Christianity and Feudalism

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

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Christianity and Feudalism

#41  Postby Clive Durdle » May 09, 2015 5:59 pm

Why did I refer to Saint Harold being martyred by a Papist usurper?
"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

Ads by Google


Re: Christianity and Feudalism

#42  Postby iskander » May 09, 2015 7:38 pm

Clive Durdle wrote:Why did I refer to Saint Harold being martyred by a Papist usurper?


William of Normandy is the papist usurper and good dear Harold is supposed to have died the death of the perjurer?
Please, tell us more.
iskander
 
Posts: 201

Print view this post

Re: Christianity and Feudalism

#43  Postby Clive Durdle » May 09, 2015 8:43 pm

A certain country to the East with whom we are currently annoyed is of what faith? (As is Greece).

King Harold II of England (ca. 1022 - October 14, 1066) was the last crowned Anglo-Saxon king of England. He was the son of Earl Godwin of Wessex, succeeded St. Edward the Confessor to the throne of England, but served as its king for less than a year, dying on the field of battle at Hastings in southern England in 1066, when England was invaded by William the Bastard ("the Conqueror"), Duke of Normandy. He ruled from January 5, 1066 to October 14, the day of his death. Though he has never been formally canonized, he is regarded by some Orthodox Christians as a passion-bearer or even martyr and as the last Orthodox king of England


http://orthodoxwiki.org/Harold_of_England

We are therefore also Orthodox, but in a conquered state by heretics! We might actually get on very well with the Russians if we bothered to check our history. I am personally embarrassed that our diplomats have not resolved what is actually a simple issue!

William the Bastard actually invaded with the full support of the Pope - I understand that to be the definition of a crusade.

The crusaders about 50 years later sacked Constantinople, the heart of the empire Russia is now successor to and understands itself as being responsible for.

Russia in Crimea, Ukraine and Syria, and Catherine wanting to retake Constantinople are just reestablishing the Roman Empire. Maybe we should help them?
"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

#44  Postby Clive Durdle » May 09, 2015 8:47 pm

Orthodoxy is a fascinating religion, with none of the crap of celibacy and sin, and believing everyone goes to heaven.
"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

#45  Postby iskander » May 09, 2015 9:16 pm

Clive Durdle wrote:A certain country to the East with whom we are currently annoyed is of what faith? (As is Greece).

King Harold II of England (ca. 1022 - October 14, 1066) was the last crowned Anglo-Saxon king of England. He was the son of Earl Godwin of Wessex, succeeded St. Edward the Confessor to the throne of England, but served as its king for less than a year, dying on the field of battle at Hastings in southern England in 1066, when England was invaded by William the Bastard ("the Conqueror"), Duke of Normandy. He ruled from January 5, 1066 to October 14, the day of his death. Though he has never been formally canonized, he is regarded by some Orthodox Christians as a passion-bearer or even martyr and as the last Orthodox king of England


http://orthodoxwiki.org/Harold_of_England

We are therefore also Orthodox, but in a conquered state by heretics! We might actually get on very well with the Russians if we bothered to check our history. I am personally embarrassed that our diplomats have not resolved what is actually a simple issue!

William the Bastard actually invaded with the full support of the Pope - I understand that to be the definition of a crusade.

The crusaders about 50 years later sacked Constantinople, the heart of the empire Russia is now successor to and understands itself as being responsible for.

Russia in Crimea, Ukraine and Syria, and Catherine wanting to retake Constantinople are just reestablishing the Roman Empire. Maybe we should help them?



Is it Russia? Do I win a prize?

I have been watching the Victory Parade in Moscow, almost two hours long.

It is a joy to see a strong Russia. When I was a child there was a word that my parents kept repeating , that word was Stalingrad! and that word made them happy.
When I was watching the Victory Parade I kept hearing and seeing my parents jumping for joy as they murmured , STALINGRAD!. It almost brought tears to my eyes.
iskander
 
Posts: 201

Print view this post

Re: Christianity and Feudalism

#46  Postby Nicko » May 10, 2015 11:45 am

Leucius Charinus wrote: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?


Well, they do.

That's why you know it happened.
"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

#47  Postby Nicko » May 10, 2015 12:04 pm

iskander wrote:Perhaps the coronation was entirely the trivial prank of a bold pope who naughtily dropped a crown on the head of the unsuspecting king .


Hardly a "trivial prank". It established an institutional supremacy of Church over State that - once the personal power obtained and wielded by Charlemagne had dissipated - defined the rest of the Medieval period. And, not incidentally, the institutions, practices and behaviour of the RCC.

iskander wrote:Charlemagne then tolerated the meaningless prank of his friend and protégé in good humour.


What was he going to do? Give the crown back? Abdicate?

What he did do was to try and revise the paradigm that Leo III had established with the coronation of his son as his successor. The Pope was invited to the coronation, but Charlemagne placed the crown on Louis' head himself. The symbolism is clear: the crown might have come originally from the Church, but it was now in the possession of the heirs of Charlemagne.

Didn't work.

The ceremony in 800 eclipsed the ceremony in 813 in the collective memory of Europe.
"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

#48  Postby Leucius Charinus » May 11, 2015 8:43 am

Nicko wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote: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?


Well, they do.

That's why you know it happened.


Ha ha.

I was having a go at the real kudos and money in modern Biblical Scholarship derived from dogmatic opinions on what was happening in the transcendental "church organisation" of the 1st or 2nd century. The political appearance of the utterly corrupt Christian state church in the 4th century is often treated as a separate story, even though the earliest history of the early church organisation [Eusebius] was itself of 4th century manufacture.
"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

#49  Postby igorfrankensteen » May 11, 2015 11:34 am

One thing to consider about this, is the enduring power of the IDEA of the Roman Empire.

Even the peoples who overran and overthrew it, held it in such high regard, that they repeatedly tried to restore it (under their own leadership, of course).

And since the Pope was technically the Roman Emperor of the Western Empire, he did have at least the emotional/conceptual authority to crown kings. Plus, having the official magical religious leader crown you king was a sort of win-win for the would-be king: the Pope would convey official magical sanction to his rule, without having any real physical power to influence the king by force. Thus the Kings of the so-called Middle Ages, harnessed the ongoing reverence that so many people had for Roman majesty.
User avatar
igorfrankensteen
 
Name: michael e munson
Posts: 2114
Age: 66
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Christianity and Feudalism

#50  Postby iskander » May 11, 2015 12:18 pm

Nicko wrote:
iskander wrote:Perhaps the coronation was entirely the trivial prank of a bold pope who naughtily dropped a crown on the head of the unsuspecting king .


Hardly a "trivial prank". It established an institutional supremacy of Church over State that - once the personal power obtained and wielded by Charlemagne had dissipated - defined the rest of the Medieval period. And, not incidentally, the institutions, practices and behaviour of the RCC.

iskander wrote:Charlemagne then tolerated the meaningless prank of his friend and protégé in good humour.


What was he going to do? Give the crown back? Abdicate?

What he did do was to try and revise the paradigm that Leo III had established with the coronation of his son as his successor. The Pope was invited to the coronation, but Charlemagne placed the crown on Louis' head himself. The symbolism is clear: the crown might have come originally from the Church, but it was now in the possession of the heirs of Charlemagne.

Didn't work.

The ceremony in 800 eclipsed the ceremony in 813 in the collective memory of Europe.


Charlemagne was already a great king when he became emperor.

From , The keepers of the keys by Roger Collins:

On the morning of 25 April 799 , Pope Leo III departed from the Lateran Palace, with the office holders of the Roman church for the annual Major Litany, ...he was ambushed, and his attackers tried to blind him and cut out his tongue. But Leo escaped unhurt...

Charlemagne was in Saxony with his army. In their discussions in Paderborn in Saxony in September 799, Leo and Charlemagne probably agreed that the king would go to Rome in 800 to be crowned emperor...

When Charles arrived in Rome on 30 November 800, a council of bishops and other lay and ecclesiastical dignitaries from both France and Italy was already assembled and formally approved his assuming the imperial title, because of femineum imperium or feminine rule in Constantinople. then, Leo took his oath.

The events of December 800 had made the imperial office seem to be the gift either of the papacy or of a council of magnates. Neither was an acceptable precedent as far as he ( Charlemagne ) was concerned, and he soon began to refer to himself as ' the emperor crowned by God...governing the Roman Empire'.

When the time came for his own succession, he summoned his only surviving son , Louis the Pious (813-840), to a ceremony at Aachen, in which the new emperor crowned himself, a procedure that would be followed by Napoleon almost a thousand years later. in both cases the implications were obvious. The imperial office did not depend on the Papacy, and papal coronation was not required for making an emperor....

In 816 the new pope, Stephen IV (816-817), not only informed the emperor ( Louis the Pious) of his election but told him he was coming to France for a personal meeting with Louis. He brought with him a so-called crown of Constantine, probably believed to be the very one referred to in the ' Donation of Constantine'...


The above text was extracted from the book , Keepers of the Keys of Heaven, A History of the Papacy. By Roger Collins
A Phoenix paperback, 2009
ISBN-13: 978-0465061822
Chapter 8
iskander
 
Posts: 201

Print view this post

Re: Christianity and Feudalism

#51  Postby iskander » May 11, 2015 1:18 pm

Clive Durdle wrote:Orthodoxy is a fascinating religion, with none of the crap of celibacy and sin, and believing everyone goes to heaven.


The Roman Church wants the Orthodox Church to surrender their freedom for the gold of the mighty Roman Church, as they almost did in the Council of Florence when the Turks were clearly unstoppable.

The RCC will have to renounce their allegiance to the following, or these are the minimal conditions set by some orthodox : the post-schism Ecumenical Councils, purgatory, indulgences, Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, Original Sin, and filioque.
iskander
 
Posts: 201

Print view this post

Re: Christianity and Feudalism

#52  Postby iskander » May 11, 2015 9:35 pm

igorfrankensteen wrote:One thing to consider about this, is the enduring power of the IDEA of the Roman Empire.

Even the peoples who overran and overthrew it, held it in such high regard, that they repeatedly tried to restore it (under their own leadership, of course).

And since the Pope was technically the Roman Emperor of the Western Empire, he did have at least the emotional/conceptual authority to crown kings. Plus, having the official magical religious leader crown you king was a sort of win-win for the would-be king: the Pope would convey official magical sanction to his rule, without having any real physical power to influence the king by force. Thus the Kings of the so-called Middle Ages, harnessed the ongoing reverence that so many people had for Roman majesty.


The coronation of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor by the pope made the actions of the papacy undistinguishable from Christian Theology. The pope appointed himself emperor and his political struggle to lord over the people of Europe and their kings and representatives was the malignant aspect of Christianity .

Thomas Hobbes wrote in the 17th century:

: From the same mistaking of the present Church for the kingdom of God, came in the distinction between the civil and the canon laws: the civil law being the acts of sovereigns in their own dominions, and the canon law being the acts of the Pope in the same dominion. Which canons, though they were but canons, that is, rules propounded, and but voluntarily received by Christian princes, till the translation of the empire to Charlemagne; yet afterwards, as the power of the Pope increased, became rules commanded, and the emperors themselves, to avoid greater mischiefs, which the people blinded might be led into, were forced to let them pass for laws.

Leviathan, 44:8
iskander
 
Posts: 201

Print view this post

Re: Christianity and Feudalism

#53  Postby Leucius Charinus » May 11, 2015 11:54 pm

"We must not see the fact of usurpation;
law was once introduced without reason, and has become reasonable.
We must make it regarded as authoritative, eternal, and conceal its origin,
if we do not wish that it should soon come to an end."


~ Blaise Pascal, "Pensees"
"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

#54  Postby Leucius Charinus » May 11, 2015 11:56 pm

igorfrankensteen wrote:Thus the Kings of the so-called Middle Ages, harnessed the ongoing reverence that so many people had for Roman majesty.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se-majest%C3%A9

    Lèse-majesté (French: lèse-majesté [lɛz maʒɛste]; Law French, from the Latin laesa maiestas, "injured majesty"; in English, also lese-majesty, lese majesty or leze majesty) is the crime of violating majesty, an offence against the dignity of a reigning sovereign or against a state.

    This behavior was first classified as a criminal offence against the dignity of the Roman Republic of Ancient Rome.[citation needed] In the Dominate, or Late Empire period the emperors eliminated the Republican trappings of their predecessors and began to identify the state with their person.[2] Although legally the princeps civitatis (his official title, meaning, roughly, 'first citizen') could never become a sovereign because the republic was never officially abolished, emperors were deified as divus, first posthumously but by the Dominate period while reigning. Deified emperors enjoyed the same legal protection that was accorded to the divinities of the state cult; by the time it was replaced by Christianity, what was in all but name a monarchical tradition had already become well-established.
"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

#55  Postby Clive Durdle » May 12, 2015 7:35 am

iskander wrote:
Clive Durdle wrote:Orthodoxy is a fascinating religion, with none of the crap of celibacy and sin, and believing everyone goes to heaven.


The Roman Church wants the Orthodox Church to surrender their freedom for the gold of the mighty Roman Church, as they almost did in the Council of Florence when the Turks were clearly unstoppable.

The RCC will have to renounce their allegiance to the following, or these are the minimal conditions set by some orthodox : the post-schism Ecumenical Councils, purgatory, indulgences, Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, Original Sin, and filioque.


I think you will find Rome has submitted to the true Church!

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/wo ... olo/37806/

They are of course keeping stumm about the theological implications, but there will be a slow drip drip of concessions. The announcement about abortion is precisely in line with Orthodox thinking. Married priests will follow.
"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

Ads by Google


Re: Christianity and Feudalism

#56  Postby Clive Durdle » May 12, 2015 7:39 am

One thing to consider about this, is the enduring power of the IDEA of the Roman Empire.


It is much older than those upstarts in Rome and Constantinople!

Marathon? Alexander?

Cyrus? Darius?

Maybe my OP is wider than I realised - Islam is also the religion of Persia, but has a fascinating sect, the Sunnis, who are more of an amalgam of xianity and zoroaster.
"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

#57  Postby Zwaarddijk » May 12, 2015 1:52 pm

Clive Durdle wrote:
One thing to consider about this, is the enduring power of the IDEA of the Roman Empire.


It is much older than those upstarts in Rome and Constantinople!

Marathon? Alexander?

Cyrus? Darius?

Maybe my OP is wider than I realised - Islam is also the religion of Persia, but has a fascinating sect, the Sunnis, who are more of an amalgam of xianity and zoroaster.

s/Sunni/Shia.

But the extent to which Shi'ism is an amalgam of Zoroastrism and Christianity and Islam has been somewhat exaggerated by Sunni scholars (and by early western orientalists) - early Shi'ism did not originate in Persia. Consider, for instance, that the first Shi'a state was in NORTHWEST AFRICA! It's only really in the last 500 years or so that Twelver Shi'a has become more of an Iranian thing than an Arabic thing, and only in that same timespan that Iran has become more Shi'a than Sunni.
Zwaarddijk
 
Posts: 4334
Male

Country: Finland
Finland (fi)
Print view this post

Re: Christianity and Feudalism

#58  Postby Clive Durdle » May 12, 2015 1:58 pm

NW Africa are Berber! Not Arab!
"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

#59  Postby Zwaarddijk » May 12, 2015 2:03 pm

Clive Durdle wrote:NW Africa are Berber! Not Arab!

That is not a problem for my statement. Notice that I said "first Shi'a STATE", not "first Shi'a population". The majority of Shi'ites still existed in Sunni-majority Arabic areas (notice how this nestling of majorities is not a problem for my statement either - since Shi'ites apparently never have been but a small portion of all Muslims, most of them could easily have lived in areas where most Muslims were Sunnis).
Zwaarddijk
 
Posts: 4334
Male

Country: Finland
Finland (fi)
Print view this post

Re: Christianity and Feudalism

#60  Postby Leucius Charinus » May 12, 2015 2:20 pm

Clive Durdle wrote:
One thing to consider about this, is the enduring power of the IDEA of the Roman Empire.


It is much older than those upstarts in Rome and Constantinople!

Marathon? Alexander?

Cyrus? Darius?

Maybe my OP is wider than I realised - Islam is also the religion of Persia, but has a fascinating sect, the Sunnis, who are more of an amalgam of xianity and zoroaster.


Zoroastrianism under the Sassanid Persians from c.222 CE was a centralised monotheistic state cult based upon a "canonised" holy writ - the "Avesta". Christianity under Constantine & Co from 325 CE was a centralised monotheistic state cult based upon a "canonised" holy writ - the "NT Bible". Islam three hundred years later cloned the religious politics of Christianity for its own end, just as Constantine had cloned the religious politics of Zoroastrianism. The One True Song.


    "The science of politics is the one science that is deposited by the streams of history,
    like the grains of gold in the sand of a river; and the knowledge of the past, the record
    of truths revealed by experience, is eminently practical, as an instrument of action and a power
    that goes to making the future ...............and remember .....

    where you have a concentration
    of power in a few hands,
    all too frequently
    men with the mentality of gangsters get control.
    History has proven that. Power corrupts,
    and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    John Dalberg-Acton (1834-1902)

In case I need to explain what I mean by this similarity of "religious politics" I mean the establishment of a centralised state religious cult based upon a very holy and utterly true blue holy flaming writ. Such religious politics fuelled feudalism.

It really didn't matter WTF was in the "Holy Flaming Writ". That it was a "Holy Codex" related to The Business of the One True Utterly NO LAUGING MATTER God was sufficient. These holy books are all lies. It didn't matter. Believers were queuing up faster than the swords could be drawn from the scabbards. A few generations down the track and any controversies would be hushed up and air-brushed from the official histories. Orwellian is feudalism. Orwellian is Christianity and the rest of the book religions. They are the products of military supremacy. Spin-off rackets from the age old racket of war.
"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

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest