And Pascha is actually Pessach, which is why date is always set after the Paschal full moon. Very Hebrew, if you ask me.
Great post!!!
I have also been exposed to the Evangelical, Bible Church excessive fear of pagan influence. Of course, a weekly Bible study I used to attend also included at least one anti-Catholic remark or story per week.
I am seeking, but leaning toward the Catholic Church (my wife is VERY uncomfortable with this). The funny thing is, if I had not encountered so much anti-Catholic rhetoric in my life, I might have never investigated. I just had to see how "evil" it was....
Anyway, I think I will forward a link to this to everyone I know, regardless of denominational affiliation.
>"A Common Conservative Evangelical Blunder"
Among the conservative evangelicals I know, this is a rare blunder. So rare, that I've never heard it from them.
Is there a point to highlighting blunders by Christian fringe bloggers as being the norm among evangelical thinking?
The evangelicals-are-dumber-than-we-catholics posts to this otherwise great blog are disturbing.
Ralph:
Tell me again that a huge number of Evangelicals don't regard Catholicism as responsible for paganizing the pure biblical gospel.
Ever read Halley's Bible Handbook? Loraine Boettner's _Roman Catholicism_?
Things aren't nearly as bad as they once were, but the lingering notion that contact with pagan influences always means defilement for the Faith and never means redemption for paganism is still quite common.
Well, the Roman Catholic Church's name for what is called Easter Sunday in English-speaking countries has no relationship to paganism:
Dominica Resurrectionis (Sunday of the Resurrection)
or, formerly and more completely,
Dominica Paschae in Resurrectione Domini (perhaps best rendered as Passover/Paschal Sunday of the Resurrection of the Lord)
My point exactly, Liam.
Right. "Easter" is just a linguistic accident.
I have heard it every day for the last month from an Evagelical guy who works for me. It ain't Easter ( pgan name) but Resurrection Sunday. He carries on about the pagan influence, next he goes on abut Halloween etc...All very simplistic to me
TOm
Oh, and the pagan influences of Hallowe'en are vastly overblown. Much of what passes today as "fact" regarding the Celtic observances of Samhain and Beltane (Nov 1 and May 1) is a wild confection from overeager and overimaginative folklorists (some of whom had other agendas) in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and has been subjected to withering scholarly correction and critique in the past generation. Much of what passes for folklore is exactly that in its sense of traditional gossip, rather than genuine historical tradition!
>"I have heard it every day for the last month from an Evangelical guy who works for me"
That was my point: an off-beat viewpoint is heard from one person calling himself "evangelical," and then that becomes the evidence that the viewpoint is the norm for the entire group. Logical fallacy alert!
This site complains often that Catholic beliefs are misrepresented by the actions of a few liberal or conservative or non-believing extremists (Catholic or otherwise), but then does the same to its non-Catholic Christian brothers.
Ralph:
Since you started by citing "the Evangelicals you know" it's hardly cricket to complain when somebody cites a counter-example. And it's especially not cricket to simply ignore the rather massive evidence of the Google link. I'm not saying "It's endemic". I am saying, "It's common."
Good time to again bring up the origen of the word "Amen".
"Amen" has its roots in Egyptian paganism!
(According to what I was told during a college lecture on world religions) The ancient Issrelites didn't formally adopt the practice of praying until after they had lived in Egypt. While in Egypt, they were influnced by the egyptian culture. It was the ancient Egyptians who first engaged in the practice of praying to their gods outloud (in a spoken manner.)
As was the custom, the Egyptians would alway begin and end their prayer by stating the name of the god that they were praying to.
Ex.
Isis,
(Insert words of praise.)
(Insert request.)
(Insert more glowing words of praise.)
Isis.
It just so happens that during the Issraelites stay in Egypt, there was a Pharo who was struck by the possibility that there might only be one god. (Gee I wonder what might have influenced him.) He was so convinced that he banned the worship of all other gods in favor of the one god whom he thought was "the god" - this god was Amen-rey.
The rest is history.
I don't believe that for a second.
>"Since you started by citing "the Evangelicals you know" it's hardly cricket to complain when somebody cites a counter-example."
The evangelicals I know are the thousand that attend my Christian and Missionary Alliance church, plus the thousand or so connected to the Christian school my kids attend, plus hundreds more I know from other walks of life -- vs. one co-worker cited as the counter-example and the one nutcase cited by your blog entry.
My point is that I don't appreciate you tarring _all_ evangelicals with a nasty brush. In doing so, you make Catholics look silly to evangelicals, such as myself, who otherwise enjoy reading your blog.
Ralphg,
What's with the thin-skin? I've known plenty of Evangies that fit this bill, and plenty who don't. You seem to take umbrage whenever it is suggested that this is a common sentiment among a large portion of the Evangie crowd. What gives?
Ralph:
Since when did "many" become "all"?
Again: did you even bother to look at the Google link?
Mark, this post point out exactly why I'm so very thankful that the Church Christ founded has liturgal seasons! I'm not sure why but this Lent I was made especially aware of Evangelicals for whom that season was not a time of penitence or anticipation of Christ's suffering, death & resurrection, but just normal days. And then I hear of Evangelicals who discover the richness of the Church's traditional observance of Lent (the stations of the cross, fasting, giving things up, etc). Without exception they'll remark how much more fulfilling Easter was for them & how much their walk with Christ benefited by such practices.
It reminds me of this last Christmas & how, since it fell on a Sunday, so many Evangelical communities didn't hold worship services that day. Again: either/or. We Catholics regognize the Good Friday & Easter that every Friday & Sunday represent but the also hold a special place in our liturgical year, giving opportunity for spiritual growth. Thanks be to our God for that! Would that all could know the depth & grace of it!
"His supreme sacrifice should be observed everyday, not when the moon is lined-up correctly with the earth".
Which is why we have daily mass.
1Cor. 11:26: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. "
Matt. 6:11: "Give us this day our daily bread; "
How does the Bible say to proclaim the Lord's death and ressurection? How often? Where can you do this?
Liam,
I;m not saying you are wrong (I don't know enough about this), but I do know that in the Irish language "Bealtaine" is May (that's the correct spelling, not beltane, and it's pronounced bee-all-ti-nuh) and "Mi na Shamhna" is November (literally, the "month of Samhain", pronounced "mee na how-na", and "sow-in", sounds like cow). Interestingly, December is "Mi na Nollaig" which means the month of Christmas.
Next, we encounter a peculiar sample of the classic Protestant either/or habit of mind: "His supreme sacrifice should be observed everyday, not when the moon is lined-up correctly with the earth".
So....first "Easter" is bad because the word came from a pagan source, as Mark said, "an accident of Language",
then the idea of observing the season because of "when the moon is lined up" is no good because it's what......to Hebrew?
Sheesh, you can't have it both ways.
And that business about the word "Amen"? Baloney. It's Hebrew for "confirmed" or "strongly agreed with".
I don't believe that for a second
Mark, I don't know about the rest of Paul's post, but there was a monotheistic Pharoah who banned worship of all falst gods. Chesterton wrote about him.
Speaking of whom, that Lewis quote you end your post with sounds remarkably like Chesterton, which doesn't surprise me as Lewis got all his best stuff from Chesterton (or Tolkien).
Ralph, I used to spend a lot of time on a conservative message board that was dominated by evangelicals. Most of the mods were evangelicals. And every single one of them gave Catholics a hard time. A very hard time. I was eventually banned for being too Catholic. And every evangelical there said the same old lie about Catholics: that we pervert pure Christianity with all sorts of pagan add-ons.
Plus, Mark, as a former evangelical, no doubt speaks from experience when he talks about evangelicals. Give him some credit.
And that business about the word "Amen"? Baloney. It's Hebrew for "confirmed" or "strongly agreed with".
Janjan, what with the Jewish people living in Egypt for five centuries, isn't it possible that their language picked up some words from Egyptian?
Amen may very well mean that in Hebrew...but all words have their beginning...
Amen is actually a variant of Amun-Ra.
Check out the wikipedia page on Amun-Ra.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amun-Ra
For all the talk about pre-Christian pagan religions pointing toward the truth...well, It gives me a few goosebumps.
JanJan:
For some (not all--there is no "all" in Evangelicalism) the notion is vaguely that Jesus can to do away with anything resembling liturgy or sacred times. There are texts in Paul that seem (to some) to underpin this (cf Colossians 2:16-17). But this is to overlook the totality of the biblical witness and the Church's Tradition, of course.
Sean:
I'm aware of Akhenaten. I still don't believe for a second that "Amen" comes from "Amun-Re". It'll take a lot more the Wikipedia to sell me on that Urban Legend-scented bit of bogus etymology.
You can choose to buy into the fake Egyptology that is rife on the Web if you want to, but the fact is that the word Amen comes from the root verb AMN which means "to trust or have faith in". The Hebrew word "emunah" faith, is from the same root. It is the same root in Arabic.
The so-called monotheistic pharoah was Akhn-Aten, who worshipped Aten, the sun god. Actually his belief was that the sun poured it's blessing on him and his family, making them holy, and in turn, they then blessed the land of Egypt.
He was married to Nefertiti, and he also had a strange deformity. His religious reformation was notoriously unpopular and was probably assasinated, and "the boy king" King Tut, Tut-ankh-Amun was put in his place. He ( or rather, his advisers) restored the worship of Amun and rest of the pantheon of Egyption gods.
So Amun is associated with polytheism, not monotheism, and Amen has a perfectly adequate semitic (which is a language group) etymology without accreting web based bu**sh*t.
Any other questions?
We must purge all pagan references found anywhere in Christianity. We begin first, of course, with the word "god." This has been *proven* to have been applied to pagan deities centuries before Jesus came on the scene.
Next we have the days of the week, starting with ...
Sunday. Pagan god.
Monday. Ditto.
Tuesday. Ditto.
Wednesday. Ditto.
Thursday. Ditto.
Friday. Ditto.
Saturday. Ditto.
You wanna talk about the Lord's Day? Which Lord? -- "Lord" being a term also applied to human authorities, even owners of landed property, so it's insulting to use it in reference to a Supreme Being.
Don't stop me now. I'm just getting warmed up. How about ...
What's that?
Tempest?
Teapot?
Who cares? There're more important things to cover in ecumenical discussions? Surely you jest.
I'll take it under advisement.
I don't believe that for a second.
As you shouldn't. Matching the biblical account of the captivity up to Egyptian dynasties is difficult. And even if it was during Akhenaten's reign, he totally mixed up the god's. The prevailing priests were of the Amun cult; Ahkenaten and Nefertiti, those "monotheistic" rulers, rejected the pantheon of gods, including Amun, in favor of the Aten, or sun-disc. Which is why, after his death the priests of Amun regained power and managed to get Akhenaten's grandson, Tutankhaten to change his name to the more familiar (to us) Tutankhamun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ama...i/
Amarna_heresy
I highly, highly doubt "Amen" has anything to do with the Akhenaten or Amarna...
For those ignorant, benighted souls who believe the Oxford English Dictionary to be more credible than Wikipedia, the OED confirms the origins of Amen in Hebrew mentioned here.
+J.M.J+
>>>We must purge all pagan references found anywhere in Christianity. [snip]
>>>Next we have the days of the week, starting with ...
>>>Sunday. Pagan god.
Yeah, that's what I thought of when I read Tom's post above, where he wrote:
>>>I have heard it every day for the last month from an Evagelical guy who works for me. It ain't Easter ( pgan name) but Resurrection Sunday. He carries on about the pagan influence,
If his friend is so keen to avoid "pagan influence," he shouldn't call it Resurrection SUNday.
In Jesu et Maria,
Kinda fun watching Catholics getting bent outta shape on a discussion about whether or not the word "Amen" may have pagan origins on a blogpost discussing the fact that Evangelicals get bent out of shape over the pagan elements that have been absorbed into Catholicism.
Paul
Great point....Amen to that.
BTW...would it kill anyone if "Amen" was a word that evolved from Egyptian origin?
Would it shake the very foundation of our faith?
Would we be *gasp* guilty of perpetuating pagan, occult practices by continuing to use the word Amen as we now understand it?
Wasn't that the whole point of your post Mark?
I was just about to make a smart-assed reply to janjan's post when it was suddenly deleted. So now there's no point in me going on.
OMG!! I see all my posts are gone too! Yikes!
Wow, accused of overreacting, for stating something as simple as verifiable history and linguistics, which, I might add was backed up by Michael (who didn't get accused of overreacting....)
Maybe it's because......nope, can't say that, because my last comment got moderated out for that.
Mark, you think maybe you overreacted?
I'm going to pass around a bottle of muscle relaxers and I want everybody to take one.
Michaels proof doesn't count because it was from wikipedia.
Wow, accused of overreacting, for stating something as simple as verifiable history and linguistics, which, I might add was backed up by Michael (who didn't get accused of overreacting....)
Maybe it's because......nope, can't say that, because my last comment got moderated out for that.
janjan, wasn't the bulk of your post that anoyed me so much as the last bit: "Any other questions?" just rubbed me the wrong way, that's all.
But as I said to B-Y, and which I now have to say AGAIN because my original post was erased, it was not an attack on your ethnicity. I did not even mention that you are a "Jooooooooooo" (your spelling, not mine). It was a comment on the tone your post only, or at least the last part of it, and nothing else, and there is no reason for you to read dark intent on my part for bringing it up.
Mark, you think maybe you overreacted?
My thoughts too. It gets rougher than this in here.
It's okay Sean. I mean, I just stepped out for a little while, and discovered that all hell had broken loose!
That's what happens when we Irishmen are left alone without adult supervision.
If I had even just a penny for every time I was attacked as a Catholic by evangelicals and fundamentalists with "pagan origin" stuff, I wouldn't have to work for a living.
What occured to me as I read through the thread, is that I never heard anything like that from Christians who belonged to mainstream Protestant churches.
JanJan:
Remember me? I was on your side along with Michael in this little argument. I think the idea that "amen" comes from "Amun" is preposterous.
I was sending my little message to all concerned to Play Well With Others. Sean got a big ol' bunch of posts deleted. I even deleted some of mine. I think I only deleted one of yours.
Be Good, all.
Paul:
No. I just think it's bogus etymology. If it turns out you're right it doesn't matter to the faith in the slightest.
It's just that I'm extremely skeptical you're right.
Fair enough. I'm not sure I'm right. I heard this presented at a lecture in college over 15 years ago, from a guest lecturer in a humanities series. He seemed to know what he was talking about. He was by no mean anti-christian - so I absorbed and retained.
Moses is an Egyptain word! Messiah derives from Persian! Everybody run!
I thought the etymology controversy was just a fun exercise in pedantry. But if we can kill a few misinterpetations, it's a bonus.
Well, yes, we know Moshe is an Egyptian name. As a matter of fact, my Hebrew name "Shifra" is egyptian, too.
It's not the idea that words have all sorts of different origens, it's phoney history that roasts our duffs.
The Web is full of pseudo-history and "documentation" of questionable veracity.
Just do a web search on "The Burning Times" and you'll see what I mean. Mark is right, it wouldn't change a thing about the faith if the word Amen was the ancient name of an Egyptian god.
Heck, the word Deus in Latin is actually the word Zeus, and that is a fact. The ancient Greeks pronounced the name of their chief god "Thayoos", and actually called him "king of kings" (check Homer, you'll see).
So that was never the point. Real verifiable facts, man...that's the point
JanJan:
Wait till you see my book on Mary and the deconstruction of the elaborate superstructure of Evangelical rumor that "Marianism is paganism that crept into the Church". I think you enjoy it.
There is *so* no There there.
"... not a few Evangelicals tend to regard Nature as pagan property."
As do not a few pagans. (Ooops, I meant "Pagans".) If something involves the celestial bodies, or the seasons, or "the earth", that is proof that those no-good Christians "stole" it from "Paganism".... The odd part is that this line of argument implies that the practices involved are legitimate for everyone EXCEPT Christians.
As good old GKC put it, you might as well say that legs are "of pagan origin".
So... as Jesus is both fully God and fully Man, His resurrection is an event both in eternity and in time/space. This truth would be weakened by ignoring one or the other, just as the truth about Jesus' nature is weakened (to say the least) by ignoring either His divinity or humanity. So we should celebrate the Resurrection both as a timeless event through everyday observance and as a temporal event through the scheduled yearly feast. The splendor of truth indeed!
> "the lingering notion that contact with pagan influences always means defilement for the Faith and never means redemption for paganism"
Unlike in the Old Testament, where having Moses' Seat meant the Jews were protected from defilement and instead gained a number of constructive developments of doctrine from their ecumenical interactions with the pagans?
I'm not saying "anything that resembles paganism is bad", but "What's the source of this belief? Is it pagan rather than Christian in origin? How come the Apostles seemed to know nothing about Doctrine/ Practice X but their successors suddently discovered it in the depositum fidei once Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire and took over the Pontifex Maximus position as a going concern?"
Catholics have no qualms about acccusing Protestants of pagan influence (read Chesterton on Prussia) or of being "Gnostics". Why the double standard?
Someone should tell the evangelicals that the KJV, which descended from heaven in the 16th century, has the word Easter in it.
The Latin word Deus comes from the Greek god Zeus. But that doesn't actually matter. It's just interesting. Even if Amen comes from Egyptian origins. It's just interesting that's all.
Not gonna shake my faith one bit.
So, andrew, what would shake your faith? Just wondering.
> "gained a number of constructive developments of doctrine from their ecumenical interactions with the pagans"
Actually, on second thoughts I would have to hand Mark this one because the consensus among modernist scholars (eg, Walter Wink) is that the Jews got the idea of Satan from the Zoroastrians in Persia during the Exilic period. Which is why, eg, Exodus has God who tries to kill Moses, and Kings says it was God who inciting David to hold a census while Chronicles blames Satan for inciting David (or vice versa?).
Ditto the idea of Hell is, IIRC, supposed to come from Hebrew interaction with the non-Yahwists around them.
Tom R.
If something the Church has explicitly and totally fer shure defined infallibley were reversed/proven false...that woudl shake my faith.
I would probably, in fact, abandon Catholicism...not for Protestantism but for atheism - if Catholicism ain't all she claims, her illegitimate offspring would be even worse.
Actually, now thinking about what I just wrote, it's more likely that, after a brief bout of atheism, I'd convert to Judaism...and wait in joyful hope for the FIRST coming...
Well, Mike, for example, do you believe that your Baptist brother-in-law (everyone who comboxes at CEI has a Baptist brother-in-law) should "suffer the penalties prescribed by law" if he publicly professes that "Mary was a virgin until Jesus was born"? That's from an explicitly infallible statement by a Pope, so there's very little wiggle room to Unam Sanctam-ise that one. So go on, say it loud, say it proud: "My Baptist brother-in-law should go to jail for denying the Perpetual Virginity or the Immaculate Conception."
Have I misread the Wikpedia article? I couldn't find any claims about the etymology of Hebrew 'Amen' at all, simply a survey of beliefs about the god Amun which listed the variant spellings of the name.
The terror of some evangelicals over the name of Easter reminds me of the people who try to convince us that 'Allah' is a demon (the name is an ancient Arab moon god, you see), and who ignore the fact that 'El' is one of the Hebrew terms for God, and that 'Allah' is the word Arabic-speaking Christians use for God. One could try pointing out to such people (iggerant evangelicals, not Arabic Christians, I mean) that our term for Gehenna, 'Hell', comes straight from the Germanic goddess Hel. Words have histories, but they are context dependent: if no one now even thinks of, let alone believes in, Eostre, then the name is harmless.
Tom R,
TO say that Mary was a virgin until Jesus was born is a Catholic statement.
The usual implication that she was only a virgin until shortly after Jesus was born is the problematic one.
ralphg,
One fine Easter, at my in-laws CMA church in DeLand, Florida, I wished an old lady "Happy Easter" on, well, Easter.
To which she pointedly corrected me by replying, in a disapproving tone, "Happy Resurrection Sunday", as if my subject and verb had not agreed in number.
I didn't see what was wrong with any of my posts to warrant their being deleted, or janjan's, or B-Y's, or yours, Mark. Just good old honest rough-and-tumble debate, that's all.
A couple of weeks ago I dropped an f-bomb, and that never got deleted (to my knowledge). Why this stuff?
Here's one more reason:
Easter is the nexus of the Old and New Covenants. To separate it from Passover is to remove critical elements from the story.
While flipping through the channels one fine Sunday I came across a preacher on TBN trying to explain how the invasion of Iraq was the sign that the Rapture is just around the corner. He went on to explain the origins of Lent, Christmas, Easter, the Eucharist, and pretty much everything else the Catholic Church is characteristically known for perpetuating as being pagan and injected into Christianity by the first Pontifex Maximus Constantine "...which is where the word 'pope' comes from," he said. Much of it reminded me of that glorious tract, The Trail of Blood, I read as a triumphalistic Baptist (my brother-in-law's Methodist, but my father, stepmother, and grandmother are Baptist).
I would have laughed except that he's the pastor of one of the largest churches in San Antonio and was recently 31 on The Church Report's 50 Most Influential Christians in America (to their credit, B16 and Cdl. McCarrick made the list as well). My point is that such beliefs aren't "fringe." They're very common among MANY evangelicals.
>I didn't see what was wrong with any of my posts to warrant their being deleted, or janjan's, or B-Y's, or yours, Mark. Just good old honest rough-and-tumble debate, that's all.
I reply: Because Irishmen it would have ended very badly.
+J.M.J+
>>>(everyone who comboxes at CEI has a Baptist brother-in-law)
Nah, my brother's-in-law are both inactive Catholics, AFAIK. I do have one (non-practicing) Methodist sister-in-law and the other sil is an ex-Catholic who is quite active in Calvary Chapel. But Baptist...nope.
In Jesu et Maria,
>Nah, my brother's-in-law are both inactive Catholics, AFAIK.
I reply: Babe, I wouldn't count Bobby out yet. I'm working on him. There might be hope for Mike too.
Okay, Methodist workmate then.
Ed, "Mary was a virgin until/ before [heos hou] Jesus was born" is a statement that a Catholic could, if strapped to a rack by Bloody Bess's secret police, probably sign in good conscience, albeit with a mental reservation. It is not, however, a statement that any Catholic today would make in their own words, any more than you would choose to say (eg) "I'm certain my mother never took part in any adulterous orgies after she married my father." Offered a chance to put your mother's virtue beyond doubt, you would choose unambigous words.
Really. Seriously. Some inquirer asks you: "At what time in her life do you Catholics believe Mary was a virgin?" You answer: "Before Jesus was born". Riiiiiight.
So: back to the question. The pope has decreed infallibly, in as many words, that I must "suffer the penalties prescribed by law" for writing what I just wrote. No wriggle room to give this one the Unam Sanctam or the Romans Chapter 9 treatment. Step up to the plate, folks, and tell me that people like me should be thrown in jail for that. To a Catholic, that's as binding on the conscience as "In the beginning God created..." is for every Christian.
PS: And before anyone starts telling me that Greek "until" can also mean "in order that"... it doesn't, in this context.
Update: Just checked the main blog and realised Mark's started a new thread on this. I should be flattered.
+J.M.J+
>>>Step up to the plate, folks, and tell me that people like me should be thrown in jail for that.
I suppose if you were a Catholic living in a Catholic confessional state, you would get thrown in jail for that because Catholicism is the "law of the land" in such a state, which makes apostates outlaws.
Seeing as you are a non-Catholic living in Australia, you should certainly not be thrown in jail.
Might I point out that the 1950 infallible declaration of the Assumption of Mary does not contain the same line about incurring "the penalties established by law"? Could it be because the Papal States were still in existence back in 1854, but not a century later?
In Jesu et Maria,
You can't apostasise from a religion to which you never belonged.
PVO
+J.M.J+
I think Tom R. may be an ex-Catholic, though.
In Jesu et Maria,
Interesting take on my Blog...being a Quaker, I take exception to the Evangelistic moniker however. But, I won't get into that!
Anyway, the counter-points were well made. But, the issue remains that the some of these issues are of pagan origin. How we decide to deal with that is our own decision. Interestingly, many Quakers do not use the terms Monday, Tuesday...or June, July as was used as another pagan example in one of the prior comments above.
I certainly don't condemn you for choosing to assume the rituals as have been inherited by you. And, I love that you've not responded in a hateful manner! God Bless you all.
Will
I was aware that some in the Society of Friends use "Firstday," etc., ... but, to the best of my knowledge, none of them have attacked the Catholic Church for using terms inherited from a pagan past.
St. Paul's comment regarding the use of meats sacrificed to idols would seem to answer the case -- if it bothers you, don't do it, if it bothers others (really bothers, not just something to hang an accusation on), don't do it so as not to cause scandal, if it doesn't bother anyone, so what?
I have always rather liked C. S. Lewis' comment to the effect that we shouldn't be surprised that there are so many "relics" of paganism in Christianity -- we would have to be surprised if there were not.
To say otherwise would be to claim that there was absolutely no truth at all in paganism, which we know is not the case, and that Christianity has a monopoly on the truth ... even when it seems to be fulfilling or agreeing with non-Christian religions.
Interesting how you have made me out to be an anti-Catholic bigot! Last time I checked, Protestants were also regularly celebrating the holiday of Easter. It seems you are the one that is “bothered” as is demonstrated with your name-tagging “evangelistic” to everything non-Catholic.
Shouldn’t you get the hint by my statement that I don’t condemn those that practice as you do? That I merely practice in a different light? Are you saying if it “really bothered” me, you would change your practices? No, you wouldn’t. Because you have tagged me as an “accuser” that is merely bigoted in my views – interesting how we do that when we get defensive. Lighten up!
Will
+J.M.J+
I'm not sure A. Nonymouse was attacking you, Will. When s/he said:
"If it bothers you, don't do it, if it bothers others (really bothers, not just something to hang an accusation on), don't do it so as not to cause scandal, if it doesn't bother anyone, so what?"
I think s/he was summarizing what St. Paul wrote as a general principle, not saying that you personally are "bothered" by Easter or names of days rooted in paganism. And when s/he said:
"I was aware that some in the Society of Friends use "Firstday," etc., ... but, to the best of my knowledge, none of them have attacked the Catholic Church for using terms inherited from a pagan past."
I don't think s/he was accusing you of attacking Catholics, just making a general statement that s/he never heard any Quakers attack Catholicism over the days of the week.
That's my reading of his/her post. I don't find anything objectionable in your post anyway, so I don't see how anyone could criticize you.
In Jesu et Maria,
I hope you are right...God Bless.
Well it seems I've stumbled and landed up here. One minute I was on the americanpapist than M. Shea's blog and finally here. After reading some of the comments I'd like to make an observation - people do like creating walls.
Will has his bonnet up in knots about being classified as "evangelistic", and Tom desires to argue ad hominum on sex-life of Mary.
Dear Will take the title evangelistic as a positive characteristic regardless of how being presented to you, even in sarcasm it is a true representation of The Church of God.
Dear Tom get on topic with what is central to your faith and not want Protestants term "perpherials". If of course disproving Catholicism is a central element to your faith existence than no doubt you will continue in this line of questioning (personally I always detest those who clothe slanderous caricature in the form of questions)
One additional note, personally I think it is improper for Catholics to get in the habit of addressing certain non-catholic groups/individuals as Evangelical. As Catholics we should profess the evangelistic nature of the Catholic faith and make known non-catholics do not own any legal right to the title. In conversation I make a point of addressing those who imbrace this title as non-catholics as "protestant-evangelical(s)".
Take the Catholic usage of Church, a teaching on how to address other Christian communtities and you quickly realize the proper language is never using the terminlogy of Church but only community for those outside the one physical Church.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
