Happy Immaculate Conception!

[Kelp]

You're right that veneration of the disciples was also an early phenomenon. Not hard to understand why, given the pagan Roman context. Cultural blind spots and all that.

I dunno, from a Protestant context that's some pretty heinous sin so very early on. When does a blind spot become "Those who do these things will not inherit the Kingdom of God?" I really don't see any difference between the church of the 200s or so and the modern RCC in this regard.

[RBerman]

I dunno, from a Protestant context that's some pretty heinous sin so very early on. When does a blind spot become "Those who do these things will not inherit the Kingdom of God?" I really don't see any difference between the church of the 200s or so and the modern RCC in this regard.

Those judgments are up to God. Protestants have their idols too. Humans are good at that. Like the modern church, the early church was far from perfect. Just forgiven.

[One Bad Pig]

In a word, No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary

The wiki article is improperly conflating the RCC doctrine of the Assumption of Mary with the Eastern doctrine of the Dormition of Mary. The difference lies in the RCC idea that Mary did not die before being bodily assumed into heaven. The Eastern churches believe that Mary died and was buried, and the tomb was found empty three days later when Thomas wanted to see her body.

St. John of the Ladder also tells of a monk who was bodily transported to heaven after he had died and been buried (same situation - someone wanted to see his relics, and they couldn't find the body when they looked).

[One Bad Pig]

You're right that veneration of the disciples was also an early phenomenon. Not hard to understand why, given the pagan Roman context. Cultural blind spots and all that.

Except for the minor distinction that, in pagan Rome, they would have been worshiped as gods. In Christianity, they most emphatically were not. Countless martyrs died over that distinction.

And yes, you're probably right that Mary was not assigned any bones because Assumption theology had already set in. Hence the "claws" remark.

Not Assumption theology, but do you think it's remotely possible that Mary's tomb really WAS found to be empty?

[Kelp]

Except for the minor distinction that, in pagan Rome, they would have been worshiped as gods. In Christianity, they most emphatically were not.

What berman is saying AFAICT is that the church was fooling itself to think that veneration didn't count as worship in God's eyes. They were making a culturally convenient subconscious maneuver that allowed them to retain idols and polytheism.

[RBerman]

Except for the minor distinction that, in pagan Rome, they would have been worshiped as gods. In Christianity, they most emphatically were not. Countless martyrs died over that distinction.

Logomachy. The Romans had tiers of deity too, which is why the constellations are named after heroes and demigods rather than the "big twelve."

Not Assumption theology, but do you think it's remotely possible that Mary's tomb really WAS found to be empty?

I thought we'd established that the early church didn't have a place called "Mary's tomb." Sounds like conflicting folklore to me.

[One Bad Pig]

What berman is saying AFAICT is that the church was fooling itself to think that veneration didn't count as worship in God's eyes. They were making a culturally convenient subconscious maneuver that allowed them to retain idols and polytheism.

If he wants to condemn as idolatrous a practice that was nearly universal throughout Christendom for 1400 years, that's his problem. Those who didn't venerate the saints before the Protestant Reformation were typically gnostics or iconoclasts attempting to coexist with Islam (and as far as I know the iconoclasts still prayed to the saints - they just didn't approve of images). As far as a "culturally convenient subconscious maneuver" goes... Rberman is making a culturally convenient subconscious maneuver that allows him to validate his a priori beliefs that the Reformation was correct in doing away with the veneration of saints. There, now we're even.

[One Bad Pig]

Logomachy. The Romans had tiers of deity too, which is why the constellations are named after heroes and demigods rather than the "big twelve."

The Church didn't have tiers of deity.

I thought we'd established that the early church didn't have a place called "Mary's tomb."

Which proves... what, exactly? The early saints were venerated at their gravesite, because that's where their relics were. That doesn't apply to Mary.

Sounds like conflicting folklore to me.

The Dormition of Mary is a belief held for 1600 years or so. The Assumption of Mary was dogmatized, what, 60 years ago?

[RBerman]

The Church didn't have tiers of deity.

Not by that name. But functionally, that's what saints become when you pray to them and use their bodies and possessions as talismans: A lesser spiritual power, subordinate to the King of the Gods.

Which proves... what, exactly? The early saints were venerated at their gravesite, because that's where their relics were. That doesn't apply to Mary. The Dormition of Mary is a belief held for 1600 years or so. The Assumption of Mary was dogmatized, what, 60 years ago?

It was dogmatized because it's a belief that's been around much longer than that. The Pope chooses his ex cathedra pronunciations carefully, following trends rather than setting them. He's no fool.

[Kelp]

Not by that name. But functionally, that's what saints become when you pray to them and use their bodies and possessions as talismans: A lesser spiritual power, subordinate to the King of the Gods.

But the saints would be nothing without God, to invoke them is to invoke God's power. Sure, some might lose sight of that distinction just like some Protestants idolize authors or theological systems but to say that *almost all* of the Church Fathers and pre-Reformation Christians didn't understand that especially when so many written prayers and services explicitly ask the saints to pray to God would seem to insult their intelligences.

[Kelp]

As far as a "culturally convenient subconscious maneuver" goes... Rberman is making a culturally convenient subconscious maneuver that allows him to validate his a priori beliefs that the Reformation was correct in doing away with the veneration of saints. There, now we're even.

Mmm, interesting point. I'd not thought of that.

I suppose the next question is where the Reformation's condemnation of veneration came from exactly (was it only because of sola scriptura?) and how old it is. I wonder if some kind of coherent thread can be traced without arguing from silence.

[RBerman]

But the saints would be nothing without God, to invoke them is to invoke God's power. Sure, some might lose sight of that distinction just like some Protestants idolize authors or theological systems but to say that *almost all* of the Church Fathers and pre-Reformation Christians didn't understand that especially when so many written prayers and services explicitly ask the saints to pray to God would seem to insult their intelligences.

It's not a matter of intelligence, but of presuppositions and category filters. Secular scientists can be brilliant and still be mistaken about evolution, because they approach the data with the wrong assumptions. The same is true of any heresy you'd care to name. There are smart Mormons, smart Open Theists, smart Muslims, smart atheists. Brains are not and never have been the problem. Anyone growing up in pagan Rome's panoply of minor deities would naturally pray to the Christian version of the same and tell himself, "It's not really worship."

[RBerman]

As far as a "culturally convenient subconscious maneuver" goes... Rberman is making a culturally convenient subconscious maneuver that allows him to validate his a priori beliefs that the Reformation was correct in doing away with the veneration of saints. There, now we're even.

Zing! Really, my "culturally convenient belief" is Sola Scriptura, and iconoclasm is simply a corrolary of that. If I accepted Roman teachings about the authority of the Magisterium, I would accept magisterial teachings on the saints, the treasury of merit, the sale of indulgences, the cult of the Virgin, etc.

[maudman]

Not by that name. But functionally, that's what saints become when you pray to them and use their bodies and possessions as talismans: A lesser spiritual power, subordinate to the King of the Gods.



It was dogmatized because it's a belief that's been around much longer than that. The Pope chooses his ex cathedra pronunciations carefully, following trends rather than setting them. He's no fool.

Correct the Pope is no Fool...

Often what happens is too many are ignorant of the traditions of the catholic Church... Not in what is said but why... And the purpose of such things... Not the ones those outside who convince themselves of what makes them feel justified in the distiction.. But a purpose the church has, which is only partially seen and understood by many protestants or others...

Veneration of Saints has nothing to do with cult practices, but rather that in cults were certain elements of Faith.. Veneration has more to do with what was seen as something particular in the Saints Life.. By elevating one to saint? It draws the church to understand something particular about the ""WORKS"" of the person... They are set up as an example for all the church to see and acknowledge as the Magistium thinks the life of certain Individuals carry with them works and at times their teachings.. Worthy of immitation or reciprication...

Protestantism largely became the intectuals home base.. It really didn't care for the religion of the Catholic Church, but rather was able to ignore the Catholic churches teaching as intellectually void of anything valuable in theological system of logic... If it wasn't logical it wasn't important accept to distinguish from something for reasons that had nothing to do with scripture but the lack of scripture... While enjoying the social reform or the fruits of the gospel that had been laid by the Catholic Church..

Remember the Roman Empire was handed to those of the catholic faith.. The only time in the history of the world such a thing happens in such a way.. Those cults as you call them is the blood layed on the alter of Rome.. The Most powerful kingdom in the world succumed to those who extended no violence as they were butchered at times or percecuted for their beliefs... Who lead not revolution against the authorities of their time or spoke evil of such things.. But were persecuted simply by what others understood or didn't understand? Those beliefs even if seen as wrong demonstrates something about God and those who laid their lives on the Line.....

[RBerman]

Veneration of Saints has nothing to do with cult practices, but rather that in cults were certain elements of Faith.. Veneration has more to do with what was seen as something particular in the Saints Life.. By elevating one to saint? It draws the church to understand something particular about the ""WORKS"" of the person... They are set up as an example for all the church to see and acknowledge as the Magistium thinks the life of certain Individuals carry with them works and at times their teachings.. Worthy of imitation or reciprication.

Nothing wrong with having positive role models. Lots wrong with treating them as minor deities to whom prayers should be offered. Even more wrong with burying a statue of one in your back yard so your house will sell faster. Even more wrong with thinking that their works exceeded God's demands, so that they have spare brownie points which the Pope can dispense at will to get your loved ones out of purgatory faster. And so on. Don't you see how a good thing (honoring one's forefathers in the faith) ballooned into a bad thing? We humans are good at it; it's not just a Roman thing.

Protestantism largely became the intectuals home base.. It really didn't care for the religion of the Catholic Church, but rather was able to ignore the Catholic churches teaching as intellectually void of anything valuable in theological system of logic... If it wasn't logical it wasn't important accept to distinguish from something for reasons that had nothing to do with scripture but the lack of scripture... While enjoying the social reform or the fruits of the gospel that had been laid by the Catholic Church.

I'm happy to praise the Roman church when it's right. Are you (and is it) willing for me to criticize it when it's wrong?

Remember the Roman Empire was handed to those of the catholic faith.. The only time in the history of the world such a thing happens in such a way.. Those cults as you call them is the blood layed on the alter of Rome.. The Most powerful kingdom in the world succumed to those who extended no violence as they were butchered at times or percecuted for their beliefs... Who lead not revolution against the authorities of their time or spoke evil of such things.. But were persecuted simply by what others understood or didn't understand? Those beliefs even if seen as wrong demonstrates something about God and those who laid their lives on the Line.....

Remember that the Roman Empire was on its last legs in the days of Constantine. It wasn't long before the Huns and Goths and others came knocking at the doors of Rome, and all the glorious archicecture was getting disassembled by peasants to build hovels in the Forum. So on those grounds, the Church got the booby prize. One could also argue that it was not Rome that was handed to the Catholic faith so much as the Catholic faith that was handed to Rome. Thus the Bishop of Rome took the pagan title Pontifex Maximus (usually shorted to "Pontiff" today) which had for centuries been used to identify the man who oversaw the religious functions of the Roman government. When Christianity lost its persecuted status and became "in vogue," scads of false converts flooded in, polluting Christian practice and doctrine with a nominal faith that was barely any different from the civic religion they had been practicing before.