Mark Bonocore rips right in into a rather overconfident anti-Catholic diatribe. Mark's opponent comments in red.
You have yet to describe why the catholic church insists on tolerating mythical, and pagan saints... You mentioned that it was to appease the conquered... pretty weak. But ok.. now the world is conquered.. why still the St. Brigid? or should I say Goddess Brigit. I'll tell you why.. for profit. The catholic church misled its flock for profit. The canon of Saints was the Catholic technique for preserving the pagan polytheism that people wanted, while pretending to worship only one God.
Well, that's a fine bigoted answer. :-) ...And I'm sure that it would get you a gold star at some liberal grade school. However, if you bother to look at authentic history, your assertion suddenly becomes both silly and untenable. First of all, the Catholic Church began to venerate saints long before the days when it possessed any money or property. In the ancient Liturgies of the Church, and in places as far apart as Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome, we see litanies of the names of saints and martyrs recited during the Eucharist prayers; and this was done as early as A.D. 100. Likewise, in the Roman catacombs (esp. the catacombs of St. Sebastian, which date as early as A.D. 96), we see images of saints, and angels, and martyrs, all painted in 1st and 2nd Century artistic styles. Not too much money to be made down there, as the Christians were hiding out from the imperial Romans who wanted to crucify them. :-) So, while the shrines of the saints were certainly big business during the High Middle Ages (when having a saint's relics brought people to your town, and so stimulated the local economy), this all came CENTURIES after the Catholic belief in venerating saints and martyrs was already well established. So, there lies your first mistake. The veneration of saints was not created for profit. Your second mistake is that St. Brigit is an authentic historical person. She is not merely a modified form of the pagan Irish goddess "Brigida" (meaning "flaming arrow"), as liberal secular revisionists of the previous century tried to claim. Rather, she was a merely an Irish woman who was **named after** this goddess ...just as other Irish women at the time were named Morgan (after the Irish battle goddess Morgan or Modron), or Macha (after the Irish horse goddess Macha), etc., etc., etc. For example, ... In Acts 17:34, Paul converts a Greek aristocrat named "Dionysius" (who later ends up as the first bishop of Athens). Now, "Dionysius" is the name of the Greek god of wine. So, simply because this saint has the same name as the pagan god, should we assume that St. Dionysius never existed??? ...That is as merely a modified form of the Greek god, whose shine and theater was located there **in Athens***, not far from the Areopagus, I might add. ;-) Of course not. And the same is true of St. Brigit, who was an Irish Christian abbess, and probably a convert of St. Patrick himself. If you wish to read about what we do know from the sketch history of St. Brigit, here is the site from the Catholic encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02784b.htm
In short, while many unsubstantiated legends did collect themselves around her (just as they did with Peter, and Paul, and other saints), there is no reason whatsoever to assume that Brigit never existed. ...Unless you wish to say the same for Peter and Paul, etc. Thirdly, the Church has NEVER officially tolderated "mythical or pagan saints." In fact, the reason that Rome took canonical authority away from local bishops (a practice that began in the 8th Century) was in order to assure that this would not happen --to assure that local, poorly-verified legends about reputed "saints" would not be imposed on the Church. Ergo, by the time that the so-called "cult of saints" became big-business in the High Middle Ages, all the saints in question could be historically authenticated, or they were not recognized to be saints at all. Yet, you also write ....
I've pointed out before.. with no answer that, a good many of the same pagan deities were brought into the church, refurbished as phony saints so that popular devotion to them would bring profit to the church instead of diverting it elsewhere.
That is complete nonsense. Where is our "St. Zeus"? or "St. Athena"? or "St. Hercules"??? :-)
The great age of saint-making began about the ninth century, when hagiographers busily attached fictional life stories and martyrdoms to former heathen heroes, and ransacked old cemeteries in their highly lucrative treasure hunt for purported relics.
That is an entirely unsubstantiated claim cooked up by liberal anti-Christians in academia. Where's your poof? :-)
Some of the canonized pagans were Diana, Artemis, Castor and Pollux, Helios, Bacchus, Dionysus, Nereus, Aphrodite, Mercury, Silvanus, and even Buddha.
:-) First of all, I DEFY you to show me where the Catholic Church has EVER venerated a "St. Buddha." :-) Let's see some evidence for that one. Secondly, there were indeed saints who went by the **names*** "Diana, Artemis, Castor, Pollux, Helios, Bacchus, Dionysus, Nereus, Aphrodite, Mercury, and Silvanus." In fact, some of them are IN THE BIBLE! :-) I already pointed out where one can find "St. Dionysius" above. Also, one can find "St. Silvanus" in 1 Thess 1:1, 1 Peter 5:12, and elsewhere (Silvanus was an alternate name for Paul's companion Silas, see Acts 15:40, etc.). Also, a St. Hermes and a St. Hermas (both being derivatives of the name "Mercury" in Latin") can be found in Romans 16:14. And also, in that very same passage, we find other "divine" names such as "Narcissus" (Romans 16:11), "Tryphosa" (Romans 16:12), "Perseus" (Romans 16:12), NEREUS (Romans 16:15 --A NAME CITED BY YOU ABOVE! ;-), and "Olympas" ...all of whom are the same as pagan gods or heroes in the Greco-Roman tradition. And we can multiply examples of this throughout both Scripture and early Christian history. As I said, these are not modified forms of old pagan gods, but historical persons who were merely NAMED AFTER the pagan gods, a very common thing in the ancient world. So, your assertion is both pedestrian and very silly.
Conversion of pagan gods and goddesses to saints usually came with the church’s takeover of their shrines. Some of the most famous saints still worshipped today are the least historical. The patron saints of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales were all fictional.
More nonsense. The patron saint of Scotland is St. Andrew, the brother of St. Peter. He's in the Bible, right? ;-) (see Matt 10:2, etc.). Likewise, the patron saint of England is St. George, who was a Roman soldier from Libya martyred during the persecution of Emperor Diocletian (c. 300 A.D.). There is no "shrine" to George in England, and no pagan temple preceding any such shrine. Also, the patron saint of Wales is St. David, or "Dewi Sant" ("David son of Sant" --a famous Welsh chieftan) as the Welsh call him; and we know for a fact that he was a Welsh monk and bishop. And likewise, the two patron saints of Ireland, Patrick and Columba, are known historical persons --Patrick being a Romanized Britain from what today is southern Scotland, and Columba being one of the grandsons of the King of Ulster in Ireland. No pagan gods are to be found in this list. What's more, while it is true that the Catholic Church took over old pagan shrines and Christianized them, the custom was not to try to Christianize the old pagan deity at all. Rather, what the Church almost always did was to re-name the shrine in honor of St. Michael the Archangel, vanquisher of demonic forces. And this is why we find shrines like St. Michele in Normandy, France and St. Michael's tower atop Glastonbury Tor in Somerset, England ...these and many, many other shrines to the archangel having been built atop former pagan temples.
The martyrs of the famous Roman "persecutions" under such emperors as Nero and Diocletian, were invented, since there were no records of any such specific martyrdoms.
I'm sorry, but that is simply untrue. We know for a fact that such martyrdoms took place; in fact, the very ancient Church went to extraordinary lengths to authenticate them. For example, in 236 A.D., during the reign of Emperor Maximus Thrax, one of the early Popes, St. Anterus, was executed for collecting the trial testimonies of the Roman martyrs from the pagan Roman notaries ...and we know that this took place from non-Christian imperial sources. What's more, by the 340's, the family of Damasus (who would later become Pope Damasus I) was in charge of the Roman church's archives, which included a vast library of the trial testimonies of the Roman martyrs. The Church thought that it was very important to verify all this. And so, I'm afraid that you simply don't know what you're talking about and have fallen for a lot of revisionist liberal lies.
Names were picked at random from ancient tombstones, and martyr-tales were written to order.
Wrong. I presented my evidence to the contrary. So, where's yours? What's more, you fail to take into account that we have THE catacombS of the Roman church (and of other churches throughout the Roman Empire), which were EXCLUSIVELY CHRISTIAN in nature (i.e., the pagan Greeks and Romans didn't bury their dead, but cremated them ;-). It, therefore, follows that any such "tombstones" that contained names on them HAD TO BE, **by necessity**, CHRISTIAN tombstones! :-) They could not be pagan ones ...because there WEREN'T ANY! And more still, ... If you bother to visit the Roman catacombs of St. Sebatian, or St. Callistus, or St. Priscilla, or any of the others today, you will see that the graves were all marked with tiles WHICH DESCRIBED HOW THE PERSON DIED. If a person was a martyr, they were marked with an 'M" or an "MT" (or the symbol of an anchor). ...and this was the custom from the early 2nd Century on. So, again, you simply don't know what you're talking about.
In reality, it was the early christian church that did much more persecuting and made many more martyrs than Rome had ever done, because religious tolerance was the usual Roman policy.
Anti-Catholic bull-ka-ka. This was not the behavior of the early Christian Church at all, not even after it became officially recognized by the Roman government. For example, Constantine himself, following the instruction of the Pope, writes as follows to the bishops at the Council of Arles ... "What each man, out of conviction, undertakes himself, he shall not try to force on another. What a man sees and realizes for himself, let him serve his neighbor therewith, if he may; but if he avails not to do so, let him leave it alone. For it is one thing to undertake of one's own free will the battle for the hereafter, and another to compel men by punishment to do so. I have stated this and explained it more fully than my grace intended as I would not conceal my Christian faith. Yet, I have done so because, I am told, some men are saying that the usage of the [pagan] temples have been abolished together with the powers of pagan darkness. Indeed, I would so counsel every man, were it not that the rebellious might of false doctrines, to the injury of the salvation of us all, has struck its roots so terribly deep." (Constantine the Great to the Bishops of Arles). This is how the ancient Church operated. No one, not even pagans, were compelled to become Christians, let alone executed for it.
The church that slaughtered the heathen for worshipping false gods was itself guilty of worshipping false saints - which, sometimes, were even the same deities as those of the heathen.
Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla .... It's easy to sling bigoted allegations. Show me some proof. Where's your evidence??? So far, as we have seen, you allegations simply don't hold water.
The multitude of phony or commercial saints are treated by modern Catholic scholars with a tolerance, as if the saint-makers` fantasies held something of the same charm as tales invented by children.
Again, and as I have shown, this is sheer fantasy. All Catholic saints are authenticated. Otherwise, they would not be saints at all.
It is never admitted that these fantasies were not intended to charm but rather to defraud. The saints were made up to earn money for the church,
Untrue. I showed that this is not the case above. Clearly, your assertion is completely out of touch with the scope of history. The veneration of saints began in early Roman times. Making money from the saints' shrines did not begin until well into the High Middle Ages; and so we have a gap of 12 centuries between these two things! :-) Ergo, your assertion is totally baseless and ahistorical, the product of a bigoted tirade and nothing more. Saints could not be a source of income for an ancient Church that lacked any significant money or power, but which was an illegal, underground society persecuted by the imperial Roman government.
and many of the made-up saints are still doing so, for the church refrains from publicizing their spurious origins lest such publicity might disappoint the faithful - which, translated, means the donations might cease and with all the court cases, the church might just stumble into bankruptcy.
:-) More nonsense. Again, it's easy to spread scandalous lies. Let's see some hard evidence.
This started out as a debate on why women are not treated equally in the catholic church. I pointed out why. You came back with a diatribe of bafflegab which did nothing but prove my point. Let us see how you handle the fact that the church not only is mysognistic but is also misleading their own flock by promoting pagan deities as saints.
Let's see you get a grip on reality and look at the real history rather than spewing a bunch of unsubstantiated pap fed to you by anti-Catholic liberal-secular gurus. :-) Women are treated with equal dignity in the Catholic tradition. Those who say otherwise are lesbians and witches, and who hate the Church for a whole set of other reasons. On that point, nothing more needs to be said. You all know who you are. Mark Bonocore
Mark Bonocore
The Catholic Legate
July 20, 2004