(i) The city of Rome had a state religion with a chief god, Jupiter, and a chief priest, the Pontifex Maximus.
(ii) In the Roman Empire, Jupiter was identified with the Greek Zeus, the Norse Thor etc.
(iii) Later in the Empire, Christ replaced Jupiter/Zeus/Thor and the Bishop of Rome became the Pontifex Maximus.
(iv) The state religion survived the state, becoming "the ghost of the Roman Empire enthroned on its tomb."
(v) As the only bishop in the Western Empire with direct Apostolic Succession, the Pope claimed universal authority, never recognized by the Eastern Churches.
Rulers preferred to impose one god on everyone rather than to continue the mix and match.
Displaced slaves had left their local tribal gods behind and sought consolation from a single omnipresent deity.
Philosophers, priests and anyone else who thought about it preferred monotheism just as scientists now want a unified field theory. Explanations reduce diversity and multiplicity to unity.
12 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Point 1, I agree. Albeit Emperor Gratian renounced the title of Pontifex Maximus.
Point 2, I agree. These gods all had common Indo-European origins.
Point 3, I agree. Not sure when "Pontifex Maximus" became one of the titles of the Popes.
Point 4, not true. The real "ghost" of the Roman Empire, founded by Charlemagne. The Church transcends and is not limited to any single State.
Point 5, again, not true. All validly ordained bishops shares in the Apostolic succession. What makes the Papacy unique is the special authority conferred on Peter and his successors by Christ (e.g., in Matthew, Luke, and John). And the eastern bishops, down to the schism of 1054, did often admit that unique status of the Bishop of Rome. And that remained true of some eastern bishops after 1054. E.g., see the Maronite Catholics and other eastern rite Catholics.
Error, confusion, ambiguities should be eliminated by true explanations!
Ad astra! Sean
Correcting my Point 4, "The real "ghost" of the Roman Empire, founded by Charlemagne, was the Holy Roman Empire."
Sean
Sean,
Yes, all bishops claim Apostolic Succession at however many removes from the Apostles. But the point was this. The Church in India claims to have been founded by St Thomas. Maybe other Eastern Churches claim Apostolic founders. I am not sure. When Constantine split the Empire, that left Rome as the only Western Church claiming to have been founded by two Apostles, Peter and Paul. That led to claims of universal authority. (Historically, Peter had founded Christianity as a Jewish sect and Paul relaunched it as a Gentile religion.)
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I still disagree. First, you persist in overlooking Peter's own role in opening the Church to non-Jews, as seen in the first ten chapters of Acts. St. Paul did not "relaunch" Christianity, you are overlooking how he was careful to consult Peter and other apostles, to make sure he preached the same Gospel as they.
It was a stroke of long term strategic genius for Peter to transfer his Seat to Rome, the capital of the mightiest empire of ancient times!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Acts is propaganda.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, it is not, not in the bad sense of that word. Acts is the earliest example of Christian historical writing, written as well from a theological POV.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I do not mean it in a bad sense. The whole New Testament propagates the belief that Jesus is Messiah because he was raised in fulfilment of prophecy. But surely Peter's "What I have made clean, do not thou call unclean" vision is a story constructed to justify dropping the dietary rules in order to admit Gentiles?
Is God being inconsistent by declaring certain foods unclean, the declaring them clean? And by adding that it is men, not He, that had called them unclean?
Paul.
was
Kaor, Paul!
No, I see no inconsistency. the practical function of the Kosher laws of the OT was to help distinguish the Jews from their pagan neighbors. That was the reason for customs like circumcision and the Kosher laws. It was a means of helping to preserve the revelation granted to the Patriarchs, Prophets, and Sages of Israel from being submerged by paganism.
Also, the further revelation revealed thru the Incarnation and birth of Christ led to it being gradually revealed such laws and customs were no longer necessary. As early as Mark 7 we see it being declared all foods were clean.
But this was hard for kosher observant Jews like Peter and the other Apostles (including the Pharisee Saul/Paul) to accept. I see no difficulty believing Peter was given a vision making it clear such laws and customs were no longer needed. Because I believe the supernatural is real, with God sometimes acting in the world thru visions, signs, miracles (such as those recorded at Lourdes).
Ad astra! Sean
No inconsistency between God declaring certain foods unclean and the later declaring that it was men who had wrongly declared them unclean?
Which is more likely: that Peter had such a vision just when Gentiles were being admitted to the Church or that Luke wrote an account of such a vision in order to justify new practices?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, because the kosher laws were no longer needed after the coming of Christ.
No, again you persist in regarding Christianity from a POV I don't believe is correct, that it was merely a man made thing by men who were, at best, deluded. I believe the supernatural, God, to be real and that it was not impossible for God to send visions to certain persons as and when needed.
Ad astra! Sean
But I need a reason to believe otherwise.
Post a Comment