of a variety of Pagan dieties. The mysteries and visions, as well as the importance of sacred shrines in Catholicism are not only linked to eastern traditions but are also echoed in the pagan interpretation of dreams, visitations to oracles and maintenance of areas sacred to particular gods. While a Roman wouldn't appreciate many aspects of Catholicism, they would understand well saintly shrines, holy visions and sacred texts.

Comparing the use of the Sibylline books with use of the Book of Revelations shows a similarity of application between the two-- though many Protestant sects have really taken the ball and runned with it. A Roman would completely understand an ancient Catholic tradition of having a statue of St. Joseph in your front yard to protect one's house. The church rejected other gods but substituted respect or veneration of saints, past church members whose lives reflected a standard for those living today. Rather than Candelifera or Lucina the goddesses of childbirth the church has St. Gerald Majella the patron saint, instead of Roma, goddess of the city, Rome has St. Philip Neri as its patron saint, Juventus is the god of youth while St. Aloysius Gonzaga is it's patron saint, and so on. In my case what I have on my keychain is a small symbol of St. Michael the Archangel patron saint of paratroopers. I believe there is no Roman equivalent of that one.

The church destroyed much of the vestiges of paganism and fully co-opted other parts of it. They destroyed pagan writings but their own writings echoed many of those same themes. They were highly critical of Rome but came to adopt the cover of Roman protection for their own existence and those texts that re-emerged in the late middle ages were often copied and protected by Catholic monks.

Rather than no linkage there was a cafeteria style taking of Roman beliefs that dovetailed with Catholicism and a rejection of those that didn't. Remember the Romans themselves weren't monolithic in their beliefs, see Epicurianism competing with Stoicism. The early church had a love/hate relationship with Roman philosophy, religion and culture, and the structure of Catholicism reflects this dichotomy.

Right until the present day, some Protestants have attacked the Catholic church for being pagan and reflecting far too much of Roman culture. There are hundreds of articles, Phd thesis' and books written on the influence of Greek and Roman philosophy and paganism on the early church's theology, holy days, etc. I'm a bit stunned that in this forum some argue that Catholicism has nothing in common with ancient Roman practices. Much of Catholicisms theology, beliefs and practices contradict that.

This post has been edited by Virgil61: 14 December 2005 - 12:36 AM

[Ursus]

There was more than one cult in the Hellenistic-Roman realm that sought to deny the world and project human souls into the highest heaven via ascetic practices and esoteric rights. Admittedly Christianity had some unique properties via its pretensions to Judaic tribal law, but it was still a close cousin to these cults.

Paganism was not a monolothic entity and had many strands. Christianity has something in common with some of the "fringe" mystical cults that became so popular in the later empire.

Though when all is said and done I think the most direct Roman influence on Catholicism beside its organization is its legalistic mentality. Whatever else a Roman Catholic and a Roman Pagan may have in differences, they both go about their religions with a certain legalistic attitude which I feel is both derived from Roman culture.

[Virgil61]

Ursus, on Dec 13 2005, 07:41 PM, said:

There was more than one cult in the Hellenistic-Roman realm that sought to deny the world and project human souls into the highest heaven via ascetic practices and esoteric rights. Admittedly Christianity had some unique properties via its pretensions to Judaic tribal law, but it was still a close cousin to these cults.

Paganism was not a monolothic entity and had many strands. Christianity has something in common with some of the "fringe" mystical cults that became so popular in the later empire.

Though when all is said and done I think the most direct Roman influence on Catholicism beside its organization is its legalistic mentality. Whatever else a Roman Catholic and a Roman Pagan may have in differences, they both go about their religions with a certain legalistic attitude which I feel is both derived from Roman culture.

Good catch Ursus. I almost put in Canon law as recieving its primary influence from Roman culture.

I'd also add less sophisticated residuals of paganism that I just googled that arguably lead back to late antiquity pagans and have been adopted by Catholicism such as genuflection, incense burning, candles lit in request of intervention by saints or God and the sign of the cross. The theory is that many of these are linked to the 3/4th century influx of pagans into the church. At some point, perhaps this same era, the pagan winter solstice was converted by the church into Christmas.

This post has been edited by Virgil61: 14 December 2005 - 01:13 AM

[M. Porcius Cato]

Yes, of course, Catholicism has different strains and adopted many Roman rituals like burning incense. However, to argue that the Vatican is the last vestige of the Roman empire on the grounds of preserved rituals like incense burning strikes me as trivializing both Roman culture and Catholic theology. *What* the Romans celebrated was far more important than *how* they celebrated it.

[Virgil61]

M. Porcius Cato, on Dec 13 2005, 10:29 PM, said:

Yes, of course, Catholicism has different strains and adopted many Roman rituals like burning incense. However, to argue that the Vatican is the last vestige of the Roman empire on the grounds of preserved rituals like incense burning strikes me as trivializing both Roman culture and Catholic theology. *What* the Romans celebrated was far more important than *how* they celebrated it.

I didn't trivialize anything, within the context of this discussion someone should point out the very strong aspects of Roman-pagan culture adopted by Catholicism. They aren't all trivial, they aren't even all ritualistic--canon law and veneration of saints for example. To get into the weeds for a moment, in some cases such as the burning of a candle to pray to a higher power or to pray for intervention by a local god or saint, the 'what' parts are quite similar. Even the 'trivialities' of ritual are important as an illustration of the influence of Roman culture.

Having said this, I wouldn't argue it's the last vestige of Rome. I've pointed out that as an institution Catholicism was heavily influenced by and adopted a striking number of its pagan and philosophical aspects. It's not the last vestige of Roman culture, but the aspects it contains need to be addressed and shouldn't be dismissed outright; it makes the issue less black and white.

This post has been edited by Virgil61: 14 December 2005 - 05:31 AM

[M. Porcius Cato]

Virgil61, on Dec 13 2005, 11:33 PM, said:

Having said this, I wouldn't argue it's the last vestige of Rome. I've pointed out that as an institution Catholicism was heavily influenced by and adopted a striking number of its pagan and philosophical aspects. It's not the last vestige of Roman culture, but the aspects it contains need to be addressed and shouldn't be dismissed outright....

Fair enough--once the differences between the two world-views are put on the table with the commonalities, this seems to be the proper verdict.

[Onasander]

I wear Saint George slaying a dragon... I was given it at a monestary before I joined the military. There is some evidence that St. George is pre-christian... doesn't matter, I can't remember the philosopher (George S.), but he was a early twentieth century American who said Catholicism will outlive Christianity!

Anyway, ya, St. Catherine is Roman as well I believe, still truckin after all these years.... NEVER BEEN CONQUERED.... it's under the Greek church's administration.


As to the Pope still being an imperial agent till modern times.... are you sure the Emperor still recognized them as such after the Schism? The Catholics (I am one) are still out of communion with the rest of the ancient churches, a lone duck who had control of a backwater part of the globe ever recending at that) until they got lucky and discovered America.

Avignon and the Anti-pope issue is something I don't know too well in depth, but so long as the Vatican never lost control of it's sovernignty to another outside force, then yes, it would be the last vestages of Roman rule.... that and I think the police chief in Rome still carries his title since the ancient times.