From: eje@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com (Eric James Ewanco)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The Lord's Table (Part 1 of 2)
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:45:02 GMT
Reply-To: ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <Aug.21.00.30.40.1992.14292@athos.rutgers.edu>, REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov writes:
  
>Probably because they are mostly erroneous and of questionable
>scholarship.

> Hardly. I don't have all the info anymore, but take for example Wilkenson and
> his studies on the mystery religions in Egypt.  He was knighted, he had
> multiple PhD's from many of the leading Universities in Europe, earned and
> given ...

yeah yeah yeah, but everyone is subject to bias and a PhD doesn't prove you're
right.  Only liberal Protestants would follow this line of reasoning ;-)

> I have debated in 2 RCC seminaries, and spent lengthy conversations with
> several RC priests, and even the Episcopalian Bishop of Chicago.  No one was
> able to give a substantive reply to the conclusion put forth in this book.
> Hislop didn't pull any punches or tickle any ears so it is hard reading if
> you have any catholic back ground like myself.  But if one is intellectually
> honest, questions have to answered.

Hmmm, why is it that the people who most vehemently condemn the RCC always used
to be RCs?  Anyway, that "several RC priests" were unable to respond does not
surprise me, because frankly the education of our priests in these matters
is absolutely appalling.  But talk to priests at Franciscan University of
Steubenville.  No doubt they could well answer your objections.  If you
are intellectually honest, I think you could withstand the responses to
those objections which you can in fact find.  But most anti-Catholics I
find will never change their mind no matter what they hear.  Their minds
are closed.

> As for the listing you just gave, yes these are noted.  But they are
> hardly exhaustive.  We could look at every article of priestly garment,
> the dates of the holidays, even some of these "Xian Holidays"
> themselves.  There are the lamps & wax candles (Easter candle for eg),
> rosary & the sacred heart, the symbols of the cross, even processions.
> Or we could look at the idea of the College of Cardinals (priests of the
> "hinge"), the concept of the chair of "Peter", or the teaching of the
> TWO keys (as sown on Papal dress). This brings us ultimately to the
> "Sovereign Pontiff."  An idea that originated in the mystery religion of
> Babylon.

Most of these accusations are pure fantasy.  There is Scriptural support
for at least six of these.  But those that were borrowed from paganism:
you will never find Catholics speaking of the pagan meanings of these
symbols, because we have purified them and cleansed them for Christian
use.

Do you listen to Christian rock?  I do.  I don't care that rock and roll
is used by hedonists.  I don't even care that the term comes from an
obscene phrase.  We've appropriated rock for Christian use.  Christian
rock is stripped clean of all the impurities of secular rock.

So, too, are the symbols Catholicism uses stripped of all pagan symbolism,
baptized into new life, clothed with majesty.  In itself, this is a
remarkable symbol for the conversion of sinners.

I have studied the Christian symbolism behind Catholic symbols and
beliefs, and find them so beautiful and arresting that I don't understand
why Protestants are so insistent on rejecting all symbolism whatsoever.

Yes, Rex, I have heard all the arguments, from Isis and Osiris to Marduk
etc. But I want to know what that has to do with rejecting Catholicism,
when all of our symbols have exclusively Christian meaning in our eyes.

> I care not to enter into this discuss at the moment, possibly it would be
> better if you looked for a copy of Hislops book for yourself and did your own
> research.

I have, which is why I decided to remain Catholic.  Not that specific
book, but I have done much research.

>> You will find that pthe Catholic church has always held the same
>> unending truth, and has never combined paganism and Christianity.  Not
>> only that, you will find that what we teach is in fact what the
>> Apostles taught.

> This clearly is not what historians and archeologist have recorded of
> the time being discussed.

There are histories that do not agree with your conclusions.

> You have made a mistake equating the RCC with The "Church."  At best it
> is only a church, a denomination.  Remember, we are talking about the
> system, not its peoples.

For RCs, the "system" is as much a part of the church as its people.  We
believe that Christ's church has both spiritual and organizational aspects.

>>Catholicism is not based on paganism.  Paganism is based on Catholicism.
>>Satan has known the truth for all time.  He chose to corrupt it in his
>>pagan religions.  Now you believe his lie that simply because the
>>Catholic faith bears resemblance to his pagan faiths -- when in truth it
>>is the reverse -- Catholicism is to be rejected.

> Either you are misunderstanding, or you are ignorant of the facts, or
> you simply don't want to know them.  I don't want to be the one that
> slams a pie in your face either.  

AAAAWWWWW, isn't that nice!  Far from being ignorant of the facts, I have
investigated them, having already many people slamming pies in my face,
and I discovered that they were wrong -- dead wrong, and sadly misled.
Believe me, Rex, I *have* heard every conceivable bitter condemnation of
the RCC.  I know who Lorraine Boettner, Jack Chick, and Tony Alamo are.  I
know the arguments.  And I know the refutations.  And I know what the
early church believed, and it doesn't look one whit like evangelical
Protestantism.

> I only wish to point to the possibility.  You either have to reject the
> evidence, or come to an understanding.  As I've mentioned in earlier
> posts, I have 6 friends who were in RC seminaries.  After their honest
> appraisals of the info -all 6 left their seminary, 4 of them left the
> RCC.

You ought to hear the stories of anti-Catholic Protestant ministers who
also looked at the evidence and concluded that they were wrong, people
like Scott Hahn and Gerry Matatics.  I might also mention other prominent
Protestant converts like Thomas Howard and John Newman.  There are scores
of recent converts.  And these aren't converted by virulent
anti-Protestants throwing deceitful misinformation their way, but by their
own free will and investigation, which is more than I can say for the
former Catholics I know.  And believe me, I know a lot of them.

> Please, this is not to lead to flames.  If you disagree, that's between
> you and the Lord.  It is He that gives the only verification that
> matters!

No flames, just accurate information.  If you'd like to converse in
private, that would be great.  It will give you a chance to save a poor
beknighted Catholic brainwashed by the Pope, destined for Hell ;-)

shalom,

Eric
--
/=============================================================================\
| Eric Ewanco - Software Engineer     For the rash and outrageous opinions ex-|
| Digital Equipment Corp, Maynard MA  pressed herein I alone am responsible;  |
| ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com          they do not belong to DIGITAL(TM).      |
\==============================- 2 Th 2:15 -==================================/
    "...[T]he greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and
    organized at Rome by [] Peter and Paul, [is] that Church which has the
    tradition and faith which comes down to us after having been announced
    to men by the Apostles.  For with this Church, because of its superior
    origin, all Churches must agree ...  and it is in her that the
    faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition."
       -- St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, c. 180 A.D., 3,3,3.

[I think this discussion is getting out of control.  I'm not seeing
much new information in it, and there's more ad hominem than I would
like.  Basically it comes down to a question of whether it bothers you
that there are similarities between symbols and practices of the
Catholic church and various pagan religions, even though all of the
symbols and practices have Christian interpretations, and can often be
derived from other sources.  This is the same sort of discussion we
get into every Christmas and Easter, and seems just as pointless here.
Unless something changes drastically in the nature of the submissions
I do not see any point in continuing it.
--clh]