Christianity and Feudalism

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Christianity and Feudalism

#21  Postby Leucius Charinus » May 05, 2015 2:11 am

Clive Durdle wrote:Read a fascinating comment in Norman Gear The Divine Demon, that xianity is actually the religion of feudalism, and its high point was under the Sun King, with the French Revolution as the beginning of its end.


So who was the "Sun King"?

Image


Constantine's Column [above]: It could have been easily seen from the Sea of Marmara and the Bosphorus, and was completed at the dedication of "The City of Constantine", 11 May 330. It was constructed of nine drums of porphyry each 2.9 m in diameter, topped by a Corinth Capital. Its total height was more than thirty-six meters. The column was crowned with colossal bronze statue of Constantine, depicted wearing a crown of seven rays. (It may have been Pheidas' sculpture of Apollo Paropius from the Acropolis of Athens, recycled with bullneck's head. Some accounts describe Constantine holding a spear in the left hand, and a globe in the right hand. Data from The Emperor Constantine, by Hans A. Pohlsander.

Historian John Julius Norwich writes that in the Column of Constantine,

    “Apollo, Sol Invictus and Jesus Christ all seem subordinated to a new supreme being—the Emperor Constantine.”


Arguably feudalism commenced in the rule of Constantine - sons had to follow the occupations of fathers. By c.350 CE land tax had tripled in living memory. At that time, in the words of Ammianus "the highways were covered with galloping bishops".
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 810

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Christianity and Feudalism

#22  Postby iskander » May 06, 2015 9:50 pm

Clive Durdle wrote:French Revolution?


A picture is worth a thousand words, so a well known saying says. This painting tells us of the desperate struggle for a new beginning. It manifest the same longing that has informed every rebellion of the enslaved, from Spartacus to the Peasant Revolt of 381, and many others everywhere on this planet where and when men and women have dared to hope.
In this painting the chain binding them was the policy of forced ignorance of the gospels, and their symbolic stoning tell us of the fear and hatred that the enforcer of that policy had incurred .
Image

http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/colle ... t-allegory

John Wesley, William Tyndale, Jan Hus and many others is the background of the story described in the painting.
iskander
 
Posts: 201

Print view this post

Re: Christianity and Feudalism

#23  Postby Nicko » May 06, 2015 10:08 pm

iskander wrote:Charlemagne made the pope the “emperor maker”; after the coronation the emperor owed the crown to the pope and every emperor after that will have to ask the pope to crown him.


Probably not Charlemagne's idea. Charlemagne seemed to have the attitude that his business was to rule the faithful (including forcibly bringing other peoples into the faith) and the Pope's business was to pray for his success. The Pope seems to have pulled a fast one on Karl de Grossa when he whacked the Imperial Crown on his noggin in the middle of a religious ceremony.

Charlemagne's son was crowned by Charlemagne, not the Pope. Too late as his coronation was the one that stuck in the cultural memory (which, after all, was the whole point of staging memorable public ceremonies in a largely illiterate time).
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8628
Age: 43
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Christianity and Feudalism

#24  Postby iskander » May 06, 2015 10:41 pm

Nicko wrote:
iskander wrote:Charlemagne made the pope the “emperor maker”; after the coronation the emperor owed the crown to the pope and every emperor after that will have to ask the pope to crown him.


Probably not Charlemagne's idea. Charlemagne seemed to have the attitude that his business was to rule the faithful (including forcibly bringing other peoples into the faith) and the Pope's business was to pray for his success. The Pope seems to have pulled a fast one on Karl de Grossa when he whacked the Imperial Crown on his noggin in the middle of a religious ceremony.

Charlemagne's son was crowned by Charlemagne, not the Pope. Too late as his coronation was the one that stuck in the cultural memory (which, after all, was the whole point of staging memorable public ceremonies in a largely illiterate time).


Charlemagne is only a suitable marker for the beginning of the papal supremacy over the secular power. By 816 the emperor Louis prostrated himself before the pope who crowned him.


In early October, the Pope and Emperor met at Rheims, where Louis prostrated himself three times before Stephen.[6] At Mass on Sunday, 5 October 816, Stephen consecrated and anointed Louis as emperor, placing a crown on his head that was claimed to belong to Constantine the Great...

While with Louis, the emperor gave Stephen a number of presents, including an estate of land (most likely at Vendeuvre-sur-Barse) granted to the Roman church.[10] They also renewed the pact between the Popes and the kings of the Franks, confirming the privileges of the Roman church, and the continued existence of the recently emerged Papal States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Stephen_IV[/quote]

The involvement of Charlemagne with the pope begins with his father Pippin. Pippin wanted to be king and sought allies, the pope was threatened by the Lombards.

The pope and pippin made a deal, the pope will bless his becoming a king and pippin will defeat the Lombards. In addition , Pippin granted some of the conquered lands in Italy to the pope and thus the Papal States were born.


Charlemagne wanted to conquer Europe and doing this in the name of the official religion of the late Roman Empire would be a holly convenient thing to do, He sought and alliance with the pope and got it. The result of this alliance was the first ever European religious war; Charlemagne made war on the Saxons to convert them to the religion of the pope.
iskander
 
Posts: 201

Print view this post

Re: Christianity and Feudalism

#25  Postby Leucius Charinus » May 07, 2015 2:23 am

iskander wrote:
Clive Durdle wrote:French Revolution?


A picture is worth a thousand words, so a well known saying says. This painting tells us of the desperate struggle for a new beginning. It manifest the same longing that has informed every rebellion of the enslaved, from Spartacus to the Peasant Revolt of 381, and many others everywhere on this planet where and when men and women have dared to hope.
In this painting the chain binding them was the policy of forced ignorance of the gospels, and their symbolic stoning tell us of the fear and hatred that the enforcer of that policy had incurred .
Image

http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/colle ... t-allegory

John Wesley, William Tyndale, Jan Hus and many others is the background of the story described in the painting.


Nice pic Iskander.

    Description

    The subject of this grisaille refers to the English Reformation, formally marked by the Act of Supremacy of 1534, whereby Henry VIII broke away from the Church of Rome and was established as the head of the Church of England. This painting was in the collection of Henry VIII who owned at least two other anti-papal pictures. The composition depicts a pope sprawled on the ground, flanked by two female figures who are labelled ‘AVARA’ (avarice) and ‘YPOCRYSIS’ (hypocrisy). The figures on the ground are being stoned by the four evangelists, each with halos, wo are labelled (left to right) ‘IOANNES’, ‘MATHEVS’, ‘LVCAS’ and ‘M[A-R]CVS’. On the ground in front of the figures are a cardinal’s hat and a document with four seals (presumably a Papal Bull).

    The city seen in the distance at the left may be Jerusalem. Above the city is a burning candle, which contrasts with another in the immediate foreground that has been extinguished by a cooking pan. These candles have been interpreted as symbolising the true light of the Gospels and the false doctrine of Rome. Historically, the pope should be Paul III, but the depicted likeness is closer to Julius II; a specific identification may not have been intended at all.

    The painting has been executed in grisaille (tones of grey) with highlights in gold. The composition bears a striking resemblance to three identical woodcuts illustrating scenes of stoning in the Coverdale Bible of 1535, the first Bible to be issued in English. Girolamo da Treviso is known to have been in England in the service of Henry VIII between 1538 and his death in the siege of Boulogne in 1544. The picture is not listed in the royal inventory of 1542 and may therefore be dated between 1542 and the artist’s death.


It seems that the 16th century theme was of certain people (the Tetrarchy of Apostles) reacting against the utterly corrupt church industry slash organisation depicted as the CEO Pope suitably sub-titled.

Another facet in the multi-faceted history at the time of that pic is the production of a One True English Bible. The English Kings decided it was time to commission their own [utterly corrupt] "church organisation slash industry" in a break-away move from the utterly corrupt RCC and the CEO Pope.

    WIKI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

    The first was the Great Bible commissioned in the reign of King Henry VIII (1535), and the second was the Bishops' Bible of 1568.[3] In January 1604, King James I convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans,[4] a faction within the Church of England.[5] The translation is considered a towering achievement in English literature, as both beautiful and scholarly.

It is important to be able to slowly step back through time, century by century, from the present back towards the beginning of the entire "nation of Christians" somewhere in antiquity. In taking the tourist shuttle straight back to 1st century Judea we often are missing a great deal of the intervening key scenery of historical events.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 810

Print view this post

Re: Christianity and Feudalism

#26  Postby Leucius Charinus » May 07, 2015 2:53 am

iskander wrote:
Nicko wrote:
iskander wrote:Charlemagne made the pope the “emperor maker”; after the coronation the emperor owed the crown to the pope and every emperor after that will have to ask the pope to crown him.


Probably not Charlemagne's idea. Charlemagne seemed to have the attitude that his business was to rule the faithful (including forcibly bringing other peoples into the faith) and the Pope's business was to pray for his success. The Pope seems to have pulled a fast one on Karl de Grossa when he whacked the Imperial Crown on his noggin in the middle of a religious ceremony.

Charlemagne's son was crowned by Charlemagne, not the Pope. Too late as his coronation was the one that stuck in the cultural memory (which, after all, was the whole point of staging memorable public ceremonies in a largely illiterate time).


Charlemagne is only a suitable marker for the beginning of the papal supremacy over the secular power. By 816 the emperor Louis prostrated himself before the pope who crowned him.


In early October, the Pope and Emperor met at Rheims, where Louis prostrated himself three times before Stephen.[6] At Mass on Sunday, 5 October 816, Stephen consecrated and anointed Louis as emperor, placing a crown on his head that was claimed to belong to Constantine the Great...

While with Louis, the emperor gave Stephen a number of presents, including an estate of land (most likely at Vendeuvre-sur-Barse) granted to the Roman church.[10] They also renewed the pact between the Popes and the kings of the Franks, confirming the privileges of the Roman church, and the continued existence of the recently emerged Papal States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Stephen_IV

The involvement of Charlemagne with the pope begins with his father Pippin. Pippin wanted to be king and sought allies, the pope was threatened by the Lombards.

The pope and pippin made a deal, the pope will bless his becoming a king and pippin will defeat the Lombards. In addition , Pippin granted some of the conquered lands in Italy to the pope and thus the Papal States were born.


Charlemagne wanted to conquer Europe and doing this in the name of the official religion of the late Roman Empire would be a holly convenient thing to do, He sought and alliance with the pope and got it. The result of this alliance was the first ever European religious war; Charlemagne made war on the Saxons to convert them to the religion of the pope.



Again this is all excellent background to the history of the utterly corrupt RCC organisation slash industry. One very important operation was commenced around about this time in the 9th century in Carolingian Europe. It was an extremely important operation undertaken by agents of the church organisation based at Corbie library (one of the best appointed in all of Carolingian Europe). The operation would remain undetected until the 16th and only completely exposed in the 17th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Isidorian_Decretals

This massive Latin church organisation forgery mill pumped out forged manuscripts and fabricated church organisation documents and inter-office memos that would completely fool the intellectual elite of Europe for the next six or seven hundred years. It was finally completely exposed by Blondel standing on the shoulders of giants. As to how many more manuscripts were forged between the 9th century and the 17th century by the church industry who really knows?

Feudalism implied a class structure, and documents were important to the ruling class. Forgery was rife. The Pseudo-Isidorian forgery mill makes an extremely interesting case study on the means, motives and opportunities of the church organisation slash industry. It was after all a manuscript or codex driven BELIEF industry somewhere up the top of the pyramid of the feudalistic society. Business was business.

FWIW here is the background political scenes of the 9th century Pseudo-Isidorian forgery mill ...

    what was the condition of the Church in France at that time? [WIKI]

    It was but a few brief years after the Treaty of Verdun (843), which had put a definitive close to the Carlovingian empire by founding three distinct kingdoms. Christendom was a prey to the onslaught of Normans and Saracens; but on the whole the era of civil strife was over. In ecclesiastical circles Church reform was still spoken of, but hardly hoped for. It was especially after the death of Charlemagne (814) that reform began to be considered, but the abuses to be corrected dated from long before Charlemagne's time, and went back to the very beginnings of the Frankish church under the Merovingians. The personal government of the king or emperor had many serious drawbacks on religious grounds. In the mind of the bishops reform and ecclesiastical liberty were identical, and this liberty they required for their persons as well as for the Church. Doubtless Charlemagne's government had been advantageous to the Church, but it was none the less an oppressive protection and dearly bought. The Church was frankly subject to the State. Initiatives which ought to have been the proper function of the spiritual power were usurped by Charlemagne. He summoned synods and confirmed their decisions. He disposed largely of all church benefices. And in matters of importance ecclesiastical tribunals were presided over by him. While the great emperor lived these inconveniences had their compensating advantages and were tolerated. The Church had a mighty supporter at her back. But as soon as he died the Carlovingian dynasty began to show signs of ever-increasing debility, and the Church, bound up with, and subordinate to, the political power, was dragged into the ensuing civil strife and disunion. Church property excited the cupidity of the various factions, each of them wished to use the bishops as tools, and when defeat came the bishops on the vanquished side were exposed to the vengeance of their adversaries. There were charges brought against them, and sentences passed on them, and not canon law, but political exigencies, ruled in the synods. It was the triumph of The lay element in the Church. Success, even when it came, had its drawbacks. In order to devote themselves to political questions the bishops had to neglect their spiritual duties. They were to be seen more often on the embassies than on visitations. As supplies in their dioceses they had to call in auxiliaries known as chorepiscopi. What wonder, then, that these abuses gave rise to complaints? Especially after 829 the bishops were clamouring for ecclesiastical liberty, for legal guarantees, for immunity of church property, for regularity of church administration, for the decrease of the number of chorepiscopi and of their privileges. But all in vain; the Carlovingian nobles, who profited by these abuses, were opposed to reform. Powerless to better itself, could the Frankish Church count on Rome? At this very time the situation of the papacy was by no means inspiring; the Church at Rome was largely subject to the lay power in the hands of the imperial missi. Sergius II (844-847) has not escaped the reproach of Simony. Leo IV (847-855) had to defend his person just like any simple Frankish bishop.

    In the face of such a wretched situation the juridical prescriptions of Isidore are ideal.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 810

Print view this post

Re: Christianity and Feudalism

#27  Postby iskander » May 07, 2015 2:31 pm

Leucius Charinus wrote:
iskander wrote:
Nicko wrote:
iskander wrote:Charlemagne made the pope the “emperor maker”; after the coronation the emperor owed the crown to the pope and every emperor after that will have to ask the pope to crown him.


Probably not Charlemagne's idea. Charlemagne seemed to have the attitude that his business was to rule the faithful (including forcibly bringing other peoples into the faith) and the Pope's business was to pray for his success. The Pope seems to have pulled a fast one on Karl de Grossa when he whacked the Imperial Crown on his noggin in the middle of a religious ceremony.

Charlemagne's son was crowned by Charlemagne, not the Pope. Too late as his coronation was the one that stuck in the cultural memory (which, after all, was the whole point of staging memorable public ceremonies in a largely illiterate time).


Charlemagne is only a suitable marker for the beginning of the papal supremacy over the secular power. By 816 the emperor Louis prostrated himself before the pope who crowned him.


In early October, the Pope and Emperor met at Rheims, where Louis prostrated himself three times before Stephen.[6] At Mass on Sunday, 5 October 816, Stephen consecrated and anointed Louis as emperor, placing a crown on his head that was claimed to belong to Constantine the Great...

While with Louis, the emperor gave Stephen a number of presents, including an estate of land (most likely at Vendeuvre-sur-Barse) granted to the Roman church.[10] They also renewed the pact between the Popes and the kings of the Franks, confirming the privileges of the Roman church, and the continued existence of the recently emerged Papal States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Stephen_IV

The involvement of Charlemagne with the pope begins with his father Pippin. Pippin wanted to be king and sought allies, the pope was threatened by the Lombards.

The pope and pippin made a deal, the pope will bless his becoming a king and pippin will defeat the Lombards. In addition , Pippin granted some of the conquered lands in Italy to the pope and thus the Papal States were born.


Charlemagne wanted to conquer Europe and doing this in the name of the official religion of the late Roman Empire would be a holly convenient thing to do, He sought and alliance with the pope and got it. The result of this alliance was the first ever European religious war; Charlemagne made war on the Saxons to convert them to the religion of the pope.



Again this is all excellent background to the history of the utterly corrupt RCC organisation slash industry. One very important operation was commenced around about this time in the 9th century in Carolingian Europe. It was an extremely important operation undertaken by agents of the church organisation based at Corbie library (one of the best appointed in all of Carolingian Europe). The operation would remain undetected until the 16th and only completely exposed in the 17th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Isidorian_Decretals

This massive Latin church organisation forgery mill pumped out forged manuscripts and fabricated church organisation documents and inter-office memos that would completely fool the intellectual elite of Europe for the next six or seven hundred years. It was finally completely exposed by Blondel standing on the shoulders of giants. As to how many more manuscripts were forged between the 9th century and the 17th century by the church industry who really knows?

Feudalism implied a class structure, and documents were important to the ruling class. Forgery was rife. The Pseudo-Isidorian forgery mill makes an extremely interesting case study on the means, motives and opportunities of the church organisation slash industry. It was after all a manuscript or codex driven BELIEF industry somewhere up the top of the pyramid of the feudalistic society. Business was business.

FWIW here is the background political scenes of the 9th century Pseudo-Isidorian forgery mill ...

    what was the condition of the Church in France at that time? [WIKI]

    It was but a few brief years after the Treaty of Verdun (843), which had put a definitive close to the Carlovingian empire by founding three distinct kingdoms. Christendom was a prey to the onslaught of Normans and Saracens; but on the whole the era of civil strife was over. In ecclesiastical circles Church reform was still spoken of, but hardly hoped for. It was especially after the death of Charlemagne (814) that reform began to be considered, but the abuses to be corrected dated from long before Charlemagne's time, and went back to the very beginnings of the Frankish church under the Merovingians. The personal government of the king or emperor had many serious drawbacks on religious grounds. In the mind of the bishops reform and ecclesiastical liberty were identical, and this liberty they required for their persons as well as for the Church. Doubtless Charlemagne's government had been advantageous to the Church, but it was none the less an oppressive protection and dearly bought. The Church was frankly subject to the State. Initiatives which ought to have been the proper function of the spiritual power were usurped by Charlemagne. He summoned synods and confirmed their decisions. He disposed largely of all church benefices. And in matters of importance ecclesiastical tribunals were presided over by him. While the great emperor lived these inconveniences had their compensating advantages and were tolerated. The Church had a mighty supporter at her back. But as soon as he died the Carlovingian dynasty began to show signs of ever-increasing debility, and the Church, bound up with, and subordinate to, the political power, was dragged into the ensuing civil strife and disunion. Church property excited the cupidity of the various factions, each of them wished to use the bishops as tools, and when defeat came the bishops on the vanquished side were exposed to the vengeance of their adversaries. There were charges brought against them, and sentences passed on them, and not canon law, but political exigencies, ruled in the synods. It was the triumph of The lay element in the Church. Success, even when it came, had its drawbacks. In order to devote themselves to political questions the bishops had to neglect their spiritual duties. They were to be seen more often on the embassies than on visitations. As supplies in their dioceses they had to call in auxiliaries known as chorepiscopi. What wonder, then, that these abuses gave rise to complaints? Especially after 829 the bishops were clamouring for ecclesiastical liberty, for legal guarantees, for immunity of church property, for regularity of church administration, for the decrease of the number of chorepiscopi and of their privileges. But all in vain; the Carlovingian nobles, who profited by these abuses, were opposed to reform. Powerless to better itself, could the Frankish Church count on Rome? At this very time the situation of the papacy was by no means inspiring; the Church at Rome was largely subject to the lay power in the hands of the imperial missi. Sergius II (844-847) has not escaped the reproach of Simony. Leo IV (847-855) had to defend his person just like any simple Frankish bishop.

    In the face of such a wretched situation the juridical prescriptions of Isidore are ideal.



The story of every religion is best explained by the suspicion that none of the high ranking officers in charge of the affairs of any religious organization believes there is a God .
Lies , forgery, violence ... is what sustains every religion and it begins with the scriptures and it goes on from there.


Spinoza wrote:
...we generally see, I say, theologians anxious to learn how to wring their inventions and sayings out of the sacred text, and to fortify them with Divine authority. Such persons never display less scruple or more zeal than when they are interpreting Scripture or the mind of the Holy Ghost; if we ever see them perturbed, it is not that they fear to attribute some error to the Holy Spirit, and to stray from the right path, but that they are afraid to be convicted of error by others, and thus to overthrow and bring into contempt their own authority.

But if men really believed what they verbally testify of Scripture, they would adopt quite a different plan of life: their minds would not be agitated by so many contentions, nor so many hatreds, and they would cease to be excited by such a blind and rash passion for interpreting the sacred writings, and excogitating novelties in religion. On the contrary, they would not dare to adopt, as the teaching of Scripture, anything which they could not plainly deduce therefrom: lastly, those sacrilegious persons who have dared, in several passages, to interpolate the Bible, would have shrunk from so great a crime, and would have stayed their sacrilegious hands.

Ambition and unscrupulousness have waxed so powerful, that religion is thought to consist, not so much in respecting the writings of the Holy Ghost, as in defending human commentaries, so that religion is no longer identified with charity, but with spreading discord and propagating insensate hatred disguised under the name of zeal for the Lord, and eager ardour.

To these evils we must add superstition, which teaches men to despise reason and nature, and only to admire and venerate that which is repugnant to both: whence it is not wonderful that for the sake of increasing the admiration and veneration felt for Scripture, men strive to explain it so as to make it appear to contradict, as far as possible, both one and the other: thus they dream that most profound mysteries lie hid in the Bible, and weary themselves out in the investigation of these absurdities, to the neglect of what is useful.

Every result of their diseased imagination they attribute to the Holy Ghost, and strive to defend with the utmost zeal and passion; for it is an observed fact that men employ their reason to defend conclusions arrived at by reason, but conclusions arrived at by the passions are defended by the passions.

Tractatus-Theologico-Politicus, Tractatus Politicus) [1670]
Chapter VII.: Of the Interpretation of Scripture.
The Online Library of Liberty
iskander
 
Posts: 201

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Christianity and Feudalism

#28  Postby Darwinsbulldog » May 07, 2015 2:53 pm

User should be banned for using the redundant word "feudalism" in the OP! :-)
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 64

Print view this post

Re: Christianity and Feudalism

#29  Postby Leucius Charinus » May 08, 2015 1:07 am

iskander wrote:The story of every religion is best explained by the suspicion that none of the high ranking officers in charge of the affairs of any religious organization believes there is a God .


Not only that but the Holy Story Books of the big three monotheistic holy story book religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) were all officially published far and wide throughout their respective empires by the supreme military commanders at the zenith of their military power. Should stop and make us wonder, shouldn't it?

War is a racket. The monotheistic holy book religions are just spin-off rackets of the racket of war. For the military minded the logistics run like this. In order to maintain large conquered territory, an official codex and a Pooh-Bar of the centralised monotheistic state cult are worth a legion.


iskander wrote:Lies , forgery, violence ... is what sustains every religion and it begins with the scriptures and it goes on from there.


Down from the door (of war) where they all began these utterly corrupt church organisations slash industries (and their CEO's) have perpetuated themselves (business as usual) from antiquity by means of ....

    atrocities,
    exiles,
    tortures,
    executions,
    inquisitions,
    book burning and
    prohibition of books,
    censorship, and (one of the most vital instruments of deceit)
    literary forgery.

Why don't the ancient historians or Biblical Scholars of the 21st century mention any of this political history?

If there is anyone here who thinks that there is some "Divine Institute" at the origin of these church organisations slash industries now is the time to put up your hand with some evidence in it LOL
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 810

Print view this post

Re: Christianity and Feudalism

#30  Postby Leucius Charinus » May 08, 2015 1:18 am

Darwinsbulldog wrote:User should be banned for using the redundant word "feudalism" in the OP! :-)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism

Feudalism was a combination of legal and military customs in medieval Europe that flourished between the 9th and 15th centuries. Broadly defined, it was a way of structuring society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labour.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 810

Print view this post

Re: Christianity and Feudalism

#31  Postby Darwinsbulldog » May 08, 2015 4:37 am

Leucius Charinus wrote:
Darwinsbulldog wrote:User should be banned for using the redundant word "feudalism" in the OP! :-)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism

Feudalism was a combination of legal and military customs in medieval Europe that flourished between the 9th and 15th centuries. Broadly defined, it was a way of structuring society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labour.

Yeahbutt church and state was fused in those days-not the secular paradise it is now! :dopey:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 64

Print view this post

Re: Christianity and Feudalism

#32  Postby iskander » May 08, 2015 3:52 pm

Leucius Charinus wrote:
iskander wrote:The story of every religion is best explained by the suspicion that none of the high ranking officers in charge of the affairs of any religious organization believes there is a God .


Not only that but the Holy Story Books of the big three monotheistic holy story book religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) were all officially published far and wide throughout their respective empires by the supreme military commanders at the zenith of their military power. Should stop and make us wonder, shouldn't it?

War is a racket. The monotheistic holy book religions are just spin-off rackets of the racket of war. For the military minded the logistics run like this. In order to maintain large conquered territory, an official codex and a Pooh-Bar of the centralised monotheistic state cult are worth a legion.


iskander wrote:Lies , forgery, violence ... is what sustains every religion and it begins with the scriptures and it goes on from there.


Down from the door (of war) where they all began these utterly corrupt church organisations slash industries (and their CEO's) have perpetuated themselves (business as usual) from antiquity by means of ....

    atrocities,
    exiles,
    tortures,
    executions,
    inquisitions,
    book burning and
    prohibition of books,
    censorship, and (one of the most vital instruments of deceit)
    literary forgery.

Why don't the ancient historians or Biblical Scholars of the 21st century mention any of this political history?

If there is anyone here who thinks that there is some "Divine Institute" at the origin of these church organisations slash industries now is the time to put up your hand with some evidence in it LOL



These events are sparingly mentioned by historians for a very good reason.

Religions are cruel because the faithful are obsessed with God and with salvation. This obsession with death often makes them oblivious to the pain involved in the process. The faithful should be offered a new God ; a God that is user friendly and gives generously.

What is making an ugly God into a 'user friendly God'.? The Gospels say there is no need to fulfil the Mosaic Law. The Reformation says there is no need to please the pope.

What would now make an ugly God into a user friendly God?
iskander
 
Posts: 201

Print view this post

Re: Christianity and Feudalism

#33  Postby Leucius Charinus » May 09, 2015 1:52 am

Darwinsbulldog wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote:
Darwinsbulldog wrote:User should be banned for using the redundant word "feudalism" in the OP! :-)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism

Feudalism was a combination of legal and military customs in medieval Europe that flourished between the 9th and 15th centuries. Broadly defined, it was a way of structuring society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labour.


Yeahbutt church and state was fused in those days-not the secular paradise it is now! :dopey:


Too True DB. To think otherwise would be massive presentism. This thread is interesting because it involves a study of the history of the church organisation in which there is no other way to view this organisation but as utterly corrupt in the full meaning of the word. A study of the history of the utterly corrupt church organisation may be conducted by examining the following three epochs of history ....

(1) 20th-21st century: The rise of Christian secularism
(2) 16th-19th century: Blasphemy Laws of Christian Nations and their States
(3) 4th-15th century: Heresy Laws of the Utterly Corrupt RCC.

As soon as one leaves the period of the most recent 150 years the territory changes to an unfamiliar landscape in which discussions such as these would be deemed seditious against country and state. It is not really unfamiliar if we were to look at the parallel of the 21st century Islamic Heresy laws. Islam started 300 years after Christianity and it should be totally obvious that the Quranic compliers simply took Constantine's Bible as a "blueprint" for their own centralised monotheistic state religious cult based upon a codex.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 810

Print view this post

Re: Christianity and Feudalism

#34  Postby Leucius Charinus » May 09, 2015 2:18 am

iskander wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote:
iskander wrote:Lies , forgery, violence ... is what sustains every religion and it begins with the scriptures and it goes on from there.


Down from the door (of war) where they all began these utterly corrupt church organisations slash industries (and their CEO's) have perpetuated themselves (business as usual) from antiquity by means of ....

    atrocities,
    exiles,
    tortures,
    executions,
    inquisitions,
    book burning and
    prohibition of books,
    censorship, and (one of the most vital instruments of deceit)
    literary forgery.

Why don't the ancient historians or Biblical Scholars of the 21st century mention any of this political history?

If there is anyone here who thinks that there is some "Divine Institute" at the origin of these church organisations slash industries now is the time to put up your hand with some evidence in it LOL



These events are sparingly mentioned by historians for a very good reason.

Religions are cruel because the faithful are obsessed with God and with salvation. This obsession with death often makes them oblivious to the pain involved in the process. The faithful should be offered a new God ; a God that is user friendly and gives generously.



Education? Critical thinking independent of dogma? IDK.


What is making an ugly God into a 'user friendly God'.? The Gospels say there is no need to fulfil the Mosaic Law. The Reformation says there is no need to please the pope.

What would now make an ugly God into a user friendly God?


A new religious operating stystem? Stoicism? I have read a number of articles which suggest that the gospel authors and Paul and Pseudo-Paul all borrowed freely from Seneca and the Stoic (and thus Platonist) philosophers. My take is that if we want to look at the God the Christians fabricated we should look at the raw materials they used.

One of these was the subversion of the Greek philosophical concept of the "guardian spirit" or "daimon". The Christians demonised this philosophical concept and charged that the Official Registered Corporate Monotheistic State Holy Spirit of Jesus was to replace the idea of the individual guardian spirit. We are no longer accountable to our own spirit. All beings were to be LEGALLY accountable to the Official Codex Holy spirit. This is of course complete and utter bullshit.

Here are some quotes from the Stoic philosophers to provide a general idea of the perversions made to these ideas by the Christian State Codex (NT Bible):


    How the Christians subverted the Greek "daimon" [ "guardian spirit"]


    "It is man's duty to follow his daimon,
    which reflects the cosmic will.
    This requires us to love humanity in general
    and to act altruistically"

    ~ Marcus Aurelius




    "A daemon is assigned to every man
    At birth, to be the leader of his life".

    ~ Menander, via Ammianus Marcellinus




    "We should think of the most authoritative part of the Soul
    as a Guardian given by God which lifts us to our heavenly home."

    ~ Plato





    “Although it appears as if each person
    has their own Daïmon or Higher Self,
    the enlightened initiate discovers that
    actually on the axial Pole of Being
    there is one Daïmon shared by all,
    a universal Self, which inhabits every being.
    Each Soul is a part of the one Soul of God.
    To know oneself therefore is to know God."

    ~ Valentinus





    "Nevertheless he has placed by every man a guardian,
    every man's Daimon, to whom he has committed the care of the man,
    a guardian who never sleeps, is never deceived.

    For to what better and more careful guardian could He have entrusted each of us?
    When, then, you have shut the doors and made darkness within,
    remember never to say that you are alone, for you are not;
    but God is within, and your Daimon is within, and what need
    have they of light to see what you are doing?

    To this God you ought to swear an oath just as the soldiers do to Caesar. .....

    ~ Epictetus






    "God is near you, he is with you, he is within you.
    This is what I mean, Lucilius:
    a holy spirit indwells within us,
    one who marks our good and bad deeds,
    and is our guardian.

    As we treat this spirit, so are we treated by it.
    Indeed, no man can be good without the help of God.
    Can one rise superior to fortune unless God helps him to rise? "

    ~ Seneca, Epistle 41.







    And finally to bring us up to the 20th century ....

    The epitaph on the current headstone (arranged by his father) bears “James Douglas Morrison” and the Greek inscription KATA TON DAIMONA EAYTOY, literally meaning “According to his own daimon” and usually interpreted as “True to his own spirit”.

    Image






In the end iskander, IMVHO, at the end of the day it all comes back to how we look at ourselves and how comfortable (or otherwise) we are with our "spirit of life". If there is a divine spark it certainly does not reside in the corrupt church organisations or their "Holy Flaming Books" but rather it resides in living things.

But this is not the way the lords and masters of the feudalistic society saw things. It was expedient for them to perpetuate the Orwellian fabrication of the Church dominated structure which they had inherited, ultimately from Constantine.

Be well.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 810

Print view this post

Re: Christianity and Feudalism

#35  Postby Nicko » May 09, 2015 8:04 am

iskander wrote:Charlemagne wanted to conquer Europe and doing this in the name of the official religion of the late Roman Empire would be a holly convenient thing to do,


Oh, I agree.

It's just that he would not have wanted to appear to be subordinate to the Pope.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8628
Age: 43
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Christianity and Feudalism

#36  Postby Clive Durdle » May 09, 2015 9:58 am

The classic example of that debate happened a bit later, but we must not forget the other player, a supporter of whom was martyred by an arrow in his eye, and made a saint following a certain invasion by a papist army

The term Walk to Canossa (German, Gang nach Canossa), sometimes called the Humiliation of Canossa (Italian, l'umiliazione di Canossa), refers to the trek of Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV from Speyer to Canossa Castle in Emilia Romagna to obtain the revocation of the excommunication imposed on him by the Pope Gregory VII. He was forced to humiliate himself on his knees waiting for three days and three nights, before the entrance gate of the castle, while a blizzard raged in January 1077.


Historical background[edit]
See also: Investiture Controversy and Concordat of Worms
When, in his early papacy, Gregory VII attempted to enact reforms to the investiture process, he was met by much resistance from the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV. Henry insisted that he reserved the traditionally established right of previous emperors to "invest" bishops and other clergymen, despite the papal decree. Henry renounced Gregory as pope; in return, Gregory excommunicated and deposed Henry, in the Lenten synod of 1076, at Rome. He stated furthermore that, one year from that day, the excommunication would become permanent and irrevocable.[citation needed]

Journey[edit]
Violence had already broken out at Langensalza on 9 June 1075, suppressed by Henry. Now the patriarch of Aquileia and the papal legate met with German princes at Oppenheim, 16 October 1076, and swore an oath not to recognize Henry unless the ban were lifted. Fearing further rebellion among the German aristocracy, Henry felt he had to have his excommunication lifted. On the suggestion of his adversaries, he arranged to meet with the pope in Augsburg.[citation needed]

Henry commenced his trip in Speyer and travelling southward from Germany, he found his position precarious. He was still popular among the common people, but his nobles were still threatening to elect a new king. He had to secure his position in the church before the rapidly approaching deadline given by the pope.[citation needed]

Once he crossed the Alps by the Mont Cenis pass,[1] Henry took on the behavior of penitence. He wore a hair-shirt, the traditional clothing of monks at the time, and allegedly walked barefoot. Many of his entourage also supposedly removed their shoes. In these conditions he crossed the Alps, a long and harsh journey in late January. On 25 January 1077 he reached the gates of Canossa.[citation needed]

At the castle[edit]

Henry IV and his entourage at the pope's gate at Canossa in 1077, by August von Heyden
When Henry reached the castle of Canossa, the Pope ordered that he be refused entry. According to the first-hand accounts of the scene (letters written by both Gregory and Henry in the following years), Henry waited by the gate for three full days. During this time, he allegedly wore only his penitent hair shirt and fasted.[citation needed]

On 28 January the castle gates were opened for Henry and he was allowed to enter. Contemporary accounts report that he knelt before Pope Gregory and begged his forgiveness. Gregory absolved Henry and invited him back into the Church. That evening, Gregory, Henry, and Matilda of Tuscany (owner of the castle) shared communion in the chapel of Sant'Apollonio inside the castle, signaling the official end of Henry's excommunication.[2]

Henry quickly returned to his empire, but Gregory remained with Matilda at the castle and in other locations in Tuscany for several months. Later historians speculated upon a romantic or sexual relationship between the two, yet without any evidence. The accusation was sometimes raised by Protestant historians in the 17th century.[3]

Historical impact[edit]
The immediate effects of the Canossa meeting were limited. Although Henry was restored to the Church, any expectations that the Pope would restore support of Henry's right to the throne were soon dashed:[4] in March, a small group of powerful Saxon and South German territorial magnates, including the archbishops of Salzburg, Mainz and Magdeburg and several bishops, met at Forchheim and, on the assumption that Henry had irretrievably lost the imperial dignity, repudiated the Salian dynasty's claim to pass the imperial crown by heredity and, in the words of Bruno of Merseburg, present in his bishop's entourage, declared "that the son of a king, even if he should be preeminently worthy, should become king by a spontaneous election". The Pope confirmed the agreement.[5] His deposition still in effect, Henry was forced into civil war with Duke Rudolph of Swabia. Gregory levied a second excommunication against Henry, who ultimately won the civil war, invaded Rome, and forced Gregory to flee, replacing him with Antipope Clement III.[6]

The meaning in the greater history of Germany and Europe, however, was much more significant. During the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, Henry was exalted as a defender of the rights of both Catholics and opponents of the Pope. Many German Lutherans considered him the "first Protestant" and looked to his example for guidance in their struggle against what they saw as a tyrannical and unjust institution.[citation needed]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walk_to_Canossa
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
Clive Durdle
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Clive Durdle
Posts: 4812

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Christianity and Feudalism

#37  Postby iskander » May 09, 2015 10:40 am

Nicko wrote:
iskander wrote:Charlemagne wanted to conquer Europe and doing this in the name of the official religion of the late Roman Empire would be a holly convenient thing to do,


Oh, I agree.

It's just that he would not have wanted to appear to be subordinate to the Pope.


He did submit to the pope in a formal ceremony and it must have been understood then that he was the Holy Roman Emperor because the pope had crowned him . In 816 Luis prostrated himself before the pope and was crowned emperor by him.

The pagan emperors of Roma were both civil rulers and religious rulers of the empire ; the emperor was both Imperator and Pontifex Maximus . The papal emperor would be from the coronation of Charlemagne only rex et sacerdos, whose power was derived from the Supreme Pontiff .


Charlemagne behaved during his reign as the master of the pope, but that attitude will be contested by a stronger papacy once the anointing of the emperor had become tradition.
iskander
 
Posts: 201

Print view this post

Re: Christianity and Feudalism

#38  Postby iskander » May 09, 2015 11:40 am

Leucius Charinus wrote:
iskander wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote:
iskander wrote:Lies , forgery, violence ... is what sustains every religion and it begins with the scriptures and it goes on from there.


Down from the door (of war) where they all began these utterly corrupt church organisations slash industries (and their CEO's) have perpetuated themselves (business as usual) from antiquity by means of ....

    atrocities,
    exiles,
    tortures,
    executions,
    inquisitions,
    book burning and
    prohibition of books,
    censorship, and (one of the most vital instruments of deceit)
    literary forgery.

Why don't the ancient historians or Biblical Scholars of the 21st century mention any of this political history?

If there is anyone here who thinks that there is some "Divine Institute" at the origin of these church organisations slash industries now is the time to put up your hand with some evidence in it LOL



These events are sparingly mentioned by historians for a very good reason.

Religions are cruel because the faithful are obsessed with God and with salvation. This obsession with death often makes them oblivious to the pain involved in the process. The faithful should be offered a new God ; a God that is user friendly and gives generously.



Education? Critical thinking independent of dogma? IDK.


What is making an ugly God into a 'user friendly God'.? The Gospels say there is no need to fulfil the Mosaic Law. The Reformation says there is no need to please the pope.

What would now make an ugly God into a user friendly God?


A new religious operating stystem? Stoicism? I have read a number of articles which suggest that the gospel authors and Paul and Pseudo-Paul all borrowed freely from Seneca and the Stoic (and thus Platonist) philosophers. My take is that if we want to look at the God the Christians fabricated we should look at the raw materials they used.

One of these was the subversion of the Greek philosophical concept of the "guardian spirit" or "daimon". The Christians demonised this philosophical concept and charged that the Official Registered Corporate Monotheistic State Holy Spirit of Jesus was to replace the idea of the individual guardian spirit. We are no longer accountable to our own spirit. All beings were to be LEGALLY accountable to the Official Codex Holy spirit. This is of course complete and utter bullshit.

Here are some quotes from the Stoic philosophers to provide a general idea of the perversions made to these ideas by the Christian State Codex (NT Bible):


    How the Christians subverted the Greek "daimon" [ "guardian spirit"]


    "It is man's duty to follow his daimon,
    which reflects the cosmic will.
    This requires us to love humanity in general
    and to act altruistically"

    ~ Marcus Aurelius




    "A daemon is assigned to every man
    At birth, to be the leader of his life".

    ~ Menander, via Ammianus Marcellinus




    "We should think of the most authoritative part of the Soul
    as a Guardian given by God which lifts us to our heavenly home."

    ~ Plato





    “Although it appears as if each person
    has their own Daïmon or Higher Self,
    the enlightened initiate discovers that
    actually on the axial Pole of Being
    there is one Daïmon shared by all,
    a universal Self, which inhabits every being.
    Each Soul is a part of the one Soul of God.
    To know oneself therefore is to know God."

    ~ Valentinus





    "Nevertheless he has placed by every man a guardian,
    every man's Daimon, to whom he has committed the care of the man,
    a guardian who never sleeps, is never deceived.

    For to what better and more careful guardian could He have entrusted each of us?
    When, then, you have shut the doors and made darkness within,
    remember never to say that you are alone, for you are not;
    but God is within, and your Daimon is within, and what need
    have they of light to see what you are doing?

    To this God you ought to swear an oath just as the soldiers do to Caesar. .....

    ~ Epictetus






    "God is near you, he is with you, he is within you.
    This is what I mean, Lucilius:
    a holy spirit indwells within us,
    one who marks our good and bad deeds,
    and is our guardian.

    As we treat this spirit, so are we treated by it.
    Indeed, no man can be good without the help of God.
    Can one rise superior to fortune unless God helps him to rise? "

    ~ Seneca, Epistle 41.







    And finally to bring us up to the 20th century ....

    The epitaph on the current headstone (arranged by his father) bears “James Douglas Morrison” and the Greek inscription KATA TON DAIMONA EAYTOY, literally meaning “According to his own daimon” and usually interpreted as “True to his own spirit”.




In the end iskander, IMVHO, at the end of the day it all comes back to how we look at ourselves and how comfortable (or otherwise) we are with our "spirit of life". If there is a divine spark it certainly does not reside in the corrupt church organisations or their "Holy Flaming Books" but rather it resides in living things.

But this is not the way the lords and masters of the feudalistic society saw things. It was expedient for them to perpetuate the Orwellian fabrication of the Church dominated structure which they had inherited, ultimately from Constantine.

Be well.



How to understand existing gods ? That is the question.
Shakespeare:
To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them. To die—to sleep,
No more; and by a sleep to say we end


Believers in God have always understood God differently, we know that because Brahmanism, Buddhism, Zoroastrians, Judaism, Islam, Catholicism, Reformation etc. say so .

Let us then try to modify every religious belief by permitting it to be informed by this attitude:


The guiding principle should aim to persuade believers to believe that we can only try to understand God and that therefore any concept of God is always man-made. This man-made God is not incompatible with the existence of a real God-Creator and it is also compatible with Revelation. It is also compatible with atheism since God-creator need not exist, for an atheist God would only be a language to be used when appropriate.

This man-made God (our understanding of God-Creator) is a servant of mankind; if a different understanding of God-Creator improves the wellbeing of man then this new interpretation should replace the old one. This is good for atheists and it is good for religious people too, since the road to heaven is not through suffering. The God that gives us a sample to taste of the paradise to come is the best approximation to God-Creator or simply to death after a pleasant life.


If every religion has humanity as the measure of revealed truth, then all religions will sit comfortably on the shoulders of all men. Human Rights education is the engine of that change.

NB man is used as meaning both man and woman
iskander
 
Posts: 201

Print view this post

Re: Christianity and Feudalism

#39  Postby Nicko » May 09, 2015 12:31 pm

iskander wrote:He did submit to the pope in a formal ceremony and it must have been understood then that he was the Holy Roman Emperor because the pope had crowned him.


Weeell.

Actually, the pope whacked the crown on Charlemagne's head when he was kneeling during the course of Christmas mass. Again, it's not like Charlemagne didn't want the crown - he did - it's just that he would never have acquiesced to a submissive relationship with the church. He was supposed to have flat-out said afterwards that, had he known what Leo III intended, he wouldn't have showed up.

Leo III pulled a fast one and embedded the image of the Holy Roman Emperor recieving his crown from the Pope into the collective memory of Europe.

iskander wrote:Charlemagne behaved during his reign as the master of the pope, but that attitude will be contested by a stronger papacy once the anointing of the emperor had become tradition.


Yup.

The decline of Frankish unity once you get to Charlemagne's grandchildren (the Franks hadn't worked out that splitting lands up among all one's sons was a Bad Move yet) also played a major part. Strong Papacy, weakening Carolingian dynasty, a public perception of the Emperor's power as deriving from Papal power. The stage was set for the rise of the Church.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8628
Age: 43
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Christianity and Feudalism

#40  Postby iskander » May 09, 2015 2:03 pm

Nicko wrote:
iskander wrote:He did submit to the pope in a formal ceremony and it must have been understood then that he was the Holy Roman Emperor because the pope had crowned him.


Weeell.

Actually, the pope whacked the crown on Charlemagne's head when he was kneeling during the course of Christmas mass. Again, it's not like Charlemagne didn't want the crown - he did - it's just that he would never have acquiesced to a submissive relationship with the church. He was supposed to have flat-out said afterwards that, had he known what Leo III intended, he wouldn't have showed up.

Leo III pulled a fast one and embedded the image of the Holy Roman Emperor recieving his crown from the Pope into the collective memory of Europe.

iskander wrote:Charlemagne behaved during his reign as the master of the pope, but that attitude will be contested by a stronger papacy once the anointing of the emperor had become tradition.


Yup.

The decline of Frankish unity once you get to Charlemagne's grandchildren (the Franks hadn't worked out that splitting lands up among all one's sons was a Bad Move yet) also played a major part. Strong Papacy, weakening Carolingian dynasty, a public perception of the Emperor's power as deriving from Papal power. The stage was set for the rise of the Church.



As the thread about 'Historical Jesus' shows, knowing what precisely happened in the distant past is very difficult.

Perhaps the coronation was entirely the trivial prank of a bold pope who naughtily dropped a crown on the head of the unsuspecting king . Charlemagne then tolerated the meaningless prank of his friend and protégé in good humour . I agree with whoever says that.


More importantly ,Charlemagne played an important part in the affairs of the of the church. The Filoque dispute is one example of that influence.

Professor Southern writes,

In 381 a definitive statement of belief had been issued by the Council of Constantinople, which came to be known as the Nicaean Creed. This creed was accepted by the whole church, both eastern and western , contained the statement that the Holy Spirit comes ' from the Father'.

To this statement the word Filoque, and 'and the Son' was unofficially added by some unknown person or community in the West, perhaps Spain in the seventh century. This may have might have remained a purely local if some of Charlemagne's advisers had not come from Spain. Under their influence the additional words were added to the text of the Creed as used at Mass in Charlemagne's chapel.

From this moment the addition became a matter of much more than local importance. Charlemagne and his advisers had a passion for uniformity, and they had the power and will to make their views prevail over much of the western church. Whatever formula was adopted in Charlemagne's court was bound to have widespread influence.

The one obstacle was the papacy. Here, as in other matters, the pope still found the Greeks better company than the Franks. Pope Leo III advised Charlemagne to drop the addition, but his advice had no effect, and gradually the addition became universal in the western church except in Rome. ...



The Penguin History of the Church: Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages, page 64
Paperback – 31 May 1990 , by R. W. Southern (Author
ISBN-13: 978-0140137552
iskander
 
Posts: 201

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest