SHOULD BELIEVERS IN GOD BOW DOWN TO STATUES?
Exodus 20: 4: “You shall not make for yourself any carved image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5: YOU SHALL NOT BOW DOWN TO THEM or worship them;
Romans 1: 22: Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23: and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
That's a fair question, but soon the discussion got out of hand. At one point, I said, “In large part, in Ancient Rome, the household gods got swapped out for statues of ‘saints’.”
Someone said, “Can you show proof for that claim?”
Someone else said, “Correlation does not show causation.”
I don’t know if either of those were responses to me, but how about “if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it may be a duck”.
In many of the quotes that follow, I’m referencing “Survivals of Roman Religion”, New York, NY: Coopers Square Publishing, ©1963 by Gordon Laing (from the “Our Debt to Greece and Rome” series).
The earliest Roman religion of which we have any record was a system of pandemonism (pan-demon-ism). There was a spirit—a demon it was often called—in every object, every act, every process, and sometimes in every stage of a process. There is no better example of this than the succession of spirits that watched over each period of a man’s life from birth to death….
The steps of this are given of a man’s life, from birth, “first cry”, in the cradle, in a bed, taking mother’s milk, weaning, learning to talk, stand, first ventures out of the house, maturity, sharpening wits, feeling, will, etc.
The names given for each of these processes are the names of various Roman “gods”: Juno Lucina, Candelifera, Carmenetes, Vagitanus, Cunina, Cuba, Ruminia, Edusa, Potina, Fabulinus, Statilinus, Abeona, Adeona, Catius, Sentia, Volumna, Viduus, and tons more. Each had a specialized functionality.
And so he was passed from god to god and the long line of divine relays only ended when Viduus parted body and soul. Extreme specialization is also seen in the list of twelve spirits to whom the priest of Ceres appealed at the beginning of the sowing season.
These included “gods” for plowing, hoeing, reaping, storing, etc., with names like Obarator, Sarritor, Messor, Conditor.
Another instance of this characteristic of Roman religion is seen in the case of the house, every part of which had its guardian divinity, as Servius points out in his commentary on Virgil, where he specifies Forculus (door), Cardea (hinge), and Limentinus (threshold).
But the evidence of this particularistic character of Roman religion is not confined to these lists of obscure spirits. The gods of the Roman pantheon in general—even the greatest of them—showed, in their origin at least, a high degree of specialization. In some cases the original function of the divinity expanded in different directions but others the early specialization maintained its old limits. Janus was the god of the odor, Vesta of the hearth, Faunus of the forest, Pales of pasture land, Fons of springs, Volturnus of running streams, Saturn of sowing, Ceres of Growth, Flora of blossom, Pomona of fruit, and Consus of harvest. Even the great god Jupiter, manifold as his powers subsequently became, was at first only the spirit of the bright sky.
These are just a few. Many more are listed, from the early years of Rome; others are added over time as Rome conquers other peoples (notably the Greeks, but many others). So there we already have specialized “gods” – each with its own specialization of function, in “the Roman pantheon” of “gods”.
So much for the pandemonism (“pan-demon-ism”) of the ancient Romans. Enough has been said to show how deeply rooted in their minds this attitude toward supernatural powers was. It was one of the most important phases of their religious consciousness and it was to such an extent of the very essence of their faith that it was bound to survive. And survive it did.
There is much documentation for this phenomenon throughout the history of the Roman empire. Keep in mind, this “faith” of the Romans was the pagan faith at the time.
Particularization was too inherent a part of Roman religious belief to yield entirely to any influence. Plutarch speaks of spirits who carried men’s wishes to the higher gods. Maximus of Tyre tells us of minor deities who healed disease, aided men in various crises, accompanied and watched over them, and guarded cities and countryside. The stories of miraculous cures in temples told in his “Sermones Sacri” by the Rhetorician Aristides who lived in the time of Marcus Aurelius attest the widespread belief in manifold agencies of supernatural assistance. The vogue of the Neo-platonic philosophy in the third century after Christ resulted in a renewal of belief in the existence of great numbers of subordinate and intermediate spirits….
Laing makes the connection that “it is in the doctrine of the veneration of Saints that the polytheism of the old departmental deities survives.” This is particularly true AFTER Constantine was converted and further, after Christianity became the “official” Roman religion. “It may be that the [leaders of this time] found that the belief of the people—especially the illiterate class—in these specialized spirits of minor grade was one of their greatest problems. They recognized the people’s predilection for spirits that would help in specific situations, and they realized that the masses felt more at home with beings who, while of divine nature or associations, were not too far removed from the human level. They were keenly interested in winning the pagans to the faith and they succeeded. But undoubtedly one element in their success was the inclusion in their system of the doctrine of the veneration of Saints.”
A good example of the closeness of the resemblance of the specialization of function of different Saints to that of pagan spirits is found in the published list of Saints used by Spanish peasants. The very publication of the list emphasizes the similarity of the situation to that which existed in ancient Roman times, when the people, overwhelmed by the number and multiplicity of names of the departmental deities, used to appeal to the official list kept by the pontiffs. Here are some of the examples furnished by the Spanish index: San Serapio should be appealed to in case of stomache-ache; Santa Polonia for toothache; San Jose, San Juan Bautista and Santa Calina for headache; San Bernardo and San Cirilo for indigestion; San Luis for Cholera; San Francisco for colic; San Ignacio and Santa Lutgarda for childbirth; Santa Balsania for Scrofula; San Felix for ulcers; Santa Agueda for nursing mothers; San Babilas for burns; San Gorge for an infected cut; Santa Quiteria for dog’s bite; San Ciriaco for diseases of the ear; Santa Lucia for the eyes; Santa Bibiana for epilepsy; San Gregorio for Frost-bite; San Panaleon for haemorroids; San Roque for the plague; San Pedro for fever; and Santa Rita for the impossible!
There is a similar list for southern Italy, the Saints and their functions sometimes coinciding with the Spanish classification but in other cases showing variations …
Of course, correlation is not causation. Those guys are too smart for me! There really is no way that the Roman cult of “gods” could have become the Roman Catholic pantheon of “saints”.
* * *
If anyone would like to join the group, it could use some knowledgeable Protestant interlocutors. (There are a few there, but there are also some who, frankly, don’t give Protestantism a good name.) If you’d like to join, it’s a closed group, so there’s a process to get in. Email me with a request, and I’ll submit your name for inclusion in the group. (My email address is johnbugay [at] gmail.)
Comment has been blocked.
Not problematic at all. Maybe “compiling the lists” was a medieval function, but the morphing of pagan-god-to-saint functionality took place on a case-by-case basis over time and in specific places and using specific functionalities.
DeleteFor example, “Chief among the domestic gods were the Lares, called Lares Domestici or Lares Familares, who, together with the Penates were regularly worshipped in the Roman household.” These are well-attested.
“The belief in these friendly and protecting house-spirits was so closely woven into the religious consciousness of the people that in various parts of Italy it survived the passing of that religious system of which it had been a part … this is the case of the figurines of the infant Jesus found in houses on the island of Capri. These are made of wood, just as the Roman Lares often were, and in size and equipment resemble their ancient prototypes. But images of this class are not confined to Capri. The most famous of all these figurines of the child Christ is the Santissimo Bambino of the Church of S. Maria in Aracoeli on the Capitoline Hill in Rome. This image has had a long and interesting history. It is believed that when loaned to some faithful member of the Church and taken to his house it bestows blessings on his family. Placed on the bed of some invalid it is thought to bring relief from suffering and restoration to health. In a word it has been a source of comfort, encouragement, and well-being to afflicted families just as the Lares were in the days of old.”
So you have essentially the same figurine in this case, which when from being a Roman household “god” to being a figure of the Christ Child. Elsewhere in Italy “it is the Madonna that has succeeded the Lar as the spirit of the household; in still others Saints are found with similar function.”
Laing also describes other such phenomena. “Pales”, a “pastoral deity” who was prayed to by worshippers “asking forgiveness for any inadvertent offence and also for the safety, health, and increase of the flocks” – prayers described by Ovid, “survive in the prayers of the peasants of the Roman Campagna today”. “The modern shepherd”, however, “addresses the Madonna instead of Pales”, though he “prays substantially the same things, and like his pagan prototype turns to the east and uses holy water.”
Laing has collected dozens of stories like this one that I could recount. “There is a connection between the Lupercalia and Candlemas”. Robigus and his festival of Robigalia was originally, complete with “procession, prayer, and sacrifice” kept mold off the crops. “Of this ancient ceremony we have record of an interesting survival in the Litainia Maior, or Romana, of the Catholic Church on St. Mark’s day, the very day of the Roman Robigalia (April 25). Like the pagan ceremony this included a procession and prayers. The procession, starting from San Lorenzo in Lucina, held a station at San Valentino outside the Walls and another at the Milvan Bridge. Then, instead of proceeding along the Via Claudia as the old Roman procession had done, it turned to the left after stopping at a station of the Holy Cross and went on to St. Peter’s Basilica. In a note, “The ceremony is described in the Liber Pontificalis in the life of Leo III (795-816).
I could go on and on.
Interestingly, "Butler's Lives of the Saints" relates this same information about Robigalia.
DeleteComment has been blocked.
I'm not uncomfortable with the Biblical Christians who are wary of the celebration of Easter.
DeleteThere is enough of a link with pagan deities that I feel confident to say that we don't need, in our world, to be defending Roman Catholic (supposedly "Christian") reliance on old pagan deities. They should have been cast into the abyss long ago.
It is enough to say, with Everett Ferguson, "In the Latin west and in the Greek east the church won only by detouring the traditional piety to other objects. The martyrs and the saints received the homage once given to the heroes and nature and household spirits. [This similarity] has often been observed. The old hung on: a sacred spring in antiquity kept on being a sacred spring. When Christianity replaced paganism, the saints took over the functions of the specialized local deities. The situation may be described as "the old firm doing the same business at the same place under a new name and new management" (Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 1993, pg 182).
You have found yourself here defending not Christianity, but Christianity as it borrowed ancient pagan religions. We live in a 21st century that is quite hostile to Christianity. We should have no qualms about casting all of that off, as the Reformers tried to do. There is enough trouble in our own century, without having to hold onto ancient pagan religious baggage.
"The Buddhist religion has ceremonies that involve prayers and processions. According to your thinking this must because of the influence of Roman religion on Buddhism rather than a similarity of the human condition."
DeleteThis is a ridiculous suggestion. Buddhism did not pick up a widespread following in the city of Rome, as did the Roman "church". The Roman Catholic processions are almost direct pick-ups of ancient Roman pagan religion, in their form and intention.
Comment has been blocked.
Not exactly a resounding endorsement of the belief in the pagan origins of the veneration of the saints. The "new management" line is not Ferguson's opinion but him quoting another.
ReplyDeleteRight, and he clarifies: "it was not the ancient religion [specifically] that survived" -- Robigalia did not survive in name but the practice of it survived in every other way. He says "the mentality that was part of it" definitely survived. As did the procession, in this case, the actual procession route through the city survived, plus the pick-up of the words of the prayer, and things prayed for. So "it may or may not be" described as "the old firm doing the same business at the same place under a new name and new management". There was no "firm" prior to the church of Rome endorsing the idea. The church of Rome then became a real "firm" endorsing the practice. The idea is there.
Every religious tradition on the planet has processions. To label them as being inspired by Roman pagan is ridiculous.
And not "every religious tradition on the planet" has processions. I get that she is saying that humans have an impulse toward religion. This particular Roman "procession" also shared the exact same route through the city.
What gets me if you start comparing Christianity to paganism ( as some people like to do) you can come up with all sorts of comparison.
But when supposed Christians are defending the bowing down to images, it's time to draw a line. In fact, in the 21st century, there are many things that Christians should jettison, should stop defending (because they are ridiculous), and there are core elements that we should defend (i.e. God exists and has spoken to us in his Word).
the veneration of saints is pre-Nicene
There is no question that reverence for the dead was a component, and respectful treatment for (burial of) the bodies out of respect for the resurrection. Then at some point the carrying around of relics betrayed that respect. There was a process -- respect was not veneration, nor was it the much later "tradition" of the trafficking in relics.
Just because something is "pre-Nicene" is not a justification for it. Cyprian's notion of a "priesthood" is pre-Nicene and we need to jettison that notion.
"Commemoration" of those of our ancestors who were admirable is different from bowing down to them.
Comment has been blocked.
John,
ReplyDeletesorry but respect is veneration.
That is not true. My wife died last year, and I visited her grave site this week. I have very much respect for her, but there is no way I venerate her.
Ferguson is merely pointing out a similarity of behaviour, nothing more. I don't see any evidence of 'the firm' doing anything more than Christianising an existing habit.
That's precisely what happened. It was an existing habit or custom, and the church at Rome "Christianized" it by swapping out the name of the saint for the pagan "god". So it's more than "similar behavior". It's "the same behavior" -- the only difference is that the names have changed from Roman "gods" to Roman "saints".
Just because someone like Roman Catholics abuse a practice like trafficking in relics doesn't mean the issue is with the practice. I know plenty of people of people who misuse the Bible. Doesn't mean we get rid of the Bible.
Roman Catholicism basically ignores the Bible, so it is 0-for-2 in this. There is a whole range of different categories that become conflated when Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox talk about "veneration" -- from prayers "for" the dead, to "prayers to the dead" to simply using parts of their dead bodies as a good luck charm. Here is a good overview of why it is forbidden even to try to contact the dead.
The Scriptures are different. If you believe in God, this is unique information that God gives to us that we can't get anywhere else. It is "divine revelation". Which, by the way, never says "pray to the dead". It includes among other things, information about who God is, and what the plan of salvation is.
Your evidence that a Roman procession kind of went the same way as a previous procession doesn't prove anything except people liked processions on main roads capable of accomodating a crowd.
Right. It's only on the same day of the year (April 25). And instead of "praying to" the Roman "god" Robigus, the same route is taken with prayers to "St. Mark". Totally different.
My tradition doesn't do the whole bowing down to statues thing so I'm not going to defend it. Lighting candles is more my thing but you probably think that is pagan too.
DeleteYou probably shouldn't try to guess at what I probably think.
I can't think of a more Biblical theologian than Cyprian. Looks to me you have deep, deep issue about the Roman past of Christianity.
The "priesthood" isn't Biblical. As the Eastern Orthodox patristic scholar John McGuckin notes (I'm borrowing from a friend here), there were differences in church government between the apostolic and patristic sources:
“The very earliest structures of the Christian ministerial offices are shrouded in obscurity, but by the second century there emerged a triadic form of episkopos-bishop, presbyteros-elder (which was rendered by the Old English ‘Priest’), and diakonos-deacon. This more and more replaced a range of other offices that had characterized the earliest church (such as apostolic missionaries, wandering prophets, exorcists, and didaskaloi-teachers) and became established by the end of the second century as a common pattern in most Christian communities….
It is an "ecclesiastical development" but it is not biblical. Continuing:
Although Jerome can still protest in the fourth century that the bishop and presbyter are really the same thing (and there is some ground to think this may have been so originally as the terms are interchangeable in the New Testament: Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Peter 5:1-4; Titus 1:5-7; and Clement of Rome uses the term in the plural [1 Clement 42; 44] to refer to the clergy of Rome), nevertheless his argument was already falling on deaf ears by his day….For all Cyprian’s insistence on his right to single episcopal authority, his own church wavered greatly over whether he, or the assembled presbyters, or the confessors had the higher standing….After the fourth century the Christian emperors increasingly honored the episcopate, and a tension can be noticed between its original conception as an office of liturgical president and teacher and its new functions as magistrate and administrator for a large diocesan area. (The Westminster Handbook To Patristic Theology [Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004], pp. 120-122)
See also: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/05/brandon-addisons-complete-response-to.html
As for my "issues about the Roman past of Christianity", I don't have "issues", but I find no reason to feel myself bound by "ecclesiastical traditions" (or worse things) from centuries long past, put into place "for all time" by the Roman "church".
Regarding the notion of "stop peddling discredited 19th century accusations", have you considered that Rome is peddling discredited 3rd century "developments" as dogmas that are normative for the 21st century church?
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.