>St. Valentine's Day is traditionally held 14th of February. There's is literally no reason for it to be held at this date, the Latin Church "just happened to adopt it."
>The Germanic Disablot was held on the 14th of Göje(February), which was inbetween the Winter Solstice(Yule) and the Spring Equinox >Disablot was in celebration of the female gods and lucky charms were often given to people by their betrothed/admirers
>The aptly named "Tiburtius Day" is a Catholic Holiday set on the 14th of April(despite no evidence of Tiburtius' burial, or even existence)
>In Germanic tradition, the 14th of Grass(April) was considered the First Day of Summer, the day when the world would "Comes Back Into Life".
>Easter is a Catholic holiday originally set on "the First Sunday(important, because that is the day that Jesus resurrected) after the Spring Equinox", despite no evidence that Jesus died on that he resurrected on a Sunday. They changed it to the first Sunday after the first Full Moon after the Spring Equinox
>In Germanic tradition, the Spring Equinox was a day for remembrance of your ancestors and familial celebration.
>The other Germanic traditional holy days also "just happen" to coincide with Christian holy days and the Christian holy days "just happen" to concern about the same things as the Germanic ones
Why is the ""Roman"" """Catholic""" """"Calendar"""" centred around the Solstice/Equinox cycle, ie Germanic Calendar, when the Roman Calendar was based on the number of days in a year(that completely failed and they had to add several weeks to a months worth of extra days to keep in check) and the Jewish Calendar is based on the Lunar Cycle?
And why do m*Doid cathocucks and doucheland l*Tinlarpers do this? Don't they have any culture of their own?
>There's is literally no reason for it to be held at this date, the Latin Church "just happened to adopt it."
The feast day of Saint Valentine is set as February 14th because February 14th was the day of Saint Valentine's burial.
Many Christian holidays coincide with the dates of older pagan festivals because they were intentionally set on that date as to replace the pagan festival. A good way to stop unwashed barbarians from worshiping the Goddess Unga-Bunga on the 25th of December is by giving the 25th of December an alternate reason to be celebrated that instead emboldens faith in the Lord. This doesn't mean that Catholicism (or any other branch of Christianity) is "based on pagan beliefs", it just means that there was a conscious effort to replace those pagan beliefs with Christianity.
They were changed to fit the Pagan Calendars because the Pagans were ruling the Christians post-5th Century AD The only Christians that were true to their faith were Greek Orthodox worshippers, C*Tholics literally just dropped on their knees and started sucking Germanic Cock the moment it was presented to them
Ryder Lopez
yea yea and the answer to my question? did you mean Emperor Tiberius instead?
Isaac Torres
>This doesn't mean that Catholicism (or any other branch of Christianity) is "based on pagan beliefs" Yeah because when you adopt a Germanic tradition in full and the only thing you change is the name and put a "Jesus Christ" sticker on it, it sure is Christian.
>They were changed to fit the Pagan Calendars The dates of numerous Christian festivals were not widely agreed upon in the period before Saint Constantine and Rome's conversion to Christianity. It was largely after Christians had become Rome's dominant religious demographic that dates began to be agreed upon definitively. As already stated, in many cases the dates were set to replace older, pagan festivals and thus help in doing away with the last remnants of paganism in the empire.
>The only Christians that were true to their faith were Greek Orthodox worshippers
You don't know what you're talking about. There were no "Greek Orthodox" until the Great Schism in 1054. All Chalcedonian Christians followed the Julian calendar, whether they lived in the East or the West.
When Catholics (and, later, other Western Christians and some Eastern Orthodox) adopted the Gregorian Calendar, they did not change any of the dates of Christian festivals. The difference between the Gregorian Calendar and the Julian Calendar is not in which dates are important, but in how the date is determined. If you ask a Russian Orthodox priest the date of Christmas, he will tell you that it is on December 25th, not that it is on January 7th. It is simply the case that December 25th in the Julian calendar corresponds to January 7th in the Gregorian calendar.
You should read more about these topics yourself before you presume to educate others about them.
Josiah Collins
>It was largely after Christians had become Rome's dominant religious demographic that dates began to be agreed upon definitely No. It wasn't until the 7th century that most dates were agreed upon. By this time the Gothic, Vandal and Frankish tribes had already ruled what had been Rome for two hundred years. C*Tholics literally adopted Germanic culture because the Germanics told them to.
>There were no "Greek Orthodox" until the Great Schism in 1054. Not officially, no. But by 7th century AD, the Romans adhered to the Byzantine Patriarch, not the Pope. If you seriously believe that the Christian Church wasn't in any way different under the various Patriarchs, until the great Schism, you're deluding yourself.
>You should read more about these topics yourself before you presume to educate others And yet you haven't actually made a single correction. You have just been nitpicking phrasing, been wrong and claiming stuff that in no way contradicts what I wrote in the first place.
Have you considered updating your IQ? You're starting to sound like the one you're currently update is close to 1000 years old, Mr. NPC.
Aiden Reed
hold on hold on >by the 7th century the Germanics told them to >by 7th century AD, the Romans adhered to the Byzantine Patriarch, not the Pope which is it in the end? the Catholics followed Byzantium or followed the barbarians?
Andrew Brown
>"It was largely after Christians had become Rome's dominant religious demographic that dates began to be agreed upon definitely." >"No. It wasn't until the 7th century that most dates were agreed upon."
Rome's dominant religion in the 7th century was Christianity. In fact, by that time it had already been the dominant religion for centuries. You just confirmed what I had said, but in a different wording.
>Not officially, no. But by 7th century AD, the Romans adhered to the Byzantine Patriarch, not the Pope.
The Romans in the East adhered to their local patriarch (the Patriarch in Constantinople only one among them). Even in doing so, they still accepted Rome as primus inter pares. Not that any of this is purely relevant to the topic of our discussion: this is the same as if you had said, "Ya, well, the Romans in the East mostly spoke Greek". True, but not relevant.
The important bit for you to remember is Chalcedonian Christians following both the Western and Eastern Rites all followed the Julian calendar and all agreed upon the dates of Christian festivals. Western Christians did not follow new dates dictated to them by pagans—they followed the same dates as did every Christian, West or East.
They did not stop agreeing after the Great Schism, either: I shall say again that December 25th is Christmas whether you're Catholic or Orthodox. Your denomination simply changes what day you consider to be December 25th for liturgical purposes. This is something that you were horribly mistaken about, and if you retain one thing that I have taught you today, I hope it is that.
>And yet you haven't actually made a single correction.
I corrected your mistaken belief about the schism and the Julian and Gregorian calendars, and I corrected your misconception that the dates of Christian festivals were set by pagans.
You are a wiser man now than you were before we met. I am happy I could help teach you.
Adam Smith
Nobody ever "followed the barbarians". The barbarians, those being the Franks and other Germanic peoples, were originally converted to Chalcedonian Christianity. The Franks remained Chalcedonian, but many of their eastern neighbours eventually adopted Arianism, a heresy that sprouted in the Eastern parts of the empire. Eventually, through a combination of military defeat by the Franks and missionary work by Western Christians, the proto-Germans (and proto-Iberians) reconverted to Chalcedonian Christianity, abandoning the teachings of Arius. This heresy, which I shall again say originated from the East, is a big part of why Central Europe and Iberia came to be tied primarily to Rome the city rather than Rome in the form of the """New Rome""" the Greeks built in Thrace. The Easterners became associated with heresy (although the Emperors there just barely escaped embracing it themselves).
Jackson Parker
yeah but according to OP's shitty trolling, Catholics love to suck germanic cock because he believes that triggers "brown people"
Levi Rodriguez
OP seems to believe that by converting the Franks and Visigoths, Rome was somehow submitting itself to them. It is clear that this is not the case, but I suspect that OP never sincerely held that conviction in the first place, and is just trying to get foolish people to believe it, as a joke.
Thomas Baker
>It was largely after Christians had become Rome's dominant religious demographic Christianity had become the dominant religion in the empire in the 3rd century AD, in the 4th century AD it was adopted as the official religion of the state. There's a 300 year gap between what you said and what I said. >The Romans in the East adhered to their local patriarch (the Patriarch in Constantinople only one among them). Romans only existed in the east in the 7th century > Even in doing so, they still accepted Rome as primus inter pares. They didn't. To them the head of the religion was always the Basileus.
>I corrected your mistaken belief about the schism The schism is entirely irrelevant to this. >the Julian/Gregorian calendars Of which I have already proved you wrong >corrected your misconception that the dates of Christian festivals were set by pagans Which I never said.
You have done none of the things you claim to have done.
If you could actually read, you would realize that I have never said any of the like. I have merely stated that all the important catholic holidays are of Germanic origin. The fact that this point goes over your head questions my belief in your ability to actually form a compelling argument.
Overall, your claims are redundant and nothing you have said disproves anything. But well done in demonstrating a complete lack of reading comprehension, I suppose.
Michael Howard
> There's is literally no reason for it to be held at this date That's the day Valentine was killed.
>Germanic Disablot >The Dísablót appears to have been held during Winter Nights,[1] or at the vernal equinox.[4]
February 14 is not the vernal equinox, nor is it in the Winter Nights
>The aptly named "Tiburtius Day" is a Catholic Holiday set on the 14th of April Not a holiday at all. Memorial. Pretty much every day has its own memorial, doesn't make them all holidays.
>after the Spring Equinox", despite no evidence that Jesus died on that he resurrected on a Sunday. Traditionally he absolutely resurrected on a Sunday. The date of Easter is roughly pinned to the date of Passover.
> Christian holy days "just happen" to concern about the same things as the Germanic ones None of the things you mentioned corresponded to the same things. Easter isn't a day to "remember your ancestors". That's All Souls. Easter isn't really a day of "familial celebration" either, no more than any other holiday and the feast most associated with family would be Feast of the Holy Family. There's no "celebration of female gods" or even of female saints specifically.
> Solstice/Equinox cycle Only one equinox is relevant.
>the Jewish Calendar is based on the Lunar Cycle Just like one equinox is relevant, one full moon is relevant. Can't call it "equinox based" and not "lunar based". MOST of the Roman Catholic Calendar is based on the Roman Calendar, minus Easter and feasts tied to that (Ascension, Whitsunday, Ash Wednesday, Shrovetide, Good Friday, etc)
Mason Ross
>That's the day Valentine was killed there is literally no proof St. Valentine was killed on the 14th of February, they took a date that corresponded to something in the Germanic Calendar and adopted the tradition into Christianity
>Disablot appears to have been held during Winter Nights or at the vernal equinox No. The Germanic Calendar had 8 holy days, two at each solstice and two at each equinox. The other four were in between the equinox>solstice cycle or solstice>equinox cycle
>The date of Easter is roughly pinned to the date of Passover Yes I know, which is why I wrote originally. The change to make it more similar to Passover didn't happen until the 16th century.
>Only one equinox is relevant Only because the C*Tholics were running out of ideas to steal
Austin Williams
>The date of Easter is roughly pinned to the date of Passover and Passover Thrusday is determined by the jewish calendary, which is lunar oh my! we've been sucking jewish cock all these years!
yeah and the answer to our posts?
Jonathan Wright
>Christianity had become the dominant religion in the empire in the 3rd century AD, in the 4th century AD it was adopted as the official religion of the state. There's a 300 year gap between what you said and what I said.
What I said is that the dates of Christian festivals were established AFTER Christianity had become Rome's dominant religion. 300 years afterwards is "afterwards". The year 700 was 300 years AFTER the year 400, etc. If you want to read exactly what I said again and try to find where you made your mistake, here's my exact quote: " It was largely after Christians had become Rome's dominant religious demographic that dates began to be agreed upon definitively."
>They didn't. To them the head of the religion was always the Basileus.
We found another thing that you're wrong about!
The Basileus was never the head of the religion. What you are thinking of is the Basileus' right to appoint the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Eastern Rite Christians in the Chalcedonian era believed in something called the 'Pentarchy'. The idea was that the heads of the five major sees of the Empire—Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria—were the most authoritative positions of the Church. Rome was always first, conferred with the title of 'first among equals', or 'primus inter pares' in Latin. Constantinople came to be afforded more respect than the other Eastern Sees after they were lost to Muhammad; Constantinople was simply the only one left, other than Western Rite controlled Rome.
>the Julian/Gregorian calendars, of which I have already proved you wrong
You're mistaken. Maybe you wrote something about the calendars but didn't post it? You haven't said anything on that subject matter said I informed you of how they function.
December 25th is Christmas in both West and East, and the two calendars differ only in how they determine which day is December 25th.
^ If you have some dispute with that fact, go ahead and say so.
Mason Scott
>there is literally no proof St. Valentine was killed on the 14th of February, What are you looking for? That's when his death was recorded. What are you looking for? Do you want a death certificate filled out by the hospital?
>No. The Germanic Calendar had 8 holy days, two at each solstice and two at each equinox >The Dísablót appears to have been held during Winter Nights,[1] or at the vernal equinox.[4] Disablot was not on February 14.
> The change to make it more similar to Passover didn't happen until the 16th century. No it was always loosely bsaed on passover. Traditions concerning the moon phase are older than traditions concerning the placement within the year (i.e. to pin it to a specific moon phase after the equinox).
>It's a protestant can't comprehend the concept of religious synchretism thread When will you proddies finally open a book?
Jose Gonzalez
As a proud Protestant (fuck the P*apists!), the only book I have ever read was the King James Version of the Holy Bible. I said that I read it, but I actually had my sister (who is also my mother) read it to me, since my head doesn't work so good and I can't read myself. Okay Google, end voice recognition.
Connor Morgan
>What I said is that the dates of Christian festivals were established AFTER Christianity had become Rome's dominant religion They weren't, they were established in the 7th century.
>Basileus was never the head of the religion He literally was, ever since Constantine.
>Eastern Rite Christians in the Chalcedonian era believed in something called the 'Pentarchy'. This has nothing to do with our discussion, I have never expressed a disbelief that early Christians were not guided by patriarchs from the 5 sees. What is relevant is the fact that Rome was first, in name, but it never meant anything other than that. The Eastern Sees were much more similar(except for Nestorianism) to each other than they ever were to Rome. The Schism did not happen in a vacuum, it had been brewing for a thousand years.
>December 25th is Christmas in both West and East, and the two calendars differ only in how they determine which day is December 25th. Because it is 9 months after the "supposed" date of the vernal equinox that "just happened" to be the day Jesus was conceived.
>What are you looking for? A reason as for why they decided to set in on a date that their conquerors were already celebrating.
>Disablot was not on February 14 Yes, it was. Disablot was held on neither Winter Solstice nor the Spring Equinox.
>No, it was always loosely based on passover. It literally, unironically wasn't. It was set during the Spring Equinox until they changed it to fit more with passover in the 16th century.
>It's a protestant can't comprehend the concept of religious synchretism thread That's not the point I am making you dumb proto-finn*id. The point is that C*Tholics have never had any culture of their own and instead relies on Germanic(pagan) traditions. In a sense, you could make the argument that Catholicism is a Germanic religion.
Thomas Campbell
>They weren't, they were established in the 7th century.
The 7th century *WAS* after Christianity had become Rome's dominant religion. This is like me saying that Martin Luther was born in the 1400's and you trying to correct me by saying that he was actually born in 1483. 1483 WAS a part of the 1400's, and the 7th century WAS after Rome had already become majority Christian.
>He literally was, ever since Constantine.
No, he was not. There is no other way for me to say this other than that you are incorrect. The Basileus appointed the Patriarch of Constantinople, who was the Eastern Empire's primary religious official. The Basileus himself was not the primary religious official. The Emperor was never the head of the Church.
Jonathan Flores
>The 7th century *WAS* after Christianity had become Rome's dominant religion. Again, that's not the point. The point is that the establishments of the dates occurred in the 7th century, which was when the Germanic were ruling what had once been Western Rome. The reason the dates "just happen" to coincide with Germanic traditional holy days, is because they took a Germanic holy day and renamed it into, say, Easter, to convert their new King who, suspiciously, was already used to celebrating not=!Easter since it was a Germanic holy day.
If you make it this far, which your previous lack of reading comprehension tells me you won't, you'll find out that there is no such thing as a C*Tholic holy day, they are all Germanic and thus M*Doids have no culture.
Jayden Butler
you're stubborn in your trolling, somalian i give you that
Tyler Howard
and you're a cultureless slob that only exists at the grace of your Germanic betters, sl*Void
Anthony Wilson
I see that you've relented on your ignorant nonsense about the Basileus being the head of the church. We can start talking about that other mistake of yours, then.
>The reason the dates "just happen" to coincide with Germanic traditional holy days, is because they took a Germanic holy day and renamed it into, say, Easter, to convert their new King
1. He wasn't "their new King". The Franks did not conquer Rome. Converting to another religion is not "conquering" that religion.
2. West and East were using the same calendar and celebrating all of these holidays on the same date. Your assertion is that Western Christians changed the dates of Christian festivals to the same dates as Germanic ones because of the Frankish conquest of Gaul. This isn't correct. The dates of these holidays were already established and agreed upon in both West and East. In order for what you're saying to be true, the Eastern Rite Christians would have had to go along with a plot to change the dates of every Christian holiday just to better convert the Franks. They wouldn't have done that, and they didn't, because it never happened. West and East continued using the same calendar and celebrating Christmas and other festivals on the same date.
>there is no such thing as a C*Tholic holy day, they are all Germanic and thus M*Doids have no culture.
The Christian holidays all had their own meanings and distinct customs before their dates were firmly established. Christmas existed before the barbarians ever crossed the Rhine. The dates of some Christian holy days were set on the dates of some pagan festivals, but those dates and the holy days placed on them retained their Christian meaning and customs, not the Germanic ones. It was Clovis and his ilk being assimilated, not the other way around.
Carson Sullivan
i am Greek (ahaha)
Ethan Wood
btw stop giving him (You)s, this discussion is becoming circular might as well report the whole thread and fortunately a mod will move it to /his/
Jacob Mitchell
What is a Greek person doing in Paraguay?
Caleb Walker
>the Franks were the only Germanic tribe that conquered Rome Who were the Vandals? The Ostrogoths? The Visigoths? West and East were using the same calendar and celebrating all of these holidays on the same date Who were the Vandals? The Ostrogoths? The Visigoths?
>Your assertion is that Western Christians changed the dates of Christian festivals to the same dates as Germanic ones No, I'm saying that modern culture is an offshoot of medieval Western Roman culture, which is the fruit of C*Tholicism which is entirely based on Germanic Paganism
Greeks are the origin of sl*Voids
Gavin Morris
got bored in Argentina oh but that's my great grandpa. i'm mestizo as f, just hold the surname i was just repeating ikibey's meme
Jeremiah James
>Who were the Vandals? The Ostrogoths? The Visigoths?
Other Germanic tribes that were also converted to Christianity by Rome. The Germanic tribes adopted Roman religion, language and customs, not the other way around. This is why French, Spanish and Italian are based on Latin, not on Gothic. It was the Germanics and not the Romans who were changed.
Lincoln Martin
>That's not the point I am making you dumb proto-finn*id. The point is that C*Tholics have never had any culture of their own and instead relies on Germanic(pagan) traditions. In a sense, you could make the argument that Catholicism is a Germanic religion It took stuff from Germanics that's right, but how do you explain Ethiopains celebrating Eastern on easter? Also if it was a germanic religion we wood drink beer and wine.
