Today, we delve into the intriguing and often overlooked aspects of Roman Catholic tradition: why Christ is referred to as a "victim" in the Mass and the origins of the cross as a symbol. These practices, deeply embedded in Catholic worship, raise profound questions about their historical and spiritual roots. Was the cross truly a Christian symbol from the beginning, or did it originate in pre-Christian sun worship? And why does the language of "victimhood" persist in the Mass, echoing ancient pagan sacrificial rituals? Join us as we explore the fascinating connections between these traditions and their possible ties to practices far removed from the teachings of Christ.
The Ancient Sacrificial Ritual, Christ’s Fulfillment, and the Roman Catholic Mass
The act of being tied to or hung upon a tree has roots in both Jewish law and pagan traditions. Under Jewish law, anyone hanged on a tree was considered cursed (Deuteronomy 21:23). Meanwhile, pagan rituals involved tree worship and the offering of sacrificial victims to appease divine forces.
The word often translated as "cross" in the New Testament is the Greek word “stauros” (σταυρός). In its original meaning, stauros referred to a stake, pole, or upright tree-like structure—not necessarily the two-beamed cross we commonly envision today. Another related Greek term, “xulon” (ξύλον), also means "tree" or "wood" and appears in Acts 5:30 and 1 Peter 2:24, where Christ is said to have been hung on a "tree" (xulon).
This linguistic context emphasizes that Christ’s crucifixion occurred on a wooden structure, which could have been a tree, stake, pole, or beam—a form that closely mirrors ancient pagan sacrificial practices involving the tree as a divine symbol.
The Cross and Its Pre-Christian Symbolism
Long before the rise of Christianity, the cross held significant religious meaning across various pagan civilizations.
In pre-Christian Europe, Asia, and parts of Africa, the cross was a symbol of the sun god and cosmic power. The solar cross, in particular, was revered by ancient cultures such as the Celts, Egyptians, Babylonians, and Indians, representing the sun, life, and fertility.
Pagan rituals often involved sacrificial victims being tied or affixed to trees or poles to honor gods like Osiris in Egypt, Attis in Asia Minor, and Tammuz in Mesopotamia. The tree itself symbolized life, divinity, and the connection between the earthly and the divine.
With the emergence of Christianity, the cross's existing cultural significance made it a convenient symbol to adopt. Yet, its historical association with pagan sun worship and sacrificial practices cannot be ignored, raising important questions about its transition into Christian tradition.
Jewish and Pagan Parallels to Christ’s Crucifixion
The crucifixion of Christ carried elements of both Jewish law and pagan ritual:
In Jewish understanding, being hanged on a tree (xulon) symbolized divine rejection and shame. This explains why many Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah; they could not reconcile the curse of the “tree” with His claim to divinity (Galatians 3:13).
In pagan traditions, sacrificial victims tied to trees or poles were seen as intermediaries to divine favor. This ritualistic practice, involving appeasement and atonement, closely mirrors the sacrificial language of Christ’s death.
The Roman Catholic Mass and Christ as a “Victim”
The Roman Catholic Catechism presents Christ as a continual “victim” during the Mass—a word with troubling implications:
Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1367:
"The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: 'The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.' 'And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner...'"
The contradiction in referring to Christ as both a victim and a divine sacrifice lies in the implications of each term and their theological weight. To call Christ a victim portrays Him as passive, someone subjected to circumstances beyond His control—similar to how sacrificial victims in pagan rituals were offered to appease gods or forces of nature. In contrast, referring to Christ as a divine sacrifice aligns with His voluntary and sovereign act to lay down His life for the redemption of humanity. These two concepts—passive victimhood and voluntary divinity—are inherently at odds.
The Problem of "Victim" Language
The Roman Catholic Catechism use of the term "victim" to describe Christ in the Mass (CCC 1367), which carries the connotation of helplessness contradicts Christ's own words about His role in His sacrifice:
John 10:18 (KJV):“No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.”
Christ’s statement emphasizes His sovereignty over His sacrifice. He was not a victim in the sense of being overpowered or subjected unwillingly, but instead He exercised His divine authority to lay down His life voluntarily.
Pagan Echoes in the Language of "Victim" and Divine Sacrifice
In ancient pagan traditions, sacrifices—especially those involving divine victims—were performed to appease the gods or to achieve fertility, good fortune, or protection. For example:
In Greek and Roman traditions, a sacrificial victim (human or animal) was offered as a substitute to satisfy divine wrath.
In pre-Christian Europe and other parts of the world, divine sacrifice often involved a deity (or the symbolic representative of one) being offered to bring balance or favor from the gods.
The term "victim" in these contexts refers to one who is helplessly slain to fulfill ritualistic requirements, making them a tool rather than a willing participant. By applying this same language to Christ, the Catholic Church appears to mirror pagan practices where a divine figure is sacrificed repeatedly to appease or satisfy divine justice—something that stands in opposition to Christ’s finished work.
The Biblical and Theological Conflict
The New Testament clearly affirms the unique and final nature of Christ’s sacrifice:
Hebrews 9:26 (KJV) declares, “But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”
This "once-for-all" act decisively eliminates the need for repeated or ongoing sacrifices.
Moreover, Christ’s death was neither forced nor passive. He willingly offered Himself out of divine love and sovereign authority. Referring to Him as a "victim" diminishes this sovereignty, echoing the concept of unwilling submission prevalent in pagan rituals.
Unlike pagan sacrifices, where victims were offered to appease the anger of capricious gods, Christ’s sacrifice stands apart—it was a purposeful, redemptive act of love, aimed at reconciling humanity with God once and for all.
John 3:16 (KJV): “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
Scripture makes it abundantly clear that Christ’s sacrifice was a single, completed act: “It is finished” (John 19:30) and “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified” (Hebrews 10:14). Re-enacting this sacrifice undermines its definitive nature and echoes the pagan tradition of repeated sacrificial offerings.
By consistently referring to Christ as a “victim,” the RCC unintentionally aligns itself with the Jewish misunderstanding of the crucifixion—that Christ was cursed and powerless—rather than emphasizing His voluntary and triumphant offering as the divine Redeemer.
Moreover, the RCC’s portrayal of Christ’s sacrifice, centered on the cross, bears unsettling parallels to ancient pagan rituals. In these traditions, sacrificial victims were bound to sacred trees or poles to appease their gods. By focusing on Christ as a perpetual intermediary rather than the victorious, risen Lord, this depiction risks diminishing His triumph and aligning more with idolatrous practices than with the transformative power of the Gospel.
Interfaith Dialogue and Denial of Christ’s Divinity
Islam explicitly denies the divinity of Jesus Christ, reducing Him to the status of a prophet, albeit a revered one. In the Quran, Jesus (known as Isa in Arabic) is depicted as a messenger of Allah, born of a virgin and performing miracles, but fundamentally human. The Quran emphatically rejects the notion that Jesus is the Son of God or that He was crucified, let alone resurrected. For instance:
“Say not ‘Trinity’: desist—it will be better for you, for Allah is One Allah: Glory be to Him: far exalted is He above having a son.” (Surah 4:171)
“They said, ‘We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.’ But they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them.” (Surah 4:157)
The denial of Christ’s divinity is central to Islamic theology. In fact, associating partners or equals with Allah (shirk) is considered the gravest sin in Islam. This rejection of Jesus as God incarnate is fundamentally irreconcilable with Christianity, where Christ’s divinity is not only central but essential to salvation.
The RCC’s Interfaith Dialogue with Islam
Despite these stark theological differences, the Roman Catholic Church has actively pursued interfaith dialogue with Islam. In its efforts to promote unity and peace, the RCC often emphasizes shared values, such as monotheism, moral teachings, and reverence for Mary (whom the Quran honors as the mother of Jesus). However, this dialogue raises serious concerns for devout Christians, as it appears to downplay or ignore the fundamental truth of Christ’s divine nature.
From a Christian perspective, Christ’s divinity is non-negotiable. He is not merely a teacher or prophet but God incarnate—“the Word was made flesh” (John 1:14, KJV). For the RCC to engage in dialogue with Islam, which outright denies this truth, risks compromising the core of Christian theology. Such an approach might foster superficial harmony, but it undermines the very essence of the Gospel message.
Paganism’s Influence: Why This Is Not Outrageous for the RCC
The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) willingness to engage in interfaith dialogue with Islam becomes more understandable when viewed through the lens of pagan influence. Paganism, originating from Babylon, is fundamentally syncretic—it blends and adapts elements from various religions to create a unified system. This tendency to merge differing beliefs is evident in the RCC’s history, from its incorporation of sun worship (e.g., Sol Invictus) into Christian festivals to its adoption of pagan rituals in worship.
If the RCC’s practices are rooted in a syncretic worldview influenced by Babylonian paganism and ultimately Satan, then its interfaith efforts are not surprising. Paganism is less concerned with theological consistency and more focused on creating harmony between diverse systems of belief. In contrast, true Christianity is exclusive in its claims: “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6, KJV). There is no room for compromise on Christ’s divinity.
Why This Is Outrageous for Christians
For devout Christians, the RCC’s willingness to align with Islam through interfaith dialogue is deeply troubling. To deny or minimize Christ’s divinity, even indirectly, is to reject the cornerstone of Christian faith. Without Christ as God, there is no redemption, no resurrection, and no hope of eternal life. By engaging in dialogue with a religion that explicitly denies this truth, the RCC risks not only misleading its followers but also betraying the Gospel itself.
Conclusion
If the RCC truly believed in Christ’s divinity and His words—“No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself” (John 10:18)—they would not continually re-enact His sacrifice. True Christianity rests on the finished work of the cross, where Christ offered Himself willingly, once for all (Hebrews 10:10).
By reintroducing sacrificial elements tied to pagan rituals, the RCC risks obscuring the finality of Christ’s redemption and aligning itself with traditions that reject His divine authority. This diminished view may explain its willingness to engage with Islam, a religion that similarly denies Christ’s divinity and sees Him only as a mortal prophet.
As Scripture declares: “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree” (Galatians 3:13)
The Cross: A Symbol of Shame and Its Transformation into a Christian Emblem
In ancient times, the cross was not inherently associated with Christianity. Instead, it carried profound symbolism across various pre-Christian cultures, often tied to idolatrous and cosmic ideas, such as the veneration of the sun god. Before its eventual adoption as a Christian emblem, the cross was considered a symbol of shame, torture, and death—its use in crucifixion representing the most humiliating punishment reserved for slaves, criminals, and the vilest offenders.
In pre-Christian Europe, Asia, and other regions, the cross was a prominent symbol of the sun god, often referred to as the Solar Cross or Sun Cross. The Romans, in particular, worshipped Sol Invictus—the "Unconquered Sun"—a deity whose celebration on December 25th marked the winter solstice, symbolizing the rebirth of light as days began to grow longer. This date was later rebranded as the celebration of Christ-Mass, blending pagan traditions with Christian imagery. Notably, the term “Mass” itself refers to the re-enactment of Christ’s sacrifice, where He is explicitly referred to as a victim, (a victim sacrificed to the sun-god?) a designation found in the Catholic Church’s own catechism.
This blending of traditions raises important questions: Why would a divine Christ—who clearly stated, “I lay down my life of my own accord” (John 10:18)—be called a victim in ritualized worship? It becomes even more striking when recognizing that the date of Christ-Mass aligns with the birth of Sol Invictus, the very sun god worshipped by the Romans.
It was only centuries after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, particularly during Constantine’s reign in the 4th century, that the cross began to replace earlier Christian symbols such as the Ichthys (fish), the dove, or the anchor. Early Christians avoided the cross as a representation of their faith because crucifixion was a shameful and brutal method of execution. By adopting a symbol with deep roots in pagan sun worship and associating it with Christ, Christianity in its institutionalized form began to absorb cultural and religious practices that were alien to the original apostolic teachings.
This transition raises significant questions about the origins of these traditions, their earlier meanings, and the extent to which pagan elements were incorporated into Christian worship. The adoption of the cross, its association with a sacrificial Christ-Mass on the same day as Sol Invictus’ festival, and the contradictory labeling of Christ as a victim highlight the merging of paganism with Christianity—an issue that demands deeper reflection.
The Cross as a Pre-Christian Symbol
Long before Christianity, the cross was widely used in pagan cultures as a religious and cosmic emblem. Known as the Solar Cross or Sun Cross, it symbolized the sun god, a figure revered in ancient European, Asian, and other global traditions. The cross was an expression of solar worship, representing light, life, and divine power. In many cases, the horizontal and vertical lines of the cross symbolized the meeting of heaven and earth—a motif reflected in various pagan practices.
For example:
In ancient Egypt, the Ankh represented life and immortality, often associated with sun worship.
In Mesopotamian and Roman religious contexts, crosses or cross-like symbols were tied to astral deities (demons) and fertility rituals.
In pre-Christian Europe, the sun wheel, or swastika-like symbols, emphasized the cross as an object of cosmic worship.
Thus, the cross held religious significance well before the advent of Christianity, but it had no association with salvation, Christ, or divinity.
The Cross and Constantine: A Symbol Reclaimed
According to legend, Constantine saw a vision of the cross accompanied by the phrase, “In hoc signo vinces.” ("In this sign, you will conquer"—an intriguing phrase, especially considering that Sol Invictus translates to "Unconquered Sun.").
After his victory at the Battle of Milvian Bridge in 312 AD, Constantine adopted the cross as a military banner of divine favor. However, his actions following this so-called “conversion” indicate a continued veneration of Sol Invictus. Coins minted under Constantine still bore the image of the sun god, and he only officially converted to Christianity on his deathbed, leaving questions about the sincerity of his faith and the origin of his vision.
But why would a God of peace instruct an idolatrous pagan empire to conquer in His name? The message of “In hoc signo vinces” (In this sign, you will conquer) seems more aligned with the ambitions of earthly empires than the teachings of Christ, who declared, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36, KJV). The sign in the sky—a cross shining brightly—was more than likely not from God but from their sun god Sol Invictus, whom Constantine continued to honour, or perhaps even the prince of the power of the air—Satan himself (Ephesians 2:2). This raises the question of whether Constantine’s vision was truly divine intervention or a calculated manipulation to merge paganism with Christianity for the purpose of global domination and redirecting worship away from God to Satan, whose ultimate desire has always been to be worshipped as the Most High.
The sign Constantine claimed to see in the sky, a radiant cross with the accompanying words “In hoc signo vinces,” came at a time when the Roman Empire was steeped in sun worship and other pagan practices. The cross he saw may have symbolized Sol Invictus, the unconquered sun god, a deity Constantine had worshipped and continued to honour even after his so-called conversion. It is significant that Constantine chose to interpret this vision as divine favour for conquest rather than a call to repentance or faith, reflecting the pagan mindset of equating spiritual signs with imperial power.
This victory solidified the cross as a political and religious emblem, yet Constantine’s actions afterward suggest a continued syncretism between Christianity and paganism.
This fusion of pagan and Christian elements during Constantine’s reign marked a dramatic shift in Christianity’s symbolic identity. The cross, once avoided by early Christians due to its association with crucifixion and shame, was transformed into an emblem of conquest and imperial authority. The adoption of the cross as a military and political symbol not only contradicted the teachings of Christ, who emphasized humility and peace, but also laid the groundwork for the Roman Empire to institutionalize Christianity while incorporating pagan practices. This blending of traditions resulted in centuries of spiritual confusion and division, raising profound questions about the origins of Constantine’s vision and its lasting impact on Christian theology and practice.
The Roman Catholic Church then has the audacity to lament the fragmentation of Christianity, despite being the root cause of its division.
This fusion of pagan and Christian elements during Constantine’s reign marks the beginning of a shift in Christianity’s symbolic identity. This change not only undermined the teachings of Christ, who emphasized humility and peace, but also paved the way for the Roman Empire to incorporate pagan practices into institutionalized Christianity, leading to centuries of spiritual confusion and division.
Under Constantine’s reign, Christianity transitioned from a persecuted faith to an institutionalized religion, and the cross, once a symbol of shame, became a sign of triumph. This reclamation, however, raises questions about its pre-Christian associations and the extent to which Constantine’s motivations were theological versus political. By transforming the cross into a military and religious emblem, Constantine infused a symbol of Roman cruelty with new meaning, but its earlier pagan connotations lingered.
The Contradiction of the Cross in Christian Theology
From a biblical standpoint, the cross is inseparable from Christ’s redemptive sacrifice, yet its portrayal carries both power and paradox. The Apostle Paul acknowledges this tension in 1 Corinthians 1:18 (KJV):
“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.”
The cross represents salvation for believers, yet it remains a stumbling block for those who cannot reconcile its association with shame and suffering. Christ’s crucifixion was an act of divine will and self-sacrifice, as Jesus stated:
“No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself.” (John 10:18, KJV)
However, the act of transforming the cross into a sacred object or emblem has, for some, blurred the line between honouring Christ’s sacrifice and replicating pagan practices of veneration.
The Cross—Symbol of Faith or Appropriated Tradition?
The adoption of the cross as the central symbol of Christianity reflects a profound transformation: a device of shame became a symbol of hope. However, its pre-Christian history as a pagan sun emblem and its avoidance by early Christians raise critical questions. Was the cross reclaimed as a genuine reflection of Christ’s sacrifice, or did Constantine’s influence and the merging of pagan traditions introduce unintended associations?
Furthermore, by focusing on the cross as an object of reverence, some theological perspectives risk undermining the message of Christ’s willing sacrifice and resurrection. The early Christians, who emphasized faith through symbols like the fish and anchor, remind us that Christianity is rooted in Christ’s victory over death, not the veneration of a physical object.
In light of this, believers must consider whether the cross as a symbol aligns with the simplicity and purity of the Gospel, or whether its use reflects lingering echoes of pre-Christian traditions. Christ’s sacrifice was voluntary, final, and divine—a truth that transcends any earthly symbol or cultural adaptation.
The evidence speaks for itself. If the cross, a pre-Christian symbol tied to the sun god, has been adopted as a central emblem of faith, and if Christ is repeatedly called a "victim" in the Mass—echoing the language and rituals of ancient pagan sacrifices—then it becomes impossible to ignore the pagan roots that have infiltrated Christianity. Regardless of how passionately Catholics may deny this paganization or criticize other denominations, the historical and theological facts remain. False prophets have misled many, veiling these traditions under the guise of divine truth. True faith requires discernment and a commitment to Christ’s finished work, free from the trappings of idolatry and human invention. The call to return to pure, unadulterated worship is clear: “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Matthew 7:15, KJV).
Comments