The Catholic Church and veneration of saints

[Yeekim]

Moderator Action: This is split off from another thread.

"Catholicism inherited its beliefs and traditions from pagan religions"

Depending on what that is supposed to mean, that could be pretty correct.

I mean, most of the people who've ever self-identified as Christians probably have held more beliefs originating from various pagan creeds than anything else.

 

[LightSpectra]

I'm not talking about insignificant things such as vestment style or saint histories that appear to have been Christianized version of Greco-Roman mythology. I'm talking about that magnificently ignorant "Jesus is a myth based on Mithras" garbage that makes anthropologists have brain aneurysms.

 

[Yeekim]

I'm not talking about insignificant things such as vestment style or saint histories that appear to have been Christianized version of Greco-Roman mythology. I'm talking about that magnificently ignorant "Jesus is a myth based on Mithras" garbage that makes anthropologists have brain aneurysms.

Arguably, Catholicism was at times far more centered around plethora of saints than around Jesus himself. Afaik, this was one of the main concerns of reformers, so I certainly would not call them insignificant. Saints were the ones who had "practical applications" for people.

 

[LightSpectra]

Arguably, Catholicism was at times far more centered around plethora of saints than around Jesus himself.

No. Not even arguably -- unless the contrarians in question are the ideologues who dig through history with the sole intent of discrediting Catholicism. The only reason saints are venerated is because they brought honor to God. The only places where saint worship could be found were in the first few generations of converted indigenous peoples, or perhaps in the era between the end of the Western Empire and the Carolingians where Christian minorities had to cohabitate with the old European polytheists.

Afaik, this was one of the main concerns of reformers, so I certainly would not call them insignificant. Saints were the ones who had "practical applications" for people.

"One of the main concern of reformers?" Which reformers? The Protestants, that completely denied the authority of the Church in the first place?

 

[innonimatu]

No. Not even arguably -- unless the contrarians in question are the ideologues who dig through history with the sole intent of discrediting Catholicism. The only reason saints are venerated is because they brought honor to God. The only places where saint worship could be found were in the first few generations of converted indigenous peoples, or perhaps in the era between the end of the Western Empire and the Carolingians where Christian minorities had to cohabitate with the old European polytheists.

While I am sure that this was true for the clergy, it certainly wasn't for the common believers! Veneration of saints was very important (and very encouraged by some clergy during the middle ages) and the believers didn't care about the theological fine points of why they were venerating the saints.
The whole movement across Europa which developed in the 17th century to promote cults of the virgin Mary or the holy spirit was an attempt by the catholic church of diverting worship away from saints, to more acceptable images. The effort was considered, and conducted as, an "evangelization" of Europe, the orders and individual missionaries modeled on those who had been already sent to the Americas and the East.

 

[LightSpectra]

While I am sure that this was true for the clergy, it certainly wasn't for the common believers! Veneration of saints was very important (and very encouraged by some clergy during the middle ages) and the believers didn't care about the theological fine points of why they were venerating the saints.

This isn't a "theological fine point." It's a rather simple point. Citation needed that the common believers didn't understand the difference between veneration and worship; given how much monotheist Trinitarian language there was in the early modern Church, it's almost inconceivable that saint worship would take place in Old Europe at all; but it has popped up very rarely.

The whole movement across Europa which developed in the 17th century to promote cults of the virgin Mary or the holy spirit was an attempt by the catholic church of diverting worship away from saints,

Since the Virgin Mary is a saint, that would be interestingly folley. I'm going to ask for another citation on this point.

Also, perhaps this might be the point of contention, but the word "worship" has only recently become the sole translation of the word latria. In older English, "worship" was synonymous with "vereration" (dulia), which is why British judges were referred to as "your worship." Just to make sure we're arguing about the same thing: at no point in Catholic history was latria of the saints widespread or any sort of crisis, despite the iconoclastic movements in the East.

to more acceptable images. The effort was considered, and conducted as, an "evangelization" of Europe, the orders and individual missionaries modeled on those who had been already sent to the Americas and the East.

I haven't the faintest clue of what you're speaking of. Effort in the 17th century was placed in rooting out heresies, and the main benefactors in this era were the Society of Jesus and the Order of Preachers.

 

[innonimatu]

This isn't a "theological fine point." It's a rather simple point. Citation needed that the common believers didn't understand the difference between veneration and worship; given how much monotheist Trinitarian language there was in the early modern Church, it's almost inconceivable that saint worship would take place in Old Europe at all; but it has popped up very rarely.

Say rather, citation needed that they did understood! People in the middle ages did not knew latin! Local priests were instructed to basically "go with the flow". Even the catholic church did not possess the ability to enforce a standard form of worship across the catholic lands. So long as the bishops and clergy accepted the instructions from the hierarchy all was well, and the locals could have their little deviations. But don't take my word for it, I promise that I'll dig up ample references once I get back near my library next weekend.

Since the Virgin Mary is a saint, that would be interestingly folley. I'm going to ask for another citation on this point.

I live in a country where the main catholic shrine is dedicated to the virgin Mary. Where most of the income of the church comes, in gifts, from that shrine. Which two popes obligingly visited and celebrated. Where I know, and have personally observed, that the pilgrims going there attribute to her at least as much importance as to the figure of Jesus, that one part of the holy trinity. The "holy spirit" never quite caught on, despite the efforts of the church to promote it, and as for God... it's a reference in the commonest prayer, and little more. People do not care about God. They don't even think about the holy spirit. They don't give a about the holy trinity. They do pay attention to Jesus, and especially to Mary. Because they were human, and are easier to identify with.

And judging from all I've read about the history of religion in Europe, to the present, this is representative of the continent. And of South America also, at the very least.

Also, perhaps this might be the point of contention, but the word "worship" has only recently become the sole translation of the word latria. In older English, "worship" was synonymous with "vereration" (dulia), which is why British judges were referred to as "your worship." Just to make sure we're arguing about the same thing: at no point in Catholic history was latria of the saints widespread or any sort of crisis, despite the iconoclastic movements in the East.

No, I wasn't arguing over words. I would like to point out that believers even after the reformation cared little about words, and even less about understanding the latin used by the church. The clergy did care a lot about words and rituals, but that was only after the reformation. Before... let's just say that there are letters from the middle ages by some disgruntled clerics complaining about the use of churches for "pagan" festivities, prostitutes, etc. People knew better how to have their fun before the reformation!

I haven't the faintest clue of what you're speaking of. Effort in the 17th century was placed in rooting out heresies, and the main benefactors in this era were the Society of Jesus and the Order of Preachers.

Why not call it Dominicans, as everyone does? Yes, they, first, then the jesuits, played a major role. But if you dig deeper you'll find that other orders, ans especially some feminine orders, played a very important role. As late as the 19th century the church promoted the preaching of a french nun in order to try (with some success) to spread a cult of the "holy spirit", replacing former local festivities honoring saints.

But I'm no expert on religious history. I do hope that Plotinus can add something to this conversation.

Moderator Action: Dinged for language. (Not quite what you wanted me to add to the conversation perhaps - sorry!
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[LightSpectra]

Say rather, citation needed that they did understood!

I'm not making any claims about what the common people did or did not understand (how would this be established? A survey?); but I do find it incredulous that they did not, given its simplicity. Hence, I want a citation that demonstrates the contrary of common sense, and as well because you're the one who made the contention as part of your rebuttal.

People in the middle ages did not knew latin!

Peasants didn't, at least not fluently. So what? The Mass was celebrated in ecclesiastical Latin, that doesn't mean every single prayer and instruction was in Latin; as if the lay person was entirely in the dark about Catholic faith.

There were difficulties in communication and pinpointing where individual priests go wrong, this is true. But that's nowhere close to the situation as painted by you.

Local priests were instructed to basically "go with the flow".

Citation needed. That would especially not be the case if we're talking about during the Protestant Reformation. What would that accomplish?

Even the catholic church did not possess the ability to enforce a standard form of worship across the catholic lands.

... we are talking about the 17th century, aren't we? Perhaps you should do a bit of research on Pope St. Pius V and Quo Primum. The Tridentine Latin Mass was established when Pius created a universal Latin rite via the Roman Missal published in 1570.

I live in a country where the main catholic shrine is dedicated to the virgin Mary. Where most of the income of the church comes, in gifts, from that shrine. Which two popes obligingly visited and celebrated. Where I know, and have personally observed, that the pilgrims going there attribute to her at least as much importance as to the figure of Jesus, that one part of the holy trinity. The "holy spirit" never quite caught on, despite the efforts of the church to promote it, and as for God... it's a reference in the commonest prayer, and little more. People do not care about God. They don't even think about the holy spirit. They don't give a about the holy trinity. They do pay attention to Jesus, and especially to Mary. Because they were human, and are easier to identify with.

I apologize that you are so woefully misinformed about the Catholic faith. People honor the Blessed Virgin because she was designated to be the Mother of God; her honor is entirely due because she's a servant of God. It is impossible to properly honor Mary without honoring God.

There was recently a sect -- I believe their name was the Army of Mary, or something like that? -- who taught that Mary was the incarnation of the Holy Spirit. They were very quickly excommunicated for teaching such a grievous heresy. Perhaps that should demonstrate how serious Catholics take the difference between hyperdulia and latria.

By the way, are you American? If so, you are likely referring to the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. I work there and attend Mass there daily. Please don't presume to tell me that Catholics here don't care about the Trinity.

No, I wasn't arguing over words. I would like to point out that believers even after the reformation cared little about words, and even less about understanding the latin used by the church.

I'll be happy when those citations finally come.

The clergy did care a lot about words and rituals, but that was only after the reformation.

More extremely general and contrary-to-common-sense claims. I'm going to be gravely disappointed if the citations you intend to supply end up being some ignoramus fundamentalist Protestant's work of anti-Catholic bigotry.

Before... let's just say that there are letters from the middle ages by some disgruntled clerics complaining about the use of churches for "pagan" festivities, prostitutes, etc. People knew better how to have their fun before the reformation!

It's a sad fact that despite the population of medieval Europe being overwhelmingly Catholic, not a great deal of peoples wanted to take the message of Christianity very seriously; hence you get figures like Pope Alexander VI and Frederick II Hohenstaufen that use the Church as nothing more than a tool for their personal ambitions. But this is entirely irrelevant to anything I've argued thus far.

Why not call it Dominicans, as everyone does?

Because Ordo Praedicatorum is their official name. Beside that, "the Dominicans" refers to the people of the order, not the order itself; which is sometimes informally called "the Dominican Order," just as sometimes "England" is used interchangeably with "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."

Yes, they, first, then the jesuits, played a major role. But if you dig deeper you'll find that other orders, ans especially some feminine orders, played a very important role. As late as the 19th century the church promoted the preaching of a french nun in order to try (with some success) to spread a cult of the "holy spirit", replacing former local festivities honoring saints.

Sometimes the Church will go about to alter the liturgical calendar for reasons related to contemporary politics; such as when Pope St. Pius X canonized St. Jeanne d'Arc in order to attempt to revitalize French spirituality. But this is quite a far cry from the suggestion that there was some sort of crisis of saint worship that the Church attempted to diffuse by increasing the focus on the Trinity. The above example only establishes that by an extreme stretch of the imagination.

 

[civ_king]

My church is heretical, everyone receives communion standing (and in hand) and there is no kneeling rail

 

[LightSpectra]

My church is heretical, everyone receives communion standing (and in hand) and there is no kneeling rail

That's not heresy, but it is unfortunate that such things have come from Vatican II. I'd try to find a TLM if I were you.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think Yeekim has a point- the veneration of saints in Catholicism seems to border on outright worship at times, particularly given the prevalence of idolatry in regards to such saints. Certainly, once you begin asserting that such-and-such saint patronises a particular nation, profession or concept, you're verging on polytheism, whatever the theological underpinnings; the spirit of the practice, if not the formal reasoning, seems to derive far more from Roman paganism than anything to do with Judaism. An omnipotent, omnipresent god hardly needs little helpers to watch over such-and-such town or such-and-such craft, does he?
Personally, I'd go so far as to suggest that the Virgin Mary is simply a pagan Mother Goddess filtered through Catholicism' delightful maddona-whore complex, but that may be a tad too contentious...

That's not heresy, but it is unfortunate that such things have come from Vatican II. I'd try to find a TLM if I were you.

Strictly speaking, aren't those churches which do not adhere to Vatican II heretical? I was always under the impression that the Vatican had the final say on these matters, and that anti-reformist deviation was just as heretical as reformist deviation. It is Catholicism, after all, it's not up to mere individuals to decide what they believe.

 

[LightSpectra]

I think Yeekim has a point- the veneration of saints in Catholicism seems to border on outright worship at times, particularly given the prevalence of idolatry in regards to such saints.

The "prevalence" of idolatry? Such as? And what does "border on worshiping" mean? It's not exactly a blurry line; either they're beings with power in their own right or they're beings whose venerability comes solely by the grace of God.

Certainly, once you begin asserting that such-and-such saint patronises a particular nation, profession or concept, you're verging on polytheism,

Howso?

whatever the theological underpinnings; the spirit of the practice, if not the formal reasoning, seems to derive far more from Roman paganism than anything to do with Judaism.

I haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about. Go to an Orthodox Jewish synagogue and you're likely to hear a hopeful blessing from "our father Abraham." Psalm 103 is addressed to an angel.

An omnipotent, omnipresent god hardly needs little helpers to watch over such-and-such town or such-and-such craft, does he?

Correct. Hence why saint veneration has nothing to do with that.

Personally, I'd go so far as to suggest that the Virgin Mary is simply a pagan Mother Goddess filtered through Catholicism' delightful maddona-whore complex, but that may be a tad too contentious...

She is not, nor is she ever spoken of as, a goddess. Problem solved.

Strictly speaking, aren't those churches which do not adhere to Vatican II heretical? I was always under the impression that the Vatican had the final say on these matters, and that anti-reformist deviation was just as heretical as reformist deviation. It is Catholicism, after all, it's not up to mere individuals to decide what they believe.

Summorum Pontificum

 

[Traitorfish]

The "prevalence" of idolatry? Such as?

I suppose "idolatry" may be an exaggeration, given that Catholics do not literally worship icons, but, then, did most pagans? Did the Anglo-Saxons literally worship their sacred trees? Do followers of Shinto literally worship a statue of Ameratsu? In all cases, their is a reverence shown to icons depicting or representing sacred entities, and at which worship is directed. I see no fundamental difference between this sort of thing and that sort of thing.

And what does "border on worshiping" mean? It's not exactly a blurry line; either they're beings with power in their own right or they're beings whose venerability comes solely by the grace of God.

I think you may misunderstand; my point was not that Catholics explicitly worship saints, but that the Catholic practice and tradition of revering saints draws more from pagan culture than it does from any indigenous Christian development. They are not gods themselves, but the religious and cultural niche they fill is akin to that of the secondary gods of pre-Christian paganism, albeit lessened somewhat. When one offers a prayer to say, Saint Medard to cure you of toothache, the theology dictates that you are praying to God via Medard, and that the cure comes from God himself, but that does not dismiss the fact that worshippers still feel the need to drag Medard into things. Clearly, he fulfils some role in Catholicism which some other Christian sects, such do not feel the need to demand of him, and the invocation of this role is, in practice, very similar to that of a minor pagan deity.

Howso?

Because that is a hallmark of polytheistic religion. Monotheism traditionally holds that a single deity rules over all things, as is the case in Judaism, Islam and Protestant Christianity. The Catholic assertion that God chooses to delegate authority is hardly in line with other forms of monotheistic worship, at least not of the Abrahamic variety. It bears some resemblance to certain forms of Chinese Heaven Worship, but that's hardly an argument against polytheistic influence. Even in Hinduism, a pseudo-polytheistic faith, the various deities are ultimately aspects of a single deity, while Catholicism holds each patron saint to be a fully distinct spiritual entity.

I haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about. Go to an Orthodox Jewish synagogue and you're likely to hear a hopeful blessing from "our father Abraham." Psalm 103 is addressed to an angel.

Then, what, Judaism is also trumped up pagan sect? Makes sense, I suppose, given the explicit and implicit acknowledgement of gods other than Yahweh in the Bible. "You shall have no other gods before me" can only be understood in so many ways, after all...
Still, Jews don't reverse saints, or make icons as Catholics do. You must have picked that up from somewhere.

Correct. Hence why saint veneration has nothing to do with that.

Then why does the practice exist? An omnipresent and omnipotent god does not need to delegate, nor does he need certain entities to advise on the affairs of his worshippers, yet this is exactly what Catholicism suggests.

She is not, nor is she ever spoken of as, a goddess. Problem solved.

Again, I did not mean that she is an explicit or literal goddess, but that the role she fulfils in the Catholic faith is derived from an analogous to that of various goddess in pre-Christian paganism. She is, in essence, the divine feminine, manifested as the Catholic image of the "perfect" female.

Summorum Pontificum

Handy you've got that kicking about, then. Heaven forbid you make up your own mind about that sort of thing.

 

[LightSpectra]

I suppose "idolatry" may be an exaggeration, given that Catholics do not literally worship icons, but, then, did most pagans? Did the Anglo-Saxons literally worship their sacred trees? Do followers of Shinto literally worship a statue of Ameratsu? In all cases, their is a reverence shown to icons depicting or representing sacred entities, and at which worship is directed.

It's not worship unless it's latria.

I see no fundamental difference between this sort of thing and that sort of thing.

That's probably why you're not a sociologist, then. The person which the statues/icons represent in Catholicism are venerated (dulia); and the entities behind the statues/icons in polytheism are worshiped (latria). Simple difference. The angels and saints in Christianity praise and worship God themselves, and are considered to be good role models because of the fact that they praised and worshiped God in a pleasing manner to Him; not because they are beings that in their own regard have any sort of power to themselves.

They are not gods themselves, but the religious and cultural niche they fill is akin to that of the secondary gods of pre-Christian paganism, albeit lessened somewhat. When one offers a prayer to say, Saint Medard to cure you of toothache, the theology dictates that you are praying to God via Medard, and that the cure comes from God himself, but that does not dismiss the fact that worshippers still feel the need to drag Medard into things.

I believe we've just isolated the problem: you misunderstand the nature of saint veneration. When people prayed to the Greco-Roman gods, it was for material/pleasurable blessings, such as a plentiful harvest or personal virtue. It was to make their own lives better. When people pray to God, it's in order to become better worshipers of God. The final cause is completely different. If a Christian is asking to be spared of a certain suffering, it should only be insofar if it is God's antecedent will that the person in question not suffer at that particular moment. Hence the prayer to St. Medard: as he is the patron saint of toothaches, his story is a particular inspiration to those with toothaches attempting to be proper Christians.

Because that is a hallmark of polytheistic religion. Monotheism traditionally holds that a single deity rules over all things, as is the case in Judaism, Islam and Protestant Christianity. The Catholic assertion that God chooses to delegate authority is hardly in line with other forms of monotheistic worship, at least not of the Abrahamic variety.

God doesn't delegate authority, except in a priestly manner; which is also true of Judaism. To suggest that He is not a "single deity [that] rules over all things" is completely false. He shares mediation, which is something different. It demonstrates His love of His creation in that He chooses to work through human means in order to accomplish His will. This, again, can be found in the Hebrew Bible, and is not exclusive to Catholic tradition:

"When the messenger came to announce to Job that the Sabeans had plundered his goods and slain his children, he said: 'The Lord gave and the Lord taketh away.' He did not say: 'The Lord hath given me my children and my possessions, and the Sabeans have taken them away.' He realized that adversity had come upon him by the will of God. Therefore he added: 'As it hath pleased the Lord, so is it done. Blessed be the name of the Lord.' We must not therefore consider the afflictions that come upon us as happening by chance or solely from the malice of men; we should be convinced that what happens, happens by the will of God." - St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Uniformity with God's Will

Then, what, Judaism is also trumped up pagan sect?

No. Neither are. Perhaps if you let go of the silly assumption that God having agents is polytheisticesque, you would see that.

Makes sense, I suppose, given the explicit and implicit acknowledgement of gods other than Yahweh in the Bible. "You shall have no other gods before me" can only be understood in so many ways, after all...

"A god" can be defined in many ways. St. Paul considered financial greed to be a type of idolatry; even though money is not an intelligent being, it is something considered to be a good that is often placed above God.

Still, Jews don't reverse saints, or make icons as Catholics do. You must have picked that up from somewhere.

Modern Jews don't as much, but see my "Abraham's blessing" example above. Perhaps you should also check the Book of Exodus to see what was placed on the Ark of the Covenant.

Then why does the practice exist? An omnipresent and omnipotent god does not need to delegate, nor does he need certain entities to advise on the affairs of his worshippers, yet this is exactly what Catholicism suggests.

Strawman. This isn't what the Catholic Church teaches.

Again, I did not mean that she is an explicit or literal goddess, but that the role she fulfils in the Catholic faith is derived from an analogous to that of various goddess in pre-Christian paganism. She is, in essence, the divine feminine, manifested as the Catholic image of the "perfect" female.

So after you've stripped away the majority of the quiddity of paganism, you're left with thus: the Virgin Mary is a perfect female. I can agree with that, that there are extremely loose not-significant-enough-to-be-even-called-coincidental connections that can be made between every religion; even though when you refer to "pre-Christian paganism," you're likely not referring to any religions that the Christians actually had contact with, since the Greco-Roman, Celtic, Egyptian and other local pantheons had no "perfect females."

Handy you've got that kicking about, then. Heaven forbid you make up your own mind about that sort of thing.

How am I not making up my own mind? Am I a cyborg? Do I live in an Orwellian society without any intellectual freedom?

 

[Traitorfish]

Y'know what? Never mind. We're just arguing at cross-points.

 

[Yeekim]

"One of the main concern of reformers?" Which reformers? The Protestants, that completely denied the authority of the Church in the first place?

Exactly, one of their concerns being that idolatry of saints had reached such prevalence as to overshadow worship of God in Church. At least that is how they perceived it.

When people prayed to the Greco-Roman gods, it was for material/pleasurable blessings, such as a plentiful harvest or personal virtue. It was to make their own lives better. When people pray to God, it's in order to become better worshipers of God. The final cause is completely different. If a Christian is asking to be spared of a certain suffering, it should only be insofar if it is God's antecedent will that the person in question not suffer at that particular moment. Hence the prayer to St. Medard: as he is the patron saint of toothaches, his story is a particular inspiration to those with toothaches attempting to be proper Christians.

Excuse me, but this a prime example of theological demagoguery. I understand this is probably accurate, as far as official position of the Church goes, but if you are seriously telling me that people with toothaches were/are praying towards St Medard to become "proper Christians" and not in hopes of getting some alleviation of their pain, then I am afraid you are hopelessly removed from reality.
You are essentially saying that every Catholic throughout the history has been entirely selfless person, not in the least interested in their personal wellbeing or material/pleasurable blessings.
This is confusing the ideal world, as Church would like to see it, with real world.
EDIT:

In older English, "worship" was synonymous with "veneration" (dulia), which is why British judges were referred to as "your worship."

The fact that vernacular even did not make a distinction between dulia and latria does not particularly support the notion that a layman could understand the difference between the two. Rather, it suggests that to understand or explain this difference, a knowledge of Latin would be necessary.
But what do you expect of people who probably got most of their relevant knowledge from Biblia Pauperum or a play?

Spoiler :

The only such Biblia that has survived in Tallinn, not much of picture sadly...

 

[Plotinus]

I'd like to point out that the idea of intermediaries between God and humanity is perfectly Jewish. In the inter-testamental period, Judaism developed quite a complex system of such intermediaries, in two main ways. The first was by hypostasising divine properties. For example, in the Wisdom literature, you find God's Wisdom spoken of as if it's an independent entity of some kind. In fact much of this literature is written as if in the person of Wisdom. The Shekinah, or divine glory, is another example. When the opening of John's Gospel talks about the Logos, it is (probably) drawing (at least in part) on this kind of idea.

The second way is through angels. A complex angelology evolved within Judaism in this period, and figures such as Gabriel, Raphael, and Metatron became more prominent in Jewish literature.

I would say that both of these developments within Judaism reflect a general tendency of people to move away from strict monotheism in practice if not in theory - put simply, people like having lots of divine or quasi-divine or otherwise divinish entities, and even if they're monotheists they find ways to have them. Islam perhaps does it less, but then I don't know much about that. I think that the development of the veneration of saints (and angels, come to that) within Christianity reflects similar psychological pressures to those that led to the angelology and hypostasising of divine attributes within Judaism, and probably has some historical connection to it too. So I think that to suggest that Catholicism is somehow dramatically different from Judaism on this score is wrong, as is (inevitably) the suggestion that Catholicism's difference from Judaism on this score can be attributed to the influence of classical paganism. No doubt the development of the different gods of classical paganism did reflect similar psychological pressures to those which brought about the Jewish angelologies and the Christian saints. Whether there's any real historical link from the pagan gods to the Christian saints, though, I can't say - all I can say is that I don't know of any particular reason to see one.

On the issue of statues and icons - Traitorfish, you are right to say that classical pagans regarded these things much as Catholic and Orthodox Christians would later do - that is, as visible objects reflecting a spiritual reality, and which are used by the faithful as a sort of medium for their attitude to the god/saint/whatever. At any rate, that's what educated pagans said, such as Celsus - whether the rank-and-file faithful thought in that way, I'm not sure. So I think it is reasonable to draw a parallel between the use of the icon/statue in paganism and in Christianity. In each case, the icon or statue is a medium for the individual's attitude to the spiritual being. However, the question what that attitude is is another matter. In the case of the pagan, the statue acts as the focus for the individual's worship of the god. In the case of the Christian, the statue acts as the focus for the individual's veneration of the saint. Now it may be that at least sometimes in Christianity the actual attitude of the individual to the saint may be indistinguishable from that of the pagan individual to the god, and it may be that at least sometimes it does cross boundary of what the church considers proper. I think that LightSpectra is a bit disingenuous to quote church teaching on this subject as if that alone settles the question of what actually happens in practice. However, the physical similarity of a pagan statue to a Christian one doesn't really have any bearing on this, and neither does the similarity of the pagan theory of the relation between the statue and the god to the Christian theory of the relation between the statue and the saint. One should never assume, on the basis of the similarity of outward appearances, that the inward reality is the same - just as one shouldn't assume that practice conforms to theory, either.

 

[LightSpectra]

Exactly, one of their concerns being that idolatry of saints had reached such prevalence as to overshadow worship of God in Church. At least that is how they perceived it.

The main reason why the Reformation was able to grab so many people is because Luther and the like persecuted a vigorous propaganda campaign in order to draw the uneducated into Protestantism. Since the reformers generally saw the Church as being the Whore of Babylon or other such nonsense, of course they're going to see idolatry at every turn, and likewise, of course they're going to accuse the Church of it. As far as I know, the criticism is not to be found in any of the reformers' writings prior to 1505. Unsurprising.

Excuse me, but this a prime example of theological demagoguery. I understand this is probably accurate, as far as official position of the Church goes, but if you are seriously telling me that people with toothaches were/are praying towards St Medard to become "proper Christians" and not in hopes of getting some alleviation of their pain, then I am afraid you are hopelessly removed from reality.

If you follow Church teaching properly, both suffering and being relieved of suffering are goods because they both come from God. There's no reason to pray to a saint to alleviate your pain unless it's in accords with the will of God. Now, of course not every single Catholic realizes this, but that is indeed the nature of the practice, and you are hopelessly removed from reality if you're going to base your beliefs on your gut feeling when you see saint veneration as opposed to the actuality of it.

You are essentially saying that every Catholic throughout the history has been entirely selfless person, not in the least interested in their personal wellbeing or material/pleasurable blessings.

I believe, in fact, that this is the opposite of what I've said. Perhaps you'll note when I listed Friedrich II Hohenstaufen as an example against the above.

The fact that vernacular even did not make a distinction between dulia and latria does not particularly support the notion that a layman could understand the difference between the two.

The connotation of words changes over time. I mentioned that point in case there was a misunderstanding between us, given that we're talking about a time period when the words meant something different.

Rather, it suggests that to understand or explain this difference, a knowledge of Latin would be necessary.

No. It's quite simple. Worship implies the beings have power in their own right; veneration implies they don't.

 

[Louis XXIV]

The reason for veneration of saints has an entirely different rationale than that of worship of gods. I really don't see a true connection between them. The cult of the Virgin Mary, of course, began in the east and slowly made it west (the Byzantines were bigger about Mary than the Romans during the Middle Ages). Personally (and I'm short on time, so I can't compose my thoughts any better), I think these are two arguments against pagan roots of Catholicism (which are based more out of Protestant attempts to discredit the church than on actual history).

Now there were certainly pagan influences on Christianity in when our holidays take place (except Easter) and in the location of some churches. But I don't think the saints are truly a part of this influence. I'd also argue that idolatry (in the sense that people believed images of saints or of Jesus would give power that would allow divine intervention in their lives) was a part of Christianity, at least in the early Renaissance. But I'd also argue that this was independently derived and not from pagan roots.

 

[Plotinus]

No. It's quite simple. Worship implies the beings have power in their own right; veneration implies they don't.

I'm not convinced by that. I think the concept of "worship" is fuzzier and harder to define. There is an interesting paper by Tim Bayne and Yujin Nagasawa - here - on worship, although their focus is more on the notion that worship could be obligatory rather than its nature or what distinguishes it from veneration. They think there are a number of elements to worship but it is hard to say which are necessary or sufficient. Personally I think that to worship something is to imply something about the relationship between that thing and oneself, rather than something about the object of worship in itself. I suspect that part of this relationship is that the object of worship has power over the worshipper. However, I'm not so sure that it must be that the object of worship has power in its own right. It seems to me perfectly conceptually possible for a person to believe that (say) the Great Prophet Zarquon derives all of his power from God, and that he has no power that God does not grant or at least permit him, and yet for that person to worship the Great Prophet Zarquon nevertheless. I don't see any contradiction in that scenario. If that's right, then acknowledging that a saint (or anything else) derives his power only from God (or anything else) does not rule out worshipping that saint (or whatever).

I'd also argue that idolatry (in the sense that people believed images of saints or of Jesus would give power that would allow divine intervention in their lives) was a part of Christianity, at least in the early Renaissance. But I'd also argue that this was independently derived and not from pagan roots.

I agree, but I wouldn't call that idolatry. It's just part of the veneration of icons. Remember that, in the Orthodox Church at least, the theology of icons is an extension and part of the theology of the incarnation itself. In Christ, God became human, which means (among other things) that some human flesh - part of the material world - became united to divinity and took on its holiness. Thus, when Peter looks at the body of Jesus, he sees God. Now an icon is simply the same thing, extended. The icon makes present its subject. Just as God is manifested in the body of Jesus (which is material), so too it is manifested in the icon of Jesus (which is material). Just as the body of Jesus takes on divinity and can actually be called divine, so too the icon does. This is not idolatry, because the icon is not worshipped or even revered as an independent source of holiness - it is revered as the manifestation of God (or of the saint, who is also a manifestation of God, though less directly). That is, just as Jesus' body is not worshipped as something divine apart from the Trinity, but as something united to one of the members of the Trinity and therefore participating in divinity, so too the icon is revered not as something holy apart from its subject, but as something united to and manifesting its subject and therefore participating in its holiness.

That's the theory, of course. Now as I said, whether individuals go beyond this and really do commit what the church would officially proscribe as idolatry in their attitude to icons, that's another matter. But the attitude you described, at least, I wouldn't call idolatry.