Here are my quick thoughts as a Christian because nobody else really engaged on this
> the sum of the concept of sainthood itself cannot be properly understood without an analysis of Europe’s pagan past.
I would say it starts for Christians in the Old Testament, I know where this is going tho
>Most illuminating to this point is the concept of patronage - an assigned corpus of acts and attributes to which the saint is noted for, and apparently given oversight over. Prayers and requests related to these things should be directed to their relevant patron who, as an intermediary between Earth and God, deliver a sought outcome.
One way the Christian "system" is different is that you're not always attempting to appease someone in exchange for something else. For example, St. Anthony (patron of lost items) might be invoked to discuss how you feel about the item, prayer to remove desire for the item, really anything other than "use your magic powers to give me this item back". Afaik, there isn't a parallel to this in the pre-Christian traditions. It seems to me that encounters with pagan patrons was very transactional.
>seeking to gain their favor through supplementary religious devotion.
Maybe for Catholics I guess, but for the Orthodox the emphasis is on developing a personal relationship that models one's relationship with God. I tell my patron saint about my day, about how I'm feeling, I "talk" to him without necessarily wanting something. Again, this sounds very transactional i.e. more like the pagans.
>as evidence of demonic possession
Erm
>is remarkably similar to the operation of paganism
I don't agree with this
>in hopes to curate a relationship that can be called upon in times of need.
I watched the STJ Iceland documentary where he called upon Thor on top of the hill. Did he do that because he *loves* Thor? Or because he neutrally observed that Thor's domain exists on this hill in the way one might observe some other scientific fact? Christians *love* their patron saints. It's not about sending them your Santa wishlist because you sacrificed the appropriate time or resources to attain their power. In fact, that is basically simony.
>But the honours which we pay to the gods, are performed for the sake of our advantage
I won't keep repeating this, but I am not going to bite on Christian relationships with patrons being transactional in this way. You can't reduce a loving relationship to a formula invoked selfishly
>In contemporary practice, Christian practitioners toe a careful line between the concepts of intercession and worship.
Who? How?
> Indeed, this line has long been a source of contention between the various denominations of Christendom
When? There was the iconoclasm, but this was roundly defeated at the Council of Constantinople in 843. Nobody had a problem with it until the later incarnations of Protestantism.
>His [Augustine] compromise was a differentiation between two types of worship: latria and douleia
Yes, but it was St. Jerome that first described the different forms of veneration in the 340s. Obviously, Augustine (and later Aquinas) built out the concepts for the Western church, but I mention this to attack the idea that Augustine felt the need to improvise based on reports from the ministry to the Gauls or something. There was an already existing tradition, even earlier than Jerome depending on your Mariology.
>Only into the early medieval do we see the cults of saints fully developed
I don't think this is true, there were devotees to the original Apostles in the first century. "Cult" is the operative word here and I think it can only be applied to the martyrs, at least until later reforms from church leaders like Paul that toned it down.
>We see saints increasingly allotted feast days and holidays, holy sites for pilgrimage, written prayers and novenas for intercession, and iconography rooted in cultural heritage.
In Orthodoxy, this is more about celebrating their memory than the above transactional language. The idea is the living memory of the church forgets nothing.
>Beatification and canonization, of course, are concepts which extend no earlier than the medieval.
I don't think this is true
>There is therefore sufficient evidence to suggest that this phenomenon is of European origin.
In the Old Testament, we see the prophets being sanctified-- particularly the "major" prophets.
>European religiosity, paganism, was successfully blended into and incorporated within the Nicene Creed
I don't agree with this at all and I think the language of the Creed itself is the defeater.
"I believe"
Already a huge departure from European spirituality. Which pagans needed to consciously verbalize that they believed in Wotan? Is being pagan about accepting principles and adopting a new creed, or about being who you already are in the context of your ancestors? This declaration seems to be quite foreign to European spirituality.
>"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not created, of one essence with the Father through Whom all things were made"
This is an extremely dense passage of theology, alone quite unpagan, with several fundamentally irreconcilable statements and assumptions built in. Which pagan oral tradition records the energies/essence differentiation of Wotan's presence? Did they possess the vocabulary to articulate what it means to be begotten and not made? Which part of this was adopted from pre-Christian traditions?
>"Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit"
The above applies, but there is no soteriology in paganism afaik. Again, a radical departure
>"He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; And He rose on the third day, according to the Scriptures. "
This affirms the textual tradition and revelatory nature of Christianity, another major difference.
>"And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke through the prophets."
Redoot of everything I already said up there
In other words, where is the secret paganism?
>The end result was medieval Christianity
*Western* medieval Christianity
We're swiss cheesing anyone who mentions the filioque.
I was born a Catholic. You would have to be blind to not noticing such similarities between Paganism and the Saints. Even the Protestant worship of the Bible isn’t much different from the Pagan belief in the magical power of text for spells. Right down to closing eyes and letting your finger pick out a verse to find direction.
Read Spengler. He lays all of this out in deep historical detail. Basically, western Christianity uses Eastern symbols to express something deeply European. The Mary and Devil mythos of the middle ages in particular is very obviously something new and different than the Eastern religion.
Contrition as a duty too is something deeply and uniquely western European, that only could arise in a culture that views everything in a uniquely historical/biographic manner.
I really appreciate your attempt to explain this and give an olive branch to Christians. However, this might fit within a Catholic and Orthodox perspective but it doesn't work at all for us Protestant and Evangelical Christians. We hold that the Catholic and Orthodox way of venerating saints involves the sin of idolatry. So saying - 'you do this with your saints!' would be met with 'we know and it's wrong!' Learning that it's similar to paganism confirms what we already knew. Once again though, I really appreciate how hard you tried to find commonality.
This is a great article
Here are my quick thoughts as a Christian because nobody else really engaged on this
> the sum of the concept of sainthood itself cannot be properly understood without an analysis of Europe’s pagan past.
I would say it starts for Christians in the Old Testament, I know where this is going tho
>Most illuminating to this point is the concept of patronage - an assigned corpus of acts and attributes to which the saint is noted for, and apparently given oversight over. Prayers and requests related to these things should be directed to their relevant patron who, as an intermediary between Earth and God, deliver a sought outcome.
One way the Christian "system" is different is that you're not always attempting to appease someone in exchange for something else. For example, St. Anthony (patron of lost items) might be invoked to discuss how you feel about the item, prayer to remove desire for the item, really anything other than "use your magic powers to give me this item back". Afaik, there isn't a parallel to this in the pre-Christian traditions. It seems to me that encounters with pagan patrons was very transactional.
>seeking to gain their favor through supplementary religious devotion.
Maybe for Catholics I guess, but for the Orthodox the emphasis is on developing a personal relationship that models one's relationship with God. I tell my patron saint about my day, about how I'm feeling, I "talk" to him without necessarily wanting something. Again, this sounds very transactional i.e. more like the pagans.
>as evidence of demonic possession
Erm
>is remarkably similar to the operation of paganism
I don't agree with this
>in hopes to curate a relationship that can be called upon in times of need.
I watched the STJ Iceland documentary where he called upon Thor on top of the hill. Did he do that because he *loves* Thor? Or because he neutrally observed that Thor's domain exists on this hill in the way one might observe some other scientific fact? Christians *love* their patron saints. It's not about sending them your Santa wishlist because you sacrificed the appropriate time or resources to attain their power. In fact, that is basically simony.
>But the honours which we pay to the gods, are performed for the sake of our advantage
I won't keep repeating this, but I am not going to bite on Christian relationships with patrons being transactional in this way. You can't reduce a loving relationship to a formula invoked selfishly
>In contemporary practice, Christian practitioners toe a careful line between the concepts of intercession and worship.
Who? How?
> Indeed, this line has long been a source of contention between the various denominations of Christendom
When? There was the iconoclasm, but this was roundly defeated at the Council of Constantinople in 843. Nobody had a problem with it until the later incarnations of Protestantism.
>His [Augustine] compromise was a differentiation between two types of worship: latria and douleia
Yes, but it was St. Jerome that first described the different forms of veneration in the 340s. Obviously, Augustine (and later Aquinas) built out the concepts for the Western church, but I mention this to attack the idea that Augustine felt the need to improvise based on reports from the ministry to the Gauls or something. There was an already existing tradition, even earlier than Jerome depending on your Mariology.
>Only into the early medieval do we see the cults of saints fully developed
I don't think this is true, there were devotees to the original Apostles in the first century. "Cult" is the operative word here and I think it can only be applied to the martyrs, at least until later reforms from church leaders like Paul that toned it down.
>We see saints increasingly allotted feast days and holidays, holy sites for pilgrimage, written prayers and novenas for intercession, and iconography rooted in cultural heritage.
In Orthodoxy, this is more about celebrating their memory than the above transactional language. The idea is the living memory of the church forgets nothing.
>Beatification and canonization, of course, are concepts which extend no earlier than the medieval.
I don't think this is true
>There is therefore sufficient evidence to suggest that this phenomenon is of European origin.
In the Old Testament, we see the prophets being sanctified-- particularly the "major" prophets.
>European religiosity, paganism, was successfully blended into and incorporated within the Nicene Creed
I don't agree with this at all and I think the language of the Creed itself is the defeater.
"I believe"
Already a huge departure from European spirituality. Which pagans needed to consciously verbalize that they believed in Wotan? Is being pagan about accepting principles and adopting a new creed, or about being who you already are in the context of your ancestors? This declaration seems to be quite foreign to European spirituality.
>"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not created, of one essence with the Father through Whom all things were made"
This is an extremely dense passage of theology, alone quite unpagan, with several fundamentally irreconcilable statements and assumptions built in. Which pagan oral tradition records the energies/essence differentiation of Wotan's presence? Did they possess the vocabulary to articulate what it means to be begotten and not made? Which part of this was adopted from pre-Christian traditions?
>"Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit"
The above applies, but there is no soteriology in paganism afaik. Again, a radical departure
>"He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; And He rose on the third day, according to the Scriptures. "
This affirms the textual tradition and revelatory nature of Christianity, another major difference.
>"And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke through the prophets."
Redoot of everything I already said up there
In other words, where is the secret paganism?
>The end result was medieval Christianity
*Western* medieval Christianity
We're swiss cheesing anyone who mentions the filioque.
I was born a Catholic. You would have to be blind to not noticing such similarities between Paganism and the Saints. Even the Protestant worship of the Bible isn’t much different from the Pagan belief in the magical power of text for spells. Right down to closing eyes and letting your finger pick out a verse to find direction.
Read Spengler. He lays all of this out in deep historical detail. Basically, western Christianity uses Eastern symbols to express something deeply European. The Mary and Devil mythos of the middle ages in particular is very obviously something new and different than the Eastern religion.
Contrition as a duty too is something deeply and uniquely western European, that only could arise in a culture that views everything in a uniquely historical/biographic manner.
I really appreciate your attempt to explain this and give an olive branch to Christians. However, this might fit within a Catholic and Orthodox perspective but it doesn't work at all for us Protestant and Evangelical Christians. We hold that the Catholic and Orthodox way of venerating saints involves the sin of idolatry. So saying - 'you do this with your saints!' would be met with 'we know and it's wrong!' Learning that it's similar to paganism confirms what we already knew. Once again though, I really appreciate how hard you tried to find commonality.