Halloween

ezra_pound

looksee wrote: »

All Hallows Eve - or Holy Eve or All Saints' Eve is the Christian part which remembers the dead, including saints and the people who died having lived good lives. Much of the rest of it is probably (but not certainly) related to pagan practises - much the same as Christmas is a mix of Christian and pagan. The spooky stuff has been picked up and commercialised - again, like Christmas and Santa - but Halloween is definitely a Christian holiday (holy day).

What part of it is Christian - i.e. what part of it is called all hallows Eve?

It's a pagan Celtic festival. End of.

gctest50

solodeogloria wrote: »

There's thousands of people in and around Wittenberg at the moment.

Wonderful to be able to give thanks to God for the work He's done through Luther and the other reformers over the last 500 years! ........

The Judensau, or Jew Pig was endorsed in both Catholic and Protestant churches, even Martin Luther's own church in Wittenberg Germany where it seeded ideas for Luther's most grotesque writings and ultimately the Holocaust.

Luther :

“Here on our church in Wittenberg a sow is sculpted in stone. Young pigs and Jews lie suckling under her. Behind the sow a rabbi is bent over the sow, lifting up her right leg, holding her tail high and looking intensely under her tail and into her Talmud, as though he were reading something acute or extraordinary, which is certainly where they get their Shemhamphoras."

ezra_pound

Nick Park wrote: »

Allhallowtide has, for centuries, been a Christian observance. It covers 3 days: All Saints Eve or Hallowed Evening (31 Oct); All Saints Day (1 Nov); and All Souls Day (2 Nov).

These dates originated quite independently of the Celtic festival of Samhain. They originated in Germany and Italy, not Ireland. Indeed, in Ireland Allhallowtide was originally celebrated in April, to avoid confusion with Samhain. However, as the Celtic Church knuckled down to conformity with Roman rites and practices, Ireland fell into line and switched the date to October 31st like everyone else.

Over the years some of the pagan traditions of Samhain became folk traditions that were celebrated at Halloween. Today it probably owes more to American candy manufacturers than anything.

This is just deluded.

It's a pagan festival that the Christians couldn't destroy. Get over it.

Peregrinus

ezra_pound wrote: »

This is just deluded.

It's a pagan festival that the Christians couldn't destroy. Get over it.

I think, rather, it's a pagan festival that the Christians didn't try to destroy, but simply to Christianise.

ezra_pound

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think, rather, it's a pagan festival that the Christians didn't try to destroy, but simply to Christianise.

Precisely.

solodeogloria

gctest50 wrote: »

The Judensau, or Jew Pig was endorsed in both Catholic and Protestant churches, even Martin Luther's own church in Wittenberg Germany where it seeded ideas for Luther's most grotesque writings and ultimately the Holocaust

Good morning!

I saw the Judensau on the Stadtskirche yesterday. It's further down near the town hall in Wittenberg perhaps 5 minutes walk from the Schlosskirche. It was where Luther preached for 30 years. The tour guide gave a lengthy explanation about the role of anti-Semitism both during the medieval period, how sculptures like this appeared on churches across Europe and Martin Luthers anti-Semitic writings. It wasn't whitewashed. I'm not saying Luther was perfect by any stretch.

I agree that was wrong. That doesn't detract from the good work the Reformation did in putting the Bible into people's hands and emphasising a need for a personal relationship with God.

That's what they are celebrating here in Germany today and indeed it's what Protestants all around the world are celebrating.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

ezra_pound

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think, rather, it's a pagan festival that the Christians didn't try to destroy, but simply to Christianise.

Like they "Christianised" our beautiful pagan mythology. Oisin meeting st Patrick - I mean come on! Christianisation and cultural destruction are one and the same. Holy wells, goddess devotion, Halloween.

Peregrinus

ezra_pound wrote: »

Precisely.

But I'm not sure who should be "getting over" that, Ezra. The Christians successfully co-opted the festival, as is evidenced by the fact that in this very thread posts about this are interspersed with posts about Martin Luther's activities that gave rise to the Reformation.

The fact that this festival has pre-Christian antecedents is not a big deal for Christians; it's not something we need to "get over". If anything, people who think is it a problem need to get over the fact that, really, it isn't.

ezra_pound

Peregrinus wrote: »

But I'm not sure who should be "getting over" that, Ezra. The Christians successfully co-opted the festival, as is evidenced by the fact that in this very thread posts about this are interspersed with posts about Martin Luther's activities that gave rise to the Reformation.

The fact that this festival has pre-Christian antecedents is not a big deal for Christians; it's not something we need to "get over". If anything, people who think is it a problem need to get over the fact that, really, it isn't.

Christians can do whatever they want but the customs that people will be practising tonight, apple games, dressing up as ghosts, calling on strangers' doors, burning fires are pagan. The influence of the Christian churches on what people will practise are non existent.

To claim that this is a Christian festival is something the Christians do need to get over.

Peregrinus

ezra_pound wrote: »

Christians can do whatever they want but the customs that people will be practising tonight, apple games, dressing up as ghosts, calling on strangers' doors, burning fires are pagan. The influence of the Christian churches on what people will practise are non existent.

To claim that this is a Christian festival is something the Christians do need to get over.

The practice of feasting at (what is now) Christmastime also predates Christianity, Ezra. People were getting married before Christians came along to sacramentalise marriage. Etc, etc.

This isn't a problem for us. Why should it be? Why is it something we need to "get over"? It's not like it bothers us.

Nick Park

ezra_pound wrote: »

This is just deluded.

It's a pagan festival that the Christians couldn't destroy. Get over it.

Facts are stubborn things.

All Hallowstide (including All Hallows Evening) originated in parts of Europe where the pagan festival wasn't celebrated. That's a historical fact. Get over it.

All Hallows evening was originally celebrated at a different time of the year in Ireland. That's a historical fact. Get over it.

The Roman Church persuaded the Celtic Church to adapt to its dates for holy days, festivals etc. That's a historical fact. Get over it.

As I said, pagan practices became part of Halloween folklore. That's a historical fact. Get over it.

Today most of Halloween is fuelled by commercial interests. The majority of people who participate couldn't give a flying fig about paganism or Christianity. That's a fact. Get over it.

As for me, I don't need to get over anything. I view one day as being about as important as another day, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest what holidays people choose to celebrate and how they do it. Fair play to them.

However, I am interested in history, particularly church history, and I will continue to post facts on here, even if you don't like it and have to get over it.

Have a nice evening. Don't eat too much chocolate.

EirWatchr

https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/all-saints-and-all-souls.html

(What are the origins of All Saints and All Souls Day. Are these linked with paganism and Halloween?)

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

But I'm not sure who should be "getting over" that, Ezra. The Christians successfully co-opted the festival, as is evidenced by the fact that in this very thread posts about this are interspersed with posts about Martin Luther's activities that gave rise to the Reformation.

I suppose that rather depends on how you qualify success in this context. The larger part of the festivities that the majority of people will enjoy in this country tonight could hardly be described as particularly Christian and hark back to a previous era. I would imagine there are a relatively small number of people attending a church for example by comparison to trick or treating, dressing up as ghosts, or going to a bonfire. While you might apply a thin veneer of Christianity over the top and add a Christian name, I don't think Christianity has co-opted anything much in this case as far as the larger part of the Irish population are concerned.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

I suppose that rather depends on how you qualify success in this context. The larger part of the festivities that the majority of people will enjoy in this country tonight could hardly be described as particularly Christian and hark back to a previous era. I would imagine there are a relatively small number of people attending a church for example by comparison to trick or treating, dressing up as ghosts, or going to a bonfire. While you might apply a thin veneer of Christianity over the top and add a Christian name, I don't think Christianity has co-opted anything much in this case as far as the larger part of the Irish population are concerned.

I disagree. Christian and pre-Christian cultures can celebrate, e.g., the harvest alike, and for the same reasons. When a culture is Christianised, we expect harvest celebrations to continue, since they are entirely consonant with Christianity. There will be some additional elements, some modification around the edges but, basically, they'll continue. Its pre-Christian antecedents dont' make the celebration "non-Christian". From a Christian perspective, the harvest is God-given, and celebrating it is an inherently godly thing to do, even if your concept of "god" is quite different from the Christian concept. All creation is through Jesus Christ, and celebrating any aspect of Christian is therefore entirely consonant with Christianity, even if you've never heard of Christ.

You're seeing Christianity as something fundamentally opposed to non-Christian religion, seeking to destroy or erase it or, if it cannot do that, to completely conceal it. Christians see Christianity as completing or perfecting or fulfilling non-Christian or pre-Christian religion, so they are entirely unembarrassed at pre-Christian elements turning up in, or in association with, Christian practices.; if what Christians believe is right, then this is pretty much what you would expect.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

I disagree. Christian and pre-Christian cultures can celebrate, e.g., the harvest alike, and for the same reasons. When a culture is Christianised, we expect harvest celebrations to continue, since they are entirely consonant with Christianity. There will be some additional elements, some modification around the edges but, basically, they'll continue. Its pre-Christian antecedents dont' make the celebration "non-Christian". From a Christian perspective, the harvest is God-given, and celebrating it is an inherently godly thing to do, even if your concept of "god" is quite different from the Christian concept. All creation is through Jesus Christ, and celebrating any aspect of Christian is therefore entirely consonant with Christianity, even if you've never heard of Christ.

While Halloween originated as a harvest festival and celebration of the end of the summer, it no longer seems to have any particular agrarian links as most people aren't involved in agriculture. These days its ghosts, ghouls, bonfires and an excess of sugar. While you might consider the event broadly Christian, I would imagine most of those taking part don't. Even since the time I used celebrate it as a child where it was apples, nuts, parlour games and ghost stories, it has transformed into yet another opportunity to consume to excess largely inspired by our friends across the pond.

You're seeing Christianity as something fundamentally opposed to non-Christian religion, seeking to destroy or erase it or, if it cannot do that, to completely conceal it. Christians see Christianity as completing or perfecting or fulfilling non-Christian or pre-Christian religion, so they are entirely unembarrassed at pre-Christian elements turning up in, or in association with, Christian practices.; if what Christians believe is right, then this is pretty much what you would expect.

I beg to differ. In my experience Christianity has been violently opposed not just to other religions, but even to unacceptable variations within itself, e.g. as in the various crusades (or the protestant vs Catholic thread here ). Looking at the work of Christian missionaries, their intent is replacing indigenous religions and culture with their own. Locally, non-Christian statues such as Sheela-na-gigs have often been concealed in churches where they were considered an embarrassment. Even in this thread, I note that Tatranska is not allowing the kids 'do halloween', which suggests that the event is unwholesome in some way. From where I'm sitting Christianity is very intolerant of conflicting traditions, and has used a carrot and stick approach to assimilating them throughout history.

splinter65

ezra_pound wrote: »

Christians can do whatever they want but the customs that people will be practising tonight, apple games, dressing up as ghosts, calling on strangers' doors, burning fires are pagan. The influence of the Christian churches on what people will practise are non existent.

To claim that this is a Christian festival is something the Christians do need to get over.

I’m amused that you think that I need to get over something that’s not bothering me or any other Christian at all.
What gives you the idea that it’s a bone of contention for anyone other than yourself ?

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

While Halloween originated as a harvest festival and celebration of the end of the summer, it no longer seems to have any particular agrarian links as most people aren't involved in agriculture. These days its ghosts, ghouls, bonfires and an excess of sugar. While you might consider the event broadly Christian, I would imagine most of those taking part don't. Even since the time I used celebrate it as a child where it was apples, nuts, parlour games and ghost stories, it has transformed into yet another opportunity to consume to excess largely inspired by our friends across the pond.

All harvest festivals are opportunities for feasting, smacl; that's pretty much the point. You're celebrating nature's bounty, food-wise. There's nothing un-Christian about that.

Nor, of course, is there anything distinctively Christian about it. And I think if you take a very dualist, that-which-is-not-with-us-is-against-us approach to the world, then you end up thinking that that which is not distinctively Christian is necessarily un-Christian. But, clearly, the very fact that Christianity does borrow so much from other religious traditions points to the fact that that isn't a normative Christian approach to the world.

smacl wrote: »

I beg to differ. In my experience Christianity has been violently opposed not just to other religions, but even to unacceptable variations within itself, e.g. as in the various crusades (or the protestant vs Catholic thread here ). Looking at the work of Christian missionaries, their intent is replacing indigenous religions and culture with their own. Locally, non-Christian statues such as Sheela-na-gigs have often been concealed in churches where they were considered an embarrassment. Even in this thread, I note that Tatranska is not allowing the kids 'do halloween', which suggests that the event is unwholesome in some way. From where I'm sitting Christianity is very intolerant of conflicting traditions, and has used a carrot and stick approach to assimilating them throughout history.

Well, I cautiously suggest that the reason Sheela-na-gigs have been concealed is not because people were embarrassed by their pagan origins, but because people were embarrassed by their sexual explicitness. You can chalk that up to puritanism, rather than to a root-and-branch rejection of everything with pagan connections. The very fact that they were in churches in the first place points to the incorporation and absorbtion of pagan and pre-Christian relgious tradition, not to its denial.

More generally, Christianity certainly seeks to alter culture, and it only incorporates elements of pagan traditions that it finds to be consonant with Christianity. But that's a great deal, is my point. And, yes, this can involve conflict, but radical cultural change often does. Christianity might simultaneously take on a lot of pagan practices and rituals, and at the same time challenge the power of an existing pagan hierarchy or ruling class; in fact that would be a fairly common combination of circumstances. (And you could say the same thing about struggles within Christianity. The sixteenth-century wars of religion were fairly horrible affairs, but in fact the reformers were seeking to affirm and absorb the great bulk of the Roman Christianity with which they were in conflict.)

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

And I think if you take a very dualist, that-which-is-not-with-us-is-against-us approach to the world, then you end up thinking that that which is not distinctively Christian is necessarily un-Christian.

Not really the stance I'm taking though, P. More so that Halloween as most people celebrate it in Ireland is a cultural event independent of Christianity rather than in opposition to it. If you compare it to Easter or Christmas for example you have similar celebration and over indulgence but in those cases the theme is more definitively Christian.

Well, I cautiously suggest that the reason Sheela-na-gigs have been concealed is not because people were embarrassed by their pagan origins, but because people were embarrassed by their sexual explicitness. You can chalk that up to puritanism, rather than to a root-and-branch rejection of everything with pagan connections. The very fact that they were in churches in the first place points to the incorporation and absorbtion of pagan and pre-Christian relgious tradition, not to its denial.

More generally, Christianity certainly seeks to alter culture, and it only incorporates elements of pagan traditions that it finds to be consonant with Christianity. But that's a great deal, is my point. And, yes, this can involve conflict, but radical cultural change often does. Christianity might simultaneously take on a lot of pagan practices and rituals, and at the same time challenge the power of an existing pagan hierarchy or ruling class; in fact that would be a fairly common combination of circumstances. (And you could say the same thing about struggles within Christianity. The sixteenth-century wars of religion were fairly horrible affairs, but in fact the reformers were seeking to affirm and absorb the great bulk of the Roman Christianity with which they were in conflict.)

That's pretty much how syncretism works though. Absorb local tradition, weave the new around the old, and from there quietly side line it. I'd suggest that the puritanism in this instance for example would be a Christian influence that only really came to the fore when Christianity firmly established itself.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Not really the stance I'm taking though, P. More so that Halloween as most people celebrate it in Ireland is a cultural event independent of Christianity rather than in opposition to it. If you compare it to Easter or Christmas for example you have similar celebration and over indulgence but in those cases the theme is more definitively Christian.

I wouldn't disagree, but that's not a problem for Christians. The fact that many people celebrate any or all of these holidays in a way that is disconnected from Christianity is not a reason why Christians wouldn't celebrate them.

smacl wrote: »

That's pretty much how syncretism works though. Absorb local tradition, weave the new around the old, and from there quietly side line it. I'd suggest that the puritanism in this instance for example would be a Christian influence that only really came to the fore when Christianity firmly established itself.

Syncretism isn't hostile; it's a common and ordinary phenomemon in art, politics, philosophy and, yes, religion. It's not a mechanism for "sidelining" something but for incorporating it, building on it, developing it.

As for puritanism, while it can be expressed in or manifested through Christianity, it can also be quite independent of Christianity; it's not difficult to identify discern puritan tendencies in some of the the classical pagan philosophical movements, for example. I'll cheerfully accept that the particular manifestation of puritanism which led to Sheela-na-gigs in churches being covered up was introduced through Christianity, but equally the attitude which at a different time led to Sheela-na-Gigs being retained and incorporated in Christian buildings was also an aspect of Christianity. I don't see how you can present the first as normative of Christianity and the second as not.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're seeing Christianity as something fundamentally opposed to non-Christian religion, seeking to destroy or erase it or, if it cannot do that, to completely conceal it. Christians see Christianity as completing or perfecting or fulfilling non-Christian or pre-Christian religion, so they are entirely unembarrassed at pre-Christian elements turning up in, or in association with, Christian practices.; if what Christians believe is right, then this is pretty much what you would expect.

Good afternoon!

I would see Christianity as being opposed to non-Christian religion. Inherently opposed. Jesus Christ is the only way to God from a Christian point of view. That means irrespective of how earnest X, Y or Z system is, there aren't multiple ways up the mountain to God as is commonly discussed. That clearly has a big impact on how we are to understand other worldviews.

Now - there is of course the distinction between what is cultural and what is religious. By celebrating harvest for example - I'm not worshipping Ceres, the goddess of agriculture or whoever else, I'm worshipping the Lord who gives all things to us, particularly in Jesus.

There were some trade offs in Christian interaction with Greek philosophy, as interesting as it is, that weren't worth making. For example a deep reliance on Platonism and Aristotelianism that tied the hands of the church in respect to things like geocentricism. The risk with borrowing from culture is that the culture imposes on Christianity rather than the other way around.

So, Christianity doesn't oppose culture that isn't in opposition. It is inherently opposed to all non-Christian religion and all philosophy opposed to the cross however.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't see how you can present the first as normative of Christianity and the second as not.

Does what what was normal behaviour for Christianity in 12th century Ireland bear much resemblance with normal behaviour for Christianity in Ireland today though? Even up until quite recently rural people commonly held many pagan beliefs while still being Christian. What we now think of as folklore, with the likes of banshees etc., was believed as true even in my own Grandmother's day. My understanding is that the Christian church incorporated the likes of sheela-na-gigs into its buildings because they were important objects of worship to the locals and to exclude them would have invited trouble. Once the older ways died out, these objects could be safely concealed, or removed. Interesting that in a number of places, such as White Island AFAIR, the sheelas were actually flipped around so that they remained within the walls but were not visible. One theory is that to actually destroy them would invite bad luck at a time where superstition was still rife.