Posted: May 07, 2015 2:31 pm
by iskander
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

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.

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