The "Rome" in "Roman Catholicism"


#1

I have been doing allot of research on Roman Paganism ( The official religion of Rome just before Roman Catholicism) It’s ironic, but the more I study this Paganism, the more I realize that it looks incredibly similar to today’s Roman Catholicism. Even the very title of the Roman Pagan Priesthood (Pontifex Maximus) was something that the Church felt it was necessary to take to gain pagan converts. ( It still uses that very title for our Pope today)

I could go into a long list with Roman Pagan traditions (or superstitions) on one side and how each one parallels to a current Roman Catholic ritual or tradition today on the other side.

I must say that it was a brilliant tactic for it’s day. The Church leaders knew that it must have made the conversion of these long-time Roman Pagans as “easy” of a process as possible. After all,…these Roman Pagans were VERY set in their ways and would convert easily if this “new” religion (Roman Catholicism) did not match closely to what they had known for so many years. This conversion was an absolute priority in the church. It was something that had to be done at all cost. ( Even though many early church scholars were very much against it)

History now shows that the plan worked beautifully! With the help of Emperor Constantine and other key politicians and pagan priests, Roman Catholicism finally became the “official” religion of the great Roman Empire.

Thousands upon thousands of Roman Pagans were brought to the knowledge that Christ was their savior!

Given this historical background,…would it be wrong for me to consider Roman Catholicism to be a “Roman Pagan-style” of worshiping God?

Would it be possible for someone to disregard this history as something that was just a “necessary tactic” to allow the body of Christ to grow?

Since Roman Paganism is long gone, is it wrong to believe that the Roman Pagan roots of today’s Roman Catholic traditions are no longer needed? (After all,…there are no longer any Roman Pagan’s to convert today)

Please help me with these questions,

CT


#2

Pontifex Maximus

‘Pontifex maximus’ means ‘high priest’ or ‘great priest’ in latin. Where is this term used? Catholicism uses the latin language as its official language. I am sure that if you search the Greek NT and search the ancient Greek pagans you will find similar uses of words. Whether this term is used for the pope means nothing.

The rest of your post is sensationalism. It shows no facts, just makes a single accusation of paganism.


#3

I could go into a long list with Roman Pagan traditions (or superstitions) on one side and how each one parallels to a current Roman Catholic ritual or tradition today on the other side.

So do it. If you are going to make accusations that the Catholic Church is pagan or pagan based, then defend your argument.

Christianity was gaining massive numbers of converts well before it was recognized by Constantine as the official Roman religion. Some pagan customs were Christianized-so what. The doctrines of the Church did not change one iota to facilitate any conversion-there was no theological compromise with paganism.


#4

[quote=Cliff T]I could go into a long list with Roman Pagan traditions (or superstitions) on one side and how each one parallels to a current Roman Catholic ritual or tradition today on the other side.
[/quote]

This would be an interesting discussion if you would develop it as you say.
My take on this is that it would be wrong to condemn everything in nonChristian practice. There are some things which have value and are worthy of emulation (and of course there are things which are to be avoided). For example, in Chinese religion there is great respect for the family and for the deceased family members. This is something that needs to be emphasised today in the USA with the high rate of divorce and annulments in the RCC. There are get togethers at family celebrations with music and special costumes and food all with the idea in mind of strengthening the family bond. In Judaism there is an empahsis on reading and study, and learning the Old Testament, etc. Why should not a Christian borrow some of these practices and traditions? What is wrong with doing so?


#5

This is a common belief among some Protestants. Particularly among those who like to pass out Jack Chick tracts, or of the fundamentalist type faith tradition.

What I would urge you to do is look to some of the early Christian writings to see if this is true or not. If you do not trust the Catholic Church feel fre to check out a protestant website such as ccel.org/ and look at early Christian writings to see if truly this is the case.

You will see that most of the books that assert this like Babylon Mystery Religion are easily debunked with a little research. But what you find is most these claims are not researched or backed up by facts.

Check out this link too to see how a little research goes a long way in your search for truth.
ralphwoodrow.org/books/pages/babylon-connection.html

In Christ
Scylla


#6

I can go one better. Here is a site with “proofs” that Christianity itself has Pagan roots:

The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors (or Christianity Before Christ):

infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/index.html

As a side-note, my theory is that today, the Holy Catholic Church is basically back in the pre-Constantine/Post-Christian world, surrounded by secularism & neo-paganism.


#7

I would also be interested to hear how the Roman-pagan roots influenced the East Orthodox, specifically those with no contact with Rome, whose practices are markedly similar to the Catholic practices.

As for links, I would recommend this one:
Is Catholicism Pagan?

God Bless,
RyanL


#8

we also have to take great care in assigning
’motivation’ to the things done in those days…

if the emperor of Rome, wanted to change the
’official’ religion, he didn’t have to accommodate people
by ‘blending’ the new religion and the old… he
simply had to say… do it…

if, he were already ‘truly converted’, then it wouldn’t make
sense to start to paganize the church you accepted as
the true religion…

if he weren’t already ‘truly converted’, maybe he
saw the growing power of the Christian church and
decided to change his ‘official’ religion to the
Christian religion, rather than lose his supposedly
divine powers… but then, why would this growing
church paganize it’s practices…

IF, the church changed any of it’s teaching to
accommodate these new Christians, i believe that
it was done with direction of the Holy Spirit…

but, as for doctrinal positions, they haven’t been
changed to accommodate anyone…

:slight_smile:


#9

Those who point to similarities between pagan beliefs and Chrsitianity fail to understand what paganism was. Hint: it wasn’t the pseudo-paganism of today. It represented man’s attempt at reaching God as best as they could without the benefit of revelation (divine revelation being confined to the Jews before Christ). Paganism wasn’t a rejection of the revealed God, as He hadn’t been revealed yet. Paganism was simply all they had at the time, and as such did not necessarily represent a rejection of divine truth—though at times natural law was certainly rejected. It is natural enough that some pagan notions got closer to the truth than others, which is why people shouldn’t get their noses out of joint if there are some similarities in ancient myths. This “pagan” business is laughable, and when people point to it as a way of attacking the Catholic Church, they discredit themselves—especially if those people are wearing wedding rings (a pagan symbol) and other trappings. So, in answer to your question, “would it be wrong for me to consider Roman Catholicism to be a “Roman Pagan-style” of worshiping God?”—yes, unless you want to be regarded as simply another wacked-out ignorant buffoon with an axe to grind.


#10

St. Paul quotes pagan poets.

  1. He quotes Meander: “Bad company corrupts good character.” (1 Cor. 15:33)

  2. He quotes Aragan: “We are his offspring.” (Acts 17:28)

  3. He quotes Epimendides: “In him we live and move and have our being.” (Acts 17:28)

By this “logic,” St. Paul was a pagan.


#11

[quote=Cliff T]I have been doing allot of research on Roman Paganism ( The official religion of Rome just before Roman Catholicism) It’s ironic, but the more I study this Paganism, the more I realize that it looks incredibly similar to today’s Roman Catholicism. Even the very title of the Roman Pagan Priesthood (Pontifex Maximus) was something that the Church felt it was necessary to take to gain pagan converts. ( It still uses that very title for our Pope today)
,

CT
[/quote]

I am a student of Roman History-especially the last 100 years of the Republic and the first three Triumvarates. With all due repsect I get the feeling you are not.

Their religion was very fluid. Rome had a long history of co-opting into their pantheon of gods the gods and ceremonies of just about any country they conquered. That was , BTW, a sticking point with the Romans as far a Christians and Jews are concerned-its hard to co-opt a god who’s adherents claim is the ONLY god.

I am also puzzled at the superstitions and practices you claim are co-opted into the Catholic Church. Can you enumerate some of them because quite frankly I dont recall running across any in my studies. For example Chrisitians didnt start parading around with crucified dogs and laurel crowned geese. They didnt Sacrifce a white Bull on the first day of each year-in fact it is downright strange to claim that Christians co-pted Roman practices given the Roman Religion revoloved around animal sacrifice-none of which ended up in Chrisiantiy.

With all due repsect iI see you are a brand new member, i see you posting about an area that you appear to know little about and JUST happens to denigrate the Catholic Church.

But perhaps i’m wrong. Would you like to discuss the 12 shields revered by the Romans and which one was alleged to have been given to them by Mars, where they were kept,how often they were bought out?

How about an in depth discussion of the cult of the Bona dei -surely a person who has studied the religion of Rome as studiuosly as you have could converse with me on this. I would really appreciate it becuase quite franky its not area you can get a lot of people to engage you in.


#12

[quote=estesbob]I am a student of Roman History-especially the last 100 years of the Republic and the first three Triumvarates. With all due repsect I get the feeling you are not.

First off I never herad or read the descriptive Noun “Roman paganism” used to describe their religion. Usually it is referred to as the “state religion”. In fact their religion was very fluid Rome had a long history of co-opting into their panthoen of gods the gods and ceremonies of just about any country they conquered. That was , BTW, a sticking point with the Romans as far a Christians and Jews are concerned-its hard to co-opt a god who’s adherents claim is the ONLY god.

I am also puzzled at the superstitions and practices you claim are co-opted into the Catholic Church. Can you enumerate some of them because quite frankly I dont recall running across any in my studies. For example Chrisitians didnt start parading around with crucified dogs and laurel crowned geese. They didnt Sacrifce a white Bull on the first day of each year-in fact it is downright strange to claim that Christians co-pted Roman practices given the Roman Religion revoloved around animal sacrifice-none of which ended up in Chrisiantiy.

With all due repsect iI see you are a brand new member, i see you posting about an area that you appear to know little about and JUST happens to denigrate the Catholic Church.

But perhaps i’m wrong. Would you like to discuss the 12 shields revered by the Romans and which one was alleged to have been given to them by Mars, where they were kept,how often they were bought out?

How about an in depth discussion of the cult of the Bona dei -surely a prson who has studied the religion of rome as studiuosly as you have could converse with me on this. I would really appreciate it becuase quite franky its not area you can get a lot of people to engage you in.
[/quote]

I do believe it’s Bona Dea - the Good Goddess :slight_smile:


#13

[quote=johnnykins]I do believe it’s Bona Dea - the Good Goddess :slight_smile:
[/quote]

I spell just as bad in latin as I do in Englishhttp://forums.catholic.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Used to get me in all sorts of trouble when I was in the seminary.

it was indeed Bona Dea and it was a cult reserved for women only and would not have been good for Indiana Jones to be involved as he was a MAN and hated SNAKES!http://forums.catholic.com/images/icons/icon6.gif


#14

Ok,… ease up there, brothers. Take a deep breath and relax.

I certainly do not claim to be a scholar of Roman history. I would also never claim to know more than you about the subject. After all, you are a complete stranger to me and I would never make such a bold claim over someone I don’t even know.

Of course I’m not trying to say that Roman Catholics created all of it’s traditions directly (and exactly) from Roman Paganism. We all know that there is no Roman Catholic ritual today that involves animal sacrifice. There is no “perfect” match between any Pagan and Catholic ritual, I figure that much is obvious. What I’m trying to say is that the Roman Catholic church instituted a “Roman Pagan-like” or “style” of worshiping God…and much of what Roman Catholics do today reflect that “flavor”. Does that make sense? It’s a very simple concept.

Much of the traditions of Roman Catholicism were instituted after Constantine and were “inspired” by the culture at that time. (which was strongly Pagan)

Can we not agree on this? (I guess not)

Maybe I’m totally wrong. Maybe the Pontifex Maximus was not the title of the Pagan chairman of the college of the pontifices. Maybe you are right. It is quite possible that when the Roman Catholic church chose that name for the head of the Church, they had no idea that it had anything to do with a Paganistic religion. Would any of us here go so far to as to say that Roman Catholicism has “nothing” to do in any way shape or form with Roman Paganism of it’s day? Nothing whatsoever? You would not even concede,…a “slight bit”? Look at “Easter”… we named our most sacred holy day’s (holiday) after a Pagan Goddess. (although I believe “Saxon”, not Roman)

Hold on,…does anybody find these words “shocking” or thoroughly absurd?..or bizarre?..like waaaayay out in outer space?..like I just suddenly made all this up on my own?
Do you not know that these concepts are as old as dirt and have been debated among Christians of all types for a billion years? (not literally of course,…although someone out there, I’m sure, took it literally for a split second)

This is a legitimate (and very old) debate among Bible scholars all over the world. Including internal debates within the Roman Catholic church. We all have heard this before, right?

“…i see you posting about an area that you appear to know little about and JUST happens to denigrate the Catholic Church.”
“Denigrate”?..Why do you say this? This long-debated topic does NOT denigrate the Roman Catholic Church. I don’t understand why you think it does. I don’t believe any debate does. And again,…this debate is much older than all of us here. We all know the old saying “When in Rome, do as the Romans”. In a general sence,…that’s what happened. It is not to be criticized…were are talking about the culture of that day and what was considered “normal” and “acceptable” by Roman standards.

“…So, in answer to your question, “would it be wrong for me to consider Roman Catholicism to be a “Roman Pagan-style” of worshiping God?”—yes, unless you want to be regarded as simply another wacked-out ignorant buffoon with an axe to grind…”

I guess so,…If someone doesn’t agree with your point of view, it certainly MUST be assumed that they are a “wacked-out ignorant buffoon…”

Quite a brilliant thought there, brother.

I enjoy a lively debate like everyone else here. I simply tossed up an old debate ito the air to see what would be fired at it.

Very interesting.

CT

What are you thoughts on Rome and “Saturnalia”? Very curious to hear that one. (especially because it is right around the corner)


#15

Of course there are pagan undertones to Catholicism. Anyone who has read ancient Greek literature knows that there are several similarities between their beliefs and the OT. Heck, anyone with a wedding ring is participating in a “pagan” ritual. This doesn’t matter, of course, because pagan religions contain some truth, just not the fullness of it.

Pope basically means “daddy” (I think), so it didn’t come from paganism. I’m sure Easter stands for something as well.

Also, Constantine hardly brought about as many changes as people claim. Go to the CA library and check it out. Most of the references are from Church Fathers. This is done to debunk your claim.


#16

[quote=Cliff T]What I’m trying to say is that the Roman Catholic church instituted a “Roman Pagan-like” or “style” of worshiping God…and much of what Roman Catholics do today reflect that “flavor”. Does that make sense? It’s a very simple concept.
[/quote]

What specifically is pagan. The liturgy of the Eucharist? Every word is straight from the bible. The Liturgy of the Word is a reading from the OT, a reading from the epistles and a gospel reading. Any specific prayers? The Kyrie is an ancient prayer. It is in the Greek liturgies as well so it can’t be confused with being pagan. It also is formed to give honor to the Trinity. The Sanctus can be dated back to atleast Clement of Rome as a prayer. It is straight from Isaiah. The Agnus Dei is basically from Revelation. There is nothing in the Mass that can be even construed as resembling the roman pagans.

There is not one thing we do that I can think of that resembles paganism. If you want to reference the modern Christmas celebration as your source, that just is a false reference. The giving of gifts was always on December 6th, the feast of St. Nicholas, until the last 500 years. The Christmas tree didn’t come into play until the early 17th century. My guess is that the changes are due to protestantism.

Much of the traditions of Roman Catholicism were instituted after Constantine and were “inspired” by the culture at that time. (which was strongly Pagan)

Can we not agree on this? (I guess not)

No we can not.

Maybe I’m totally wrong. Maybe the Pontifex Maximus was not the title of the Pagan chairman of the college of the pontifices. Maybe you are right. It is quite possible that when the Roman Catholic church chose that name for the head of the Church, they had no idea that it had anything to do with a Paganistic religion.

Where have you gotten the idea that the pope is called pontifex maximus. He is called papa in latin which means father. What anti-Catholic sites have you been reading?

Would any of us here go so far to as to say that Roman Catholicism has “nothing” to do in any way shape or form with Roman Paganism of it’s day? Nothing whatsoever? You would not even concede,…a “slight bit”? Look at “Easter”… we named our most sacred holy day’s (holiday) after a Pagan Goddess. (although I believe “Saxon”, not Roman)

No I will not concede at all to your claims. Whether it is called Easter or what ever you want to call it it doesn’t matter. It is the celebration of the resurrection of Christ.


#17

[quote=Cliff T]I have been doing allot of research on Roman Paganism ( The official religion of Rome just before Roman Catholicism) It’s ironic, but the more I study this Paganism, the more I realize that it looks incredibly similar to today’s Roman Catholicism. Even the very title of the Roman Pagan Priesthood (Pontifex Maximus) was something that the Church felt it was necessary to take to gain pagan converts. ( It still uses that very title for our Pope today)

I could go into a long list with Roman Pagan traditions (or superstitions) on one side and how each one parallels to a current Roman Catholic ritual or tradition today on the other side.

I must say that it was a brilliant tactic for it’s day. The Church leaders knew that it must have made the conversion of these long-time Roman Pagans as “easy” of a process as possible. After all,…these Roman Pagans were VERY set in their ways and would convert easily if this “new” religion (Roman Catholicism) did not match closely to what they had known for so many years. This conversion was an absolute priority in the church. It was something that had to be done at all cost. ( Even though many early church scholars were very much against it)

History now shows that the plan worked beautifully! With the help of Emperor Constantine and other key politicians and pagan priests, Roman Catholicism finally became the “official” religion of the great Roman Empire.

Thousands upon thousands of Roman Pagans were brought to the knowledge that Christ was their savior!

Given this historical background,…would it be wrong for me to consider Roman Catholicism to be a “Roman Pagan-style” of worshiping God?

Would it be possible for someone to disregard this history as something that was just a “necessary tactic” to allow the body of Christ to grow?

Since Roman Paganism is long gone, is it wrong to believe that the Roman Pagan roots of today’s Roman Catholic traditions are no longer needed? (After all,…there are no longer any Roman Pagan’s to convert today)

Please help me with these questions,

CT
[/quote]

Hi CT -

Could you provide some examples of your research? It would be interesting to see what you have.

BTW, paganism was introduced many years before Constantine. If your read the book of Acts, chapter 10 you will see the decision by Peter to convert the Gentiles. Of course, Gentiles were pagans that now were being drawn into the faith. Also, of course they would bring thier traditions with them. If you keep reading, you find several biblical instances where corrections were made to these persistant traditions.

Many feasts celebrated by the Church even now were put into place on pagan feast days in order to compete with them. So, it doesn’t seem strange that there would be some kind of overlap.

As a matter of fact, my copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church has a pagan symbol on it’s cover. The caption inside the cover says that the image was taken from a christian tombstone from the catacombs at Rome. The pagan image was used by early christians to symbolise the rest and happiness that the soul finds in the eternal life.

Of course, I must ask a question. Does the use of pagan symbols detract, somehow, from true christianity?

Subrosa


#18

I think that you could simply blow off this whole argument by simply asking the OP if he happens to be wearing a wedding ring. Are you?

Cryin’ shame that that custom and tradition has its roots in paganism and has been “Christianized”. :eek:

You make this all sound like your case is made up of nothing but the simple facts of history, when that is not the case at all. In the process you seem to allege that Catholicism came into being in the time of Constantine, which is anything but supported by history.

For instance, The Eucharistic beliefs of the Catholic Church were already well estabished in 1st Cor. 11:23-30 and then confirmed at the beginning of the 2nd century by the writings of Ignatius of Antioch who was the bishop of that church and was discipled by St. John himself (the last of the apostles to die). Here’s what Ignatius wrote to the church in Smyrna in 107.

CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils. (Document Link HERE )

You’ll just have to get past your biased secondary sources if you expect to really get to the truth, and then you’re gonna be really distressed (as I was) when you find out that you’ve been decieved.

Get the facts…Decide for yourself.
Pax vobiscum,


#19

[quote=Cliff T] … There is no “perfect” match between any Pagan and Catholic ritual, I figure that much is obvious. What I’m trying to say is that the Roman Catholic church instituted a “Roman Pagan-like” or “style” of worshiping God…and much of what Roman Catholics do today reflect that “flavor”. Does that make sense? It’s a very simple concept…

Much of the traditions of Roman Catholicism were instituted after Constantine and were “inspired” by the culture at that time. (which was strongly Pagan)

Can we not agree on this? (I guess not)

Maybe I’m totally wrong. Maybe the Pontifex Maximus was not the title of the Pagan chairman of the college of the pontifices…
[/quote]

I have to agree with the earlier statement of the Latin “Pontifex Maximus” meaning “high priest.” Latin speaking Jews in Pagan Rome would be refering to the High Priest at the Temple in Jerusalem. To say this is a sole “pagan” term is wrong.

2ndly, we have lots of traditions, worship practices, and acts of charity and so forth that come directly or were borrowed from the Jewish religion. There are some cultural influences on the way we do things, but these are limited within the proper Catholic expression of traditions, worship, prayers, and so on. These are expressed through the different “Rites” or accepted “groups” within the Catholic Church. The Roman Rite is more than just Rome, wheather now or “back then.”

3rdly, the Sacraments come to us directly from Jesus Christ & His Apostles. The Mass has evolved from the Jewish Sabbath service and the Last Supper.

While a Pagan might look at some of the things we do as similar to their worship, The real draw to Christianity and Catholicsm is how they see us being good Christians to all and our faith. The only thing we got from the Gentiles/pagans was the allowance to eat non-kosher foods. I don’t know what kind of “catholics” you know, but if they are worshiping like pagans — they aren’t Catholic.

—Davemcher5


#20

[quote=Cliff T]Ok,… ease up there, brothers. Take a deep breath and relax.

I certainly do not claim to be a scholar of Roman history. I would also never claim to know more than you about the subject. After all, you are a complete stranger to me and I would never make such a bold claim over someone I don’t even know.

You said you have been doing a lot of reqading about Roman Paganism yet so far have not shown an indication you have anything other than a perhperal knowledge of it. In fact your comments are the standard bolier plate comments we see al the time from those who contend the Church embrace Paganism

Of course I’m not trying to say that Roman Catholics created all of it’s traditions directly (and exactly) from Roman Paganism. We all know that there is

But thus far the only "tradition you have tried to link is “Easter”. The interesting part is that the traditions associated with Easter came to the nChurech from the Jews (who had co-opted some of the traditions of the pagan holiday acclaiming Ostra"(scandanavian)** and the Teutonic “Ostern” or *“Eastre” Where your argumwent falls apart is that that Catholic Easter is in no way connnected to the Spring Equinox-it based on the dateof the Passover-picked because SUPRISE *Passover is when Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead. The Church incorporate absolutely none of the other tradition of the Pagan feast-the Rabbits, colored eggs, etc. This are all SECULAR traditions

Much of the traditions of Roman Catholicism were instituted after Constantine and were “inspired” by the culture at that time. (which was strongly Pagan)

**I think you should perhaps read some more than just histories of Paganism. The most important traditions of the Church, the Eucharist, the Papacy, etc were adopted LONG before Constantine came along. **

Can we not agree on this? (I guess not)

Maybe I’m totally wrong. Maybe the Pontifex Maximus was not the title of the Pagan chairman of the college of the pontifices. Maybe you are right. It is quite possible that when the Roman Catholic church chose that name for the head of the Church, they had no idea that it had anything to do with a Paganistic religion. Would any of us here go so far to as to say that Roman Catholicism has “nothing” to do in any way shape or form with Roman Paganism of it’s day? Nothing whatsoever? You would not even concede,…a “slight bit”? Look at “Easter”… we named our most sacred holy day’s (holiday) after a Pagan Goddess. (although I believe “Saxon”, not Roman)

Ponitfex Maximus was not so much a “Title” as it was a description-that being it decribed the perosn holding that position as head of the Church. Following your logic we would have to assume that the Uniteds States Senate and the Plebes at West Point are also Pagan in origin

Hold on,…does anybody find these words “shocking” or thoroughly absurd?..or bizarre?..like waaaayay out in outer space?..like I just suddenly made all this up on my own?
Do you not know that these concepts are as old as dirt and have been debated among Christians of all types for a billion years? (not literally of course,…although someone out there, I’m sure, took it literally for a split second)

Actually they have been debated for about 500 years as part of the Protestant effort to delegitimize the One True Church

This is a legitimate (and very old) debate among Bible scholars all over the world. Including internal debates within the Roman Catholic church. We all have heard this before, right?

NO-but I am sure you can link us to some ancient doscuments that prove this-anything after 1,500 doesnt count

“…So, in answer to your question, “would it be wrong for me to consider Roman Catholicism to be a “Roman Pagan-style” of worshiping God?”—yes, unless you want to be regarded as simply another wacked-out ignorant buffoon with an axe to grind…”

YES-I I dont think you are a buffoon-but you are not the first Protestant to come to these groups and make the these arguments. Even your clam that you came upon this by “studying” Roman Paganism is not unique.

I guess so,…If someone doesn’t agree with your point of view, it certainly MUST be assumed that they are a “wacked-out ignorant buffoon…”

No-I just think anyone who can not back up his point of view without regurgiating the usual unsourced Protestant talking points has very little credibiltiy.

Quite a brilliant thought there, brother.

I enjoy a lively debate like everyone else here. I simply tossed up an old debate ito the air to see what would be fired at it.

You tossed nothing in the air-you made a series of unsubstatiated, unsourced, incorrect and poorly researched points and now seem upset that we didnt swallow them hook line and sinker.

[/quote]


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.