 |
|
A philosophical question
|
|
|
This forum has moved!
Same people, same great conversations, new location.
Please join us in the new Beliefnet Community.
|
|
<Prev |
Next>
First Page |
Last Page
|
|
|
This is a read-only area. |
|
Messages: 1 - 4 (82 total)
|
|
|
dawnpiper
7/10/2002 9:07 AM
|
1 out of 82 |
|
|
|
Cross-posted from Sword & Shield...
I am not a troll, or a "secret Christian". This is just something I was thinking about the other night at 1:00 in the morning when I couldn't sleep, and wanted to ask the Romans here.
The Romans put a lot of emphasis on participating in the State cult and ceremonies as a civic responsibility, regardless of one's personal beliefs or what gods one worshipped at home. Does it then follow that in Europe and America, particularly in countries where a Christian church is still officially established, it would be true to the Roman spirit to give tacit public support to that church, and at least minimal attendance at its ceremonies (say at Christmas and Easter)? Or does the exclusivist nature of the Christian truth-claim invalidate that position?
Dawnpiper
|
|
|
|
Ojuice5001
7/10/2002 1:37 PM
|
2 out of 82 |
|
|
|
I think it's all right to give minimal honor to Christianity, though not a duty. Since my parents are Christian, I go to church on Christmas and Easter. Let's not forget that not all churches believe that Christianity should be exclusive (the ECLA, for example, doesn't), and that modern European established churches, as such, almost never do.
|
|
|
|
Calixto
7/10/2002 1:41 PM
|
3 out of 82 |
|
|
|
Dawnpiper
The Romans put a lot of emphasis on participating in the State cult and ceremonies as a civic responsibility, regardless of one's personal beliefs or what gods one worshipped at home.
True.
Does it then follow that in Europe and America, particularly in countries where a Christian church is still officially established, it would be true to the Roman spirit to give tacit public support to that church, and at least minimal attendance at its ceremonies (say at Christmas and Easter)?
The USA has no established church, and no state does either. But this would apply in places like Spain, Scandinavia, and England...
There are a few possible answers.
1) When in Rome...
It was customary to offer respect to the Gods of the lands you were visiting. If in Judea, you offer to YHVH. If in Kemet, whell the Netjer get offerings, when in Phyrgia, Magna Mater did...and when in Brittannia, Sulis did.
In this light one would expect a Roman to pay some respect or formal operation in support of a State Church, just as he would have had done to the Gods of another society he lived in...and as he expected foreigners to do with regards to the Cultus Deorum...while continuing to perform his private devotions to his Gods and ancestors.
If prevented from piously offering devotion to his own Gods as well as the Gods of the State (or in this case, the God of the State)...things might be different, and he probably would resist. (Not that this is a probable situation right now in most of the states with State Churches in Europe and Oz).
2) The Roman devotion to State religion would die with the death of the State. I suppose that come Constantine, the Pious Roman would continue to worship the Imperial Genius in Private, and go to Mass on Sunday as well. Roman faith wasn't exclusivisitic, so it could, likely coexist with Christianity peacefully. But the Roman state ceased to exist in the West in 476, and in the East in 1452. No state, therefore its all private devotions. I'm not sure what this legalist would do about other states, but I would assume he would take a similar view.
Hmm...burning incense to the Genius of GWB...interesting thought.
3) What did the Romans actually do after Constantine's accension? Well, even Julian maintained the fiction of worshipping at Mass until He became Caesar. His (mild) attacks on Christianity seem to have upset even other Pagans at time...
But we see also with Symmachus (I think that's the name, I'm working from memory), that the Relgio devotees tried to protect their religious practice. My guess would be they practiced a dual faith, going to Mass when required...but while it was officially tolerated, doing the Religio...burning incense to the Imperial Genius, honoring the Gods, etc.
Removing the Altar of Victory, and other such attacks seems to have removed the public performance of these rites...and Theodosius quickly made the public (and private) rites illegal...so its hard to tell what to do in our exact situation, without publicly sponsored Religio rites...but private rites not being illegal.
My general guess is, they would attend Church and festivals, while privately doing their own rites, as well as their own rites to support the State.
Or does the exclusivist nature of the Christian truth-claim invalidate that position?
My suspicion is that the exclusivist nature applies to the Christian not the Roman. The Roman is free to worship Jesus on the side (as did a few Emperors), so long as they worshipped the Gods and maintained the Pax Deorum. I don't really see why going through the motions would prevent you from being a Religio devotee...unless you were to genuinely convert to Christianity...which would be a different matter.
|
|
|
|
Calixto
7/10/2002 1:44 PM
|
4 out of 82 |
|
|
|
I'd also suggest that in the USA at least, with its lack of a State Church and formal religious ritual involving the leaders...
Private Devotions to the Olympians would serve to keep the Pax Deorum...and no public (in the sense of subsidized, established) rites needed or really allowed.
Since its not a state duty one doesn't have to go to church. Though its probably wise to at least make a token offering to the patron of most of the population...though this can be done through the inoffensive offering to ALL THE GODS, if offering to YHVH Himself offends your sensibilities.
Cal
|
|
|
|
<Prev |
Next>
First Page |
Last Page
|
|
|
This is a read-only area. |
|
|
