Origen de la religión catolica

Les sugiero que busquen en el reciente libro de Gerardo Martínez-Solanas respuestas a algunos de los temas comentados en este artículo publicado hace ya mas de un año.

La estancia x reposo en casa me ha permitido ver un TV documental interesante, que intenta explicar el origen de algunas fiestas religiosas y comerciales.

Según el documental que cita referencias históricas y “wikipédicas”, estas fiestas constituyen la parte pagana de nuestra religión católica.

Como sabemos, la religión que practicamos, el catolicismo romano, tiene sus orígenes en el Concilio de Nicea patrocinado por la madre del emperador Constantino, Helena.

Mujer muy inteligente, convenció a su hijo, que ya había permitido la práctica del cristianismo en el año 313 (Edicto de Milán) de que sería muy difícil gobernar el imperio debido a la existencia de más de mil religiones – versiones judías, cristianas y paganas – por lo que organizó el concilio de Nicea el año 325, en el cual reunió a un grupo de obispos que eligieron solo tres de los evangelios cristianos, declarando apócrifos al resto e integrando en la nueva versión cristiano romana prácticas paganas, para que fuera aceptada como religión oficial del imperio, lo que sucedió en el año 380 (Teodosio - Edicto de Tesalónica).

La Tesis del documental es que fue la emperatriz Elena (Helena) la creadora de la religión católica, en base a solo cuatro de los evangelios cristianos (que también fueron modificados por los obispos asistentes al concilio, pues debemos comprender que no existen documentos escritos de los evangelios, anteriores al siglo III,) y la existencia de prácticas paganas como la navidad (en la fecha del solsticio de invierno), la fecha del nacimiento de Cristo el día 24 de Diciembre, en lugar de la reconocida por los cristianos, a mediados de Enero y el concepto de la santidad que permite a los habitantes de cada región o país venerar uno distinto.

La emperatriz Helena fue también la patrocinadora de la creación de reliquias para fortalecer la nueva versión cristiana y envió emisarios a Jerusalén para identificar lugares cristianos que habían desaparecido después de casi tres siglos.

Ordenó que se señalaran lugares sagrados, como el vía crucis y muchos otros y el envío de miles de supuesto trozos de la cruz donde fue crucificado Jesús, a las iglesias del imperio.

El documental se atreve a cuestionar incluso la forma de la cruz que veneramos, alegando que los romanos, en aquellas fechas realizaban las crucifixiones en formatos de X en lugar de T.

El susodicho documental me mantendrá entretenido verificando sus discrepancias con los hechos históricos, lo que puede ser un buen sustituto del paracetamol para los dolores de la caída, incluyendo los orígenes de las fiestas comerciales que sustituyen a las católicas, cristianas y judías para mayor consenso.

¿Por qué se celebran los días de la madre y el padre en Mayo y Junio?

¿Por qué, a pesar de las discrepancias, los cristianos (que llamamos protestantes) continúan celebrando la navidad el 24 – 25 de Diciembre, en lugar de mediados de Enero?

¿Por qué el Papa Paco ha anunciado que cambiará la fecha de la semana santa a una fecha fija, en lugar de continuar celebrándola según el calendario lunar?

¿Por qué los cristianos eligieron el domingo como festivo y los musulmanes el viernes en lugar del sábado judío? Gracias a estas diferencias muchos trabajadores disfrutan de la llamada “semana inglesa”.

¿Podrán los futuros trabajadores disfrutar de la semana laboral de cuatro días para cumplir los ritos de las tres religiones creadas a partir de las doctrinas de Akenaton.

Al llegar el 325,la iglesia catolica tenía un martirologio extenso ( mas de 4,000 mártires ); una bien definida ortodoxa doctrina en lucha contra las herejías; un clero organizado y el 10 % de la poblacion de un imperio de 60 millones . Constantino no fundó la iglesia solamente ayudó a consolidarla , unificándola en contra del Arrianismo---El aporte de la primera dama, Santa Helena, su mamá , fué importante; pero marginal , con un viaje a Jerusalem donde encontró la VeraCruz La estatua de Constantino fue ubicada fuera del templo de Letrán la catedral en Roma,para evitar estos equívocos que aquí se mencionan.

Quizá sería interesante leer el punto de vista del profesor John Draper escrito en la segunda mitad del siglo XIX
.
HISTORY OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE
By John William Draper, M. D., LL. D.
PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
(fragmento)

The Jewish people at that time entertained a belief, founded on old traditions, that a deliverer would arise among them, who would restore them to their ancient splendor. The disciples of Jesus regarded him as this long-expected Messiah. But the priesthood, believing that the doctrines he taught were prejudicial to their interests, denounced him to the Roman governor, who, to satisfy their clamors, reluctantly delivered him over to death.

His doctrines of benevolence and human brotherhood outlasted that event. The disciples, instead of scattering, organized. They associated themselves on a principle of communism, each throwing into the common stock whatever property he possessed, and all his gains. The widows and orphans of the community were thus supported, the poor and the sick sustained. From this germ was developed a new, and as the events proved, all-powerful society—the Church; new, for nothing of the kind had existed in antiquity; powerful, for the local churches, at first isolated, soon began to confederate for their common interest. Through this organization Christianity achieved all her political triumphs.

As we have said, the military domination of Rome had brought about universal peace, and had generated a sentiment of brotherhood among the vanquished nations. Things were, therefore, propitious for the rapid diffusion of the newly-established—the Christian—principle throughout the empire. It spread from Syria through all Asia Minor, and successively reached Cyprus, Greece, Italy, eventually extending westward as far as Gaul and Britain.

Its propagation was hastened by missionaries who made it known in all directions. None of the ancient classical philosophies had ever taken advantage of such a means.
Political conditions determined the boundaries of the new religion. Its limits were eventually those of the Roman Empire; Rome, doubtfully the place of death of Peter, not Jerusalem, indisputably the place of the death of our Savior, became the religious capital. It was better to have possession of the imperial seven hilled city, than of Gethsemane and Calvary with all their holy souvenirs.

IT GATHERS POLITICAL POWER. For many years Christianity manifested itself as a system enjoining three things—toward God veneration, in personal life purity, in social life benevolence. In its early days of feebleness it made proselytes only by persuasion, but, as it increased in numbers and influence, it began to exhibit political tendencies, a disposition to form a government within the government, an empire within the empire. These tendencies it has never since lost. They are, in truth, the logical result of its development. The Roman emperors, discovering that it was absolutely incompatible with the imperial system, tried to put it down by force. This was in accordance with the spirit of their military maxims, which had no other means but force for the establishment of conformity.

In the winter A.D. 302-'3, the Christian soldiers in some of the legions refused to join in the time-honored solemnities for propitiating the gods. The mutiny spread so quickly, the emergency became so pressing, that the Emperor Diocletian was compelled to hold a council for the purpose of determining what should be done. The difficulty of the position may perhaps be appreciated when it is understood that the wife and the daughter of Diocletian himself were Christians. He was a man of great capacity and large political views; he recognized in the opposition that must be made to the new party a political necessity, yet he expressly enjoined that there should be no bloodshed. But who can control an infuriated civil commotion? The church of Nicomedia was razed to the ground; in retaliation the imperial palace was set on fire, an edict was openly insulted and torn down. The Christian officers in the army were cashiered; in all directions, martyrdoms and massacres were taking place. So resistless was the march of events, that not even the emperor himself could stop the persecution.

THE FIRST CHRISTIAN EMPEROR. It had now become evident that the Christians constituted a powerful party in the state, animated with indignation at the atrocities they had suffered, and determined to endure them no longer. After the abdication of Diocletian (A.D. 305), Constantine, one of the competitors for the purple, perceiving the advantages that would accrue to him from such a policy, put himself forth as the head of the Christian party. This gave him, in every part of the empire, men and women ready to encounter fire and sword in his behalf; it gave him unwavering adherents in every legion of the armies. In a decisive battle, near the Milvian bridge, victory crowned his schemes. The death of Maximin, and subsequently that of Licinius, removed all obstacles. He ascended the throne of the Caesars—the first Christian emperor.

Place, profit, power—these were in view of whoever now joined the conquering sect. Crowds of worldly persons, who cared nothing about its religious ideas, became its warmest supporters. Pagans at heart, their influence was soon manifested in the paganization of Christianity that forthwith ensued. The emperor, no better than they, did nothing to check their proceedings. But he did not personally conform to the ceremonial requirements of the Church until the close of his evil life, A.D. 337.

PAGANIZATION OF CHRISTIANITY. Two causes led to the amalgamation of Christianity with paganism: 1. The political necessities of the new dynasty; 2. The policy adopted by the new religion to insure its spread.

1. Though the Christian party had proved itself sufficiently strong to give a master to the empire, it was never sufficiently strong to destroy its antagonist, paganism. The issue of the struggle between them was an amalgamation of the principles of both. In this, Christianity differed from Mohammedanism, which absolutely annihilated its antagonist, and spread its own doctrines without adulteration.

Constantine continually showed by his acts that he felt he must be the impartial sovereign of all his people, not merely the representative of a successful faction. Hence, if he built Christian churches, he also restored pagan temples; if he listened to the clergy, he also consulted the haruspices; if he summoned the Council of Nicea, he also honored the statue of Fortune; if he accepted the rite of baptism, he also struck a medal bearing his title of "God." His statue, on the top of the great porphyry pillar at Constantinople, consisted of an ancient image of Apollo, whose features were replaced by those of the emperor, and its head surrounded by the nails feigned to have been used at the crucifixion of Christ, arranged so as to form a crown of glory.

Feeling that there must be concessions to the defeated pagan party, in accordance with its ideas, he looked with favor on the idolatrous movements of his court. In fact, the leaders of these movements were persons of his own family.

CHRISTIANITY UNDER CONSTANTINE. 2. To the emperor—a mere worldling—a man without any religious convictions, doubtless it appeared best for himself, best for the empire, and best for the contending parties, Christian and pagan, to promote their union or amalgamation as much as possible. Even sincere Christians do not seem to have been averse to this; perhaps they believed that the new doctrines would diffuse most thoroughly by incorporating in themselves ideas borrowed from the old, that Truth would assert her self in the end, and the impurity be cast off. In accomplishing this amalgamation, Helena, the empress-mother, aided by the court ladies, led the way. For her gratification there were discovered, in a cavern at Jerusalem, wherein they had lain buried for more than three centuries, the Savior's cross, and those of the two thieves, the inscription, and the nails that had been used. They were identified by miracle. A true relic-worship set in. The superstition of the old Greek times reappeared; the times when the tools with which the Trojan horse was made might still be seen at Metapontum, the sceptre of Pelops at Chaeroneia, the spear of Achilles at Phaselis, the sword of Memnon at Nicomedia, when the Tegeates could show the hide of the Calydonian boar and very many cities boasted their possession of the true palladium of Troy; when there were statues of Minerva that could brandish spears, paintings that could blush, images that could sweat, and endless shrines and sanctuaries at which miracle-cures could be performed.

As years passed on, the faith described by Tertullian was transmuted into one more fashionable and more debased. It was incorporated with the old Greek mythology. Olympus was restored, but the divinities passed under other names. The more powerful provinces insisted on the adoption of their time-honored conceptions. Views of the Trinity, in accordance with Egyptian traditions, were established. Not only was the adoration of Isis under a new name restored, but even her image, standing on the crescent moon, reappeared. The well-known effigy of that goddess, with the infant Horus in her arms, has descended to our days in the beautiful, artistic creations of the Madonna and Child. Such restorations of old conceptions under novel forms were everywhere received with delight. When it was announced to the Ephesians that the Council of that place, headed by Cyril, had decreed that the Virgin should be called "the Mother of God," with tears of joy they embraced the knees of their bishop; it was the old instinct peeping out; their ancestors would have done the same for Diana.

This attempt to conciliate worldly converts, by adopting their ideas and practices, did not pass without remonstrance from those whose intelligence discerned the motive. "You have," says Faustus to Augustine, "substituted your agapae for the sacrifices of the pagans; for their idols your martyrs, whom you serve with the very same honors. You appease the shades of the dead with wine and feasts; you celebrate the solemn festivities of the Gentiles, their calends, and their solstices; and, as to their manners, those you have retained without any alteration. Nothing distinguishes you from the pagans, except that you hold your assemblies apart from them." Pagan observances were everywhere introduced. At weddings it was the custom to sing hymns to Venus.

INTRODUCTION OF ROMAN RITES. Let us pause here a moment, and see, in anticipation, to what a depth of intellectual degradation this policy of paganization eventually led. Heathen rites were adopted, a pompous and splendid ritual, gorgeous robes, mitres, tiaras, wax-tapers, processional services, lustrations, gold and silver vases, were introduced. The Roman lituus, the chief ensign of the augurs, became the crozier. Churches were built over the tombs of martyrs, and consecrated with rites borrowed from the ancient laws of the Roman pontiffs. Festivals and commemorations of martyrs multiplied with the numberless fictitious discoveries of their remains. Fasting became the grand means of repelling the devil and appeasing God; celibacy the greatest of the virtues. Pilgrimages were made to Palestine and the tombs of the martyrs. Quantities of dust and earth were brought from the Holy Land and sold at enormous prices, as antidotes against devils. The virtues of consecrated water were upheld. Images and relics were introduced into the churches, and worshiped after the fashion of the heathen gods. It was given out that prodigies and miracles were to be seen in certain places, as in the heathen times. The happy souls of departed Christians were invoked; it was believed that they were wandering about the world, or haunting their graves. There was a multiplication of temples, altars, and penitential garments. The festival of the purification of the Virgin was invented to remove the uneasiness of heathen converts on account of the loss of their Lupercalia, or feasts of Pan. The worship of images, of fragments of the cross, or bones, nails, and other relics, a true fetich worship, was cultivated. Two arguments were relied on for the authenticity of these objects—the authority of the Church, and the working of miracles. Even the worn-out clothing of the saints and the earth of their graves were venerated. From Palestine were brought what were affirmed to be the skeletons of St. Mark and St. James, and other ancient worthies. The apotheosis of the old Roman times was replaced by canonization; tutelary saints succeed to local mythological divinities. Then came the mystery of transubstantiation, or the conversion of bread and wine by the priest into the flesh and blood of Christ. As centuries passed, the paganization became more and more complete. Festivals sacred to the memory of the lance with which the Savior's side was pierced, the nails that fastened him to the cross, and the crown of thorns, were instituted. Though there were several abbeys that possessed this last peerless relic, no one dared to say that it was impossible they could all be authentic.

We may read with advantage the remarks made by Bishop Newton on this paganization of Christianity. He asks: "Is not the worship of saints and angels now in all respects the same that the worship of demons was in former times? The name only is different, the thing is identically the same,... the deified men of the Christians are substituted for the deified men of the heathens. The promoters of this worship were sensible that it was the same, and that the one succeeded to the other; and, as the worship is the same, so likewise it is performed with the same ceremonies. The burning of incense or perfumes on several altars at one and the same time; the sprinkling of holy water, or a mixture of salt and common water, at going into and coming out of places of public worship; the lighting up of a great number of lamps and wax-candles in broad daylight before altars and statues of these deities; the hanging up of votive offerings and rich presents as attestations of so many miraculous cures and deliverances from diseases and dangers; the canonization or deification of deceased worthies; the assigning of distinct provinces or prefectures to departed heroes and saints; the worshiping and adoring of the dead in their sepulchres, shrines, and relics; the consecrating and bowing down to images; the attributing of miraculous powers and virtues to idols; the setting up of little oratories, altars, and statues in the streets and highways, and on the tops of mountains; the carrying of images and relics in pompous procession, with numerous lights and with music and singing; flagellations at solemn seasons under the notion of penance; a great variety of religious orders and fraternities of priests; the shaving of priests, or the tonsure as it is called, on the crown of their heads; the imposing of celibacy and vows of chastity on the religious of both sexes—all these and many more rites and ceremonies are equally parts of pagan and popish superstition. Nay, the very same temples, the very same images, which were once consecrated to Jupiter and the other demons, are now consecrated to the Virgin Mary and the other saints. The very same rites and inscriptions are ascribed to both, the very same prodigies and miracles are related of these as of those. In short, almost the whole of paganism is converted and applied to popery; the one is manifestly formed upon the same plan and principles as the other; so that there is not only a conformity, but even a uniformity, in the worship of ancient and modern, of heathen and Christian Rome."

Entre los libros que consulté para poner otro ladrillo en el texto de "El Cristianismo en la Historia", se encontraba la obra de Draper, un científico químico que brilló en su disciplina en el s.XIX, pero que tropezó con un enfoque sesgado que demuestra su falta de profundidad en sus conocimientos y su deficiente investigación sobre los hechos y la evolución de la doctrina cristiana, en particular de su tronco católico. Consulté el libro, que todavía está en mi poder (disponible en Amazon), impulsado por mi interés particular en destacar las luces y las sombras del Cristianismo en su tránsito por la historia. Y naturalmente, convencido de que libros como el de Draper pueden ser herramientas muy socorridas para destacar los contrastes históricos que me he esforzado por proyectar en mi obra. No obstante, decidí no incluirla en mi Bibliografía porque no encontré bases suficientemente fidedignas que me sirvieran de modelo. De hecho, en el proceso de investigación que me ha tomado 8 años de trabajo, me topé también por carambola con la respuesta de Tomás de Cámara a Draper, publicado poco tiempo después. En tiempos más recientes, Menéndez Pelayo clasificó al libro de Draper como "vulgarismo científico".

Mucho de lo que dice este segmento de la obra de Draper, publicado por Abelardo, tiene su respuesta en "El Cristianismo en la Historia", que puede obtenerse a muy bajo precio en España y el resto de Europa aquí: www.amazon.es/dp/1548226637/re...nismo+en+la+Historia .

Por su parte, no interpreto el aporte de Amado Lorenzo como una crítica frontal a la Iglesia Católica, sus origenes y evolución, sino más bien como un cuestionamiento a planteamientos como los de Draper, que hoy vemos repetirse en los medios de comunicación escrita, radial y televisiva, incluso con el aval de académicos y eruditos que, lamentablemente, no respetan la corrección de equilibrar luces y sombras sino que se concentran sesgadamente no sólo en sus sombras sino en las más oscuras de esa larga historia.

Permítaseme unas breves aclaraciones como ejemplo.

La religión católica tiene su origen en el acontecimiento de Pentecostés y hay abundantes textos descubiertos por los arqueólogos en los dos últimos siglos que demuestran claramente la autenticidad de las copias posteriores que han servido de base a la Tradición cristiana y su desarrollo Magisterial. Por otra parte, no estableció su centro en Jerusalén por tres motivos decisivos: 1) Los apóstoles y discípulos fueron expulsados de los templos judíos y perseguidos por las autoridades judías; 2) la sublevación de los Judíos contra el Imperio provocó la destrucción de Jerusalén en dos ocasiones en los dos primeros siglos; 3) los dos principales Padres de la Iglesia, Pedro y Pablo, fueron a Roma y allí sufrieron el martirio y la muerte.

Desde entonces se le reconoce primacía al Obispo de Roma (el Papa) como lo atestiguan diversos textos desde el siglo I. La referencia más antigua procede de Ignacio, Obispo de Antioquía, quien sufrió martirio en el circo romano en 107 y fue discípulo del Apóstol Juan, quien en una epístola dirigida a los romanos antes de su muerte se refiere a la Iglesia de Roma como la que "preside" (prokathemene) a las iglesias.

Otros errores que se divulgan constantemente son la afirmación de que Constantino estableció el Cristianismo como religión oficial del imperio y, peor aún, de que Constantino manipuló y prácticamente dirigió el Concilio de Nicea.

Los hechos históricos comprobables demuestran que Constantino se limitó a dar libertad de culto a TODAS las religiones y, por tanto, puso fin definitivamente a las persecuciones de los cristianos. Finalmente fue Teodosio el Grande quien proclamó la fe cristiana como religión oficial del Imperio a raíz de la celebración del I Concilio de Constantinopla.

En cuanto a la cacareada hipótesis de la manipulación del Concilio de Nicea por Constantino, cito de "El Cristianismo en la Historia" que: "La hipótesis tan divulgada de la manipulación del Concilio de Nicea por Constantino no se sostiene a la luz de 14 textos dictados o escritos por el Emperador entre 325 y 335, en los que se demuestra que su finalidad fue la de fomentar la unidad y que nunca intentó suplantar la autoridad de los obispos. No hay evidencia alguna de que Constantino reclamara para sí supremacía sobre el Concilio en cuestiones de fe. Por el contrario, puede decirse que la Iglesia ejerció una enorme influencia sobre muchas decisiones de Estado por parte del Emperador, pese a que su conversión había sido sólo parcial, con una perspectiva mayor de tolerancia que de fe."

Y, por supuesto, hay mucho más que aclarar, pero no creo que este Foro sea el lugar adecuado para debates tan extensos. La historia es una disciplina fascinante y el tránsito del Cristianismo por sus avenidas merece despertar la curiosidad de muchos. Invito a los lectores a adquirir la obra que recién he publicado: " El Cristianismo en la Historia: sus Luces y sus Sombras ".