Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant ~ Volume IV, Part 10 ~ Nonfiction
jane
March 6, 2006 - 06:14 pm
  
"I want to know what were the steps by which man passed from barbarism to civilization." (Voltaire)

What are our origins? Where are we now? Where are we headed? Share your thoughts with us!

Volume Four (The Age of Faith)

"Four elements constitute Civilization -- economic provision, political organization, moral traditions, and the pursuit of knowledge and the arts. "

"I shall proceed as rapidly as time and circumstances will permit, hoping that a few of my contemporaries will care to grow old with me while learning. "

"These volumes may help some of our children to understand and enjoy the infinite riches of their inheritance."

"Civilization begins where chaos and insecurity ends."


MORALS AND MANNERS OF CHRISTENDOM

Medieval Dress
In The Home
Society and Sport
Morality and Religion

In this Discussion Group we are not examining Durant. We are examining Civilization but in the process constantly referring to Durant's appraisals.

This volume surveys the medieval achievements and modern significance of Christian, Islamic, and Judaic life and culture. It includes the dramatic stories of St. Augustine, Hypatia, Justinian, Mohammed, Harun al-Rashid, Charlemagne, William the Conqueror, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Richard the Lion-Hearted, Saladin, Maimonides, St. Francis, St. Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon, and many others, all in the perspective of integrated history. The greatest love stories in literaure -- of Heloise and Abelard, of Dante and Beatrice -- are here retold with enthralling scholarship.

The Age of Faith covers the economy, politics, law, government, religion, morals, manners, education, literature, science, philosophy, and art of the Christians, Moslems, and Jews during an epoch that saw vital contests among the three great religions and between the religious and the secular view of human life. All the romance, poverty, splendor, piety and immorality, feudalism and monasticism, heresies and inquisitions, cathedrals and universities, troubadours and minnesingers of a picturesque millennium are gathered into one fascinating narrative.

This volume, and the series of which it is a part, has been compared with the great work of the French encyclopedists of the eighteenth century. The Story of Civilization represents the most comprehensive attempt in our times to embrace the vast panorama of man's history and culture.

This, then, is about YOU. Join our group daily and listen to what Durant and the rest of us are saying. Better yet, share with us your opinions.

Your Discussion Leader:Robby Iadeluca

Story of Civilization, Vol. IV, Part 1 | Story of Civilization, Vol. IV, Part 2 | Story of Civilization, Vol. IV, Part 3 | Story of Civilization, Vol.IV, Part 4 | Story of Civilization, Vol.IV, Part 5 | Story of Civilization, Vol.IV, Part 6 | Story of Civilization, Vol.IV, Part 7 | Story of Civilization, Vol. IV, Part 8 | Story of Civilization, Vol.IV, Part 9
Books main page | B&N Bookstore | Suggest a Book for Discussion
We sometimes excerpt quotes from discussions to display on pages on SeniorNet's site or in print documents.
If you do NOT wish your words quoted, please contact Books.
Internet Citation Procedure

jane
March 6, 2006 - 06:17 pm
Remember to subscribe!

mabel1015j
March 6, 2006 - 10:53 pm
I just looked at some of the Western Civ texts i have used over the years and none of them even use the term "dark ages." They range from a "world cultures" text i used in the late 60's to a Western Civ I text i used in the late '90's.

Also checked two of them for Frederick info. Both had less than a paragraph about him....largely that he refused to be subservient to Innocent, waged a furious struggle for power, the outcome a disaster for the Holy Roman emporer who lost Sicily and saw his authority over the German princes evaporate. .....Germany stayed fragmented until the last part of the 19th century......jean

Justin
March 6, 2006 - 11:52 pm
Revisionism and under reporting are a problem with many modern texts.

Dan Griffith
March 8, 2006 - 11:44 pm

Dan Griffith
March 8, 2006 - 11:46 pm
Are we then moving on to Book V, Chapter XXVII "The Roman Catholic Church", 1095-1294 page 732?

robert b. iadeluca
March 9, 2006 - 03:41 am
Receiving very few postings, we are indeed doing that.

robert b. iadeluca
March 9, 2006 - 03:43 am
The Roman Catholic Church

1095-1294

robert b. iadeluca
March 9, 2006 - 03:45 am
The Faith of the People

robert b. iadeluca
March 9, 2006 - 03:58 am
"In many aspects religion is the most interesting of man's ways for it is his ultimate commentary on life and his only defense against death.

"Nothing is more moving, in medieval history, than the omnipresence, almost at times the omnipotence, of religion. It is difficult for those who today live in comfort and plenty to go down in spirit into the chaos and penury that molded medieval faiths.

"But we must think of the superstitions, apocalypses, idolatry, and credulity of medieval Christians, Moslems, and Jews with the same sympathy with which we should think of their hardships, their poverty and their griefs. The flight of thousands of men and women from 'the world, the flesh, and the Devil' into monasteries and nunneries suggests not so much their cowardice as the extreme disorder, insecurity, and violence of medieval life.

"It seemed obvious that the savage impulses of men could be controlled only by a supernaturally sanctioned moral code. Then, above all, the world needed a creed that would balance tribulation with hope -- soften bereavment with solace -- redeem the prose of toil with the poetry of belief -- cancel life's brevity with continuance -- and give an inspiring and ennobling significance to a cosmic drama that might else be a meaningless and intolerable procession of souls, species, and stars stumbling one by one into an inescapable extinction."

As usual, Durant takes what is often ignored in some boring history classes and, with his magnificent command of words, helps us to think through the eyes of people living in medieval times.

As we move on to and through this significant chapter, let us stay together and discuss only those texts which are being presented. Related links are, of course, always welcomed. Your comments, please?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
March 9, 2006 - 04:12 am
As we are about to discuss a specific religion and some new participants have joined us, it is appropriate that I re-print the caveat that was printed at the start of this volume.

"The following guidelines will be enforced by the Discussion Leader to avoid confrontations and digressions about personal religious views.

"1 - You may make one post describing your own beliefs related to religion (whether you have a religious faith or do not) in order to explain your viewpoint toward the topic at hand. Making additional posts about your religious beliefs or faith is not permitted.
2 - Do not speak of your religion or absence of religious beliefs as "the truth."
3 - Do not attempt to change another's conviction about religion. "Comments about issues are welcomed. Negative comments about other participants are not permitted.

"Those participants who do not believe they are being treated fairly in this respect always have the right to contact Marcie, Director of Education. I will follow her guidance."

Please note also that the new GREEN quotes in the Heading indicate where we are in the chapter and where we are going.

Robby

Scrawler
March 9, 2006 - 10:55 am
"Nothing is more moving, in medieval history, than the omnipresence, almost at times the omnipotence of religion. It is difficult for those who today live in comfort and plenty to go down in spirit into the chaos and penury that molded medieval faiths."

I take this to mean that organized religion became the answer to what was really a "class" war. Those who struggled against the world in poverty and hungar sought religion as a means of comforting the spirit since they were unable to live in the reality of the world. The rich also sought out religion as a means of assuring themselves a place in heaven by giving part of their riches to the church.

I can't help but wonder if only the rich conceived of the poor as themselves only turned inside out, whether they could have done more good helping those in need directly rather than turning to religion. Did religion really control "the savage impulses of men"?

mabel1015j
March 9, 2006 - 11:34 am
That last paragraph is beautiful. Is there a reason that Durant has chosen these years, listed in the title, to relate to the Roman Catholic Church, or is he just at this point in the history and is focusing this chapter on the church at that time? It's been a while since i studied/read medieval European history to remember some significance for the church at this time......jean

MeriJo
March 9, 2006 - 01:10 pm
I think Christianity gained strength while the world around Europeans at the beginning of the so-called Dark Ages became more protective. The Barbaric raids caused people - the incipient nobility, to build castles/fortresses with solid, impenetrable exteriors - crenolated parapets and the jutting out of the tower's rim to prevent an attacker from climbing over the parapet.

These truly isolated large groups of people - families - in a protective place along with a religious person such as a priest or brother would find another dimension of castle life. In the safety of a castle, a chapel would have been built and its presence would have lent a spiritual base for observing a religious way of life.

Dan Griffith
March 9, 2006 - 03:31 pm
With the decline, and fall of Rome the Dark Ages began, a period of total social breakdown, and a slow reordering, a time when much was forgotten, symbolized, I always thought by the early Goths in Italy burying their king Aleric in a marble bath tub because nobody could imagine any other purpose for such an object, since even the custom of taking a bath had been forgotten.

But like Durant pointed out someplace, in this world when something is dying, something new is being born to replace it". And that something new was the church.

Throughtout the Dark Ages the church provided a growing, and steadying social institution, that steadily took on more and more authority, even in the civil realm, and along with that growth came wealth and the inevitable aristocratic assumptions that go along with it.

The church did lots of things, many self serving, and unethical, and necessary to them in a profane world, but one good thing they did was keep alive Christianity which promised the only hope of kindness available in their brutal world, the only hope of something recognizable as justice in their crime saturated lives, and the only form of social order in a chaotic time.

Justin
March 9, 2006 - 03:45 pm
Durant explores the rationale for the European adoption of Roman Catholicism between 1095 and 1294. We examine this phenomenon in terms of the realities of Dark Age / Medieval life. These people were superstitious,fearful, credulous, and insecure in a violent world. The invasions from the north and east were slowly ending. Peasants,enslaved to others, worked long hours each and every day to win a hard scrabble existance, while defending against invading forces. These people were susceptible to a creed that appeared to balance tribulation with hope, to balance bereavement with solace, to cancel life's brevity with continuance, and to enoble the drama of life as it is really played out.

It will be later discovered that the creed brought little hope, no peace to the dying, and threats of an afterlife of painful continuance. The commonplace character of the drama of life was in itself enobling for it preserved the specie.

robert b. iadeluca
March 9, 2006 - 04:39 pm
"Christianity sought to meet these needs with a tremendous and epic conception of creation and human sin -- of the Virgin Mother and the suffering God -- of the immortal soul destined to face a Last Judgment -- to be damned to everlasting hell -- or to be saved for eternal bliss by a Church administering through her sacraments the divine grace earned by the Redeemer's death.

"It was within this encompassing vision that most Christian lives moved and found their meaning. The greatest gift of medieval faith was the upholding confidence taht right would win in the end and that every seeming victory of evil would at last be sublimiated in the unversal triumph of the good.

"The Last Judgment was the pivot of the Christian, as of the Jewish and the Moslem, faith.

"The belief in the Second Advent of Christ and the end of the world, as preludes to the Judgment, had survived the disappointments of the apostles, the passing of the year 1000, and the fears and hopes of forty generations. It had become less vivid and general but it had not died. 'Wise men' said Roger Bacon in 1271 , considered the end of the world to be near.

"Every great epidemic or disaster, every earthquake or comet or other extraordinary event was looked upon as heralding the end of the world.

"But even if the world continued, the souls and bodies of the dead would be resurrected at once to face their Judge."

People are afraid of uncertainty. What I see here is a certainty that the Church promised the people. They could then choose their own path.

Robby

Justin
March 9, 2006 - 07:14 pm
Yes, perhaps, fear of uncertainty, of not knowing what's next after death, is a significant concern for many people. Certainly it must have been so in 1095 after hearing the life after death hypothesis for a millennium from the Roman Church and for three millennia before that time from the Egyptian priests. It is religion that postulates life after death and that is the source of the uncertainty. Were one to recognize that life begins and ends for humans as it does for other animal life, there would be no cause for uncertainty for there would be no life after death to be uncertain about.

mabel1015j
March 9, 2006 - 07:16 pm
To clarify - i said Durant's words were poetic, i didn't say i agreed w/ them. But i think it is very easy to understand how religion would be comforting and acceptable to people who are experiencing so much horror, so much of the time......of course, the fourteenth century is still ahead of them - and us - I won't jump ahead, but as we talk about how awful these Dark Ages have been in so many ways, i can't help but think of the catastrophic 14th century that's ahead.....jean

Justin
March 9, 2006 - 07:18 pm
The only certainty the Chruch offers is that there is life after death. But,in truth, the only certainty is that humans will die. Life after death is speculation not certainty.

mabel1015j
March 9, 2006 - 07:24 pm
We go on from day to day I think because humans seem to have an innate optimism or hope that things are going to work out.....jean

Justin
March 9, 2006 - 07:44 pm
Jean: I think you raise a good question. Why does Durant choose to treat the Roman Church at this time? The Title of Book 5 is "The Climax of Christianity (1095-1300)." There are chapters dealing with the Crusades, the Twelfth century renaisance, the Church as an entity, the Inquisition, Monks,etc. In the context of the title, examination of the church as an entity in the 1095 period seems appropriate. This argument makes sense if the church is one thing in 1095 and quite another in 595. And I think that's the case. The various councils and eclesiastical conferences have changed the shape and appearance of the church over time. By 1095 much of what the church is today has hardened in place. Vatican 11 has ofcourse changed its appearance once again.

Justin
March 9, 2006 - 07:51 pm
I think what you say, Jean, is quite true, except of course for death and taxes. We deal with uncertainty by measuring risk in terms of probability and a man named Schumpeter has extended that capability by defining empirical probabilities.

robert b. iadeluca
March 10, 2006 - 05:28 am
"Men hoped vaguely for heaven but vividly feared hell.

"There was much tenderness in medieval Christianity, probably more than in any other religion in history, but the Catholic. like the early Protestant theology and preaching, felt called upon to stress the terror of hell. Christ was to this age no 'gentle Jesus meek and mild' but the stern avenger of every mortal sin.

"Nearly all churches showed some representative of Christ the Judge. Many had pictures of the Last Judgment and these portrayed the tortures of the damned more prominently than the bliss of the saved.

"St. Methodius, we are told, converted King Boris of Bulgaria by painting a picture of hell on the wall of the royal palace.

"Many mystics claimed to have had visions of hell and described its geography and terror. The monk Tundale, in the twelfth century reported exquisite details.

"In the center of hell, he said, the Devil was bound to a burning gridiron by redhot chains. His screams of agony never ended. His hands were free and reached out and seized the damned. His teeth crushed them like grapes. HIs fiery breath drew them down his burning throat.

"Assistant demons with hooks of iron plunged the bodies of the damned alternately into fire or icy water -- or hung them up by the tongue -- or sliced them with a saw -- or beat them flat on an anvil -- or boiled them or strained them through a cloth. Sulphur was mixed with the fire in order that a vile stench might be added to the discomforts of the damned but the fire gave no light so that horrible darkness surrounded the incalculable diversity of pains.

"The Church herself gave no official location or description of hell but she frowned upon men who, like Origen, doubted the reality of its material fires.

"The purpose of the doctrine would have been frustrated by its mitigation. St. Thomas Aquinas held that 'the fire which will torment the bodies of the damned is corporeal' and located hell in 'the lowest part of the earth.'"

This is enough to give anyone nightmares. I wonder what kind of a man Tundale was that such thoughts should rise up in his mind.

Robby

mabel1015j
March 10, 2006 - 10:57 am
only a means to frighten people into behaving, or is there another reason for those images being presented?

I remember in reading "Mornings on Horseback" D McCullough's book on T Roosevelt that TR as a small boy seemed to be so frightened of the hell and brimstone sermons, that Saturday nights were when he most often had his asthma attacks, relieving him of the frightening experience of going to church on Sunday morning. How many more children, or adults, have had emotional/physical problems related to these preachings? I assume in some churches this is still going on, but in most mainstream churches, thank goodness, those stories are no longer acceptable......again i say 'we live in the best of times.'.......jean

MeriJo
March 10, 2006 - 11:11 am
Let us remember that no one's body accompanies him/her into the after life. Tundale must have had an overload of some chemical in his brain.

I like to give the so-called Dark Ages a hint of light here. Although making it necessary for much of the time after the Fall of Rome to recover and regroup, it is a time when virtually all of the classic literature of the ancient times were copied and saved from destruction and for the benefit of future generations.

It also was the time when household arts flourished within the walls of the castles, and progress came about slowly, but surely. The beautiful clothing and embroidery and weaving of tapestries and crude progress in heating and lighting. People were always striving to improve and the urge to create was there.

I like to think that many of the traditions we celebrate today around the holidays began then - The Yule Log and the Wassail Bowl at Christmas the music of the madrigals, and the events to encourage socializing often in the celebration of a saint's day, Mary or Jesus. Life was very short, and marriage was early in life. I think positive activity was evident during hose years, and perhaps not so dark, after all.

Scrawler
March 10, 2006 - 11:11 am
My question is why the "church"? If these people were afraid of the uncertainly of the future, why turn to the church? Why not turn to a political person or to someone with in the family groupings. What did the church have to offer that no one else seems to have?

It would seem to me that if you were a poor farmer trying to make a living from the earth the extravagance of the church during the medieval period would have been the last thing I would have turned to.

mabel1015j
March 10, 2006 - 12:46 pm
it's interesting how when something has been labeled it becomes the label and anything opposing the label is overlooked......jean

MeriJo
March 10, 2006 - 01:41 pm
Scrawler:

You ask a question many people wonder about. I have the idea that there is a need within people to have a resource for comfort, a source beyond one's conscience for knowledge of right and wrong when needing to make a choice, and having made the choice may be reassured and move on in life.

The church provided that in its statements and in its good ministers. A person with leadership qualities would and does last for a lifetime and then pass from this world. The Church would attract people to live a religious life, a life to continue teaching its principles and when these lives were over there were /are others to carry on the work.

Many people are inspired by the words of a poet and or a philospher and keep his/her books at hand, but sometimes people will move over to different poets and philosophers. The Church's points are constant, and are always presented the same way. Their success for people depends on the way individuals interpret them.

It is known from history that peoples have always turned to something outside themselves for "signs" from which to choose in order to move on. The Church provided visible and tangible signs, and each one could respond according to his/her lights for an answer.

Justin
March 10, 2006 - 01:47 pm
Yes, Today's Dubai deal has some of that in it. The thought that the "Dark Ages" were universally dark is a mistaken notion as is the thought that an Arab is an Arab is an Arab. The American Indian had a similar problem. Settlers thought there were no good Indians.

Justin
March 10, 2006 - 02:21 pm
We are in 1095. The Dark Ages are at an end. The Twelfth Century renaisance is about to start along with the Crusades. Before we leave this sad period in European life it would be well to say something about the nature of the dark period.

The period ran from the fall of Rome in the sixth century to the birth of Abelard in the eleventh century. The period is described as dark because there was no time for learning. Europe was over run by barbarians. They came from the east and from the North. When one is attacked there is nothing more vital than defense. It absorbs one. Durant has told us again and again that civilization depends on one being free, that is having the leisure time, to smell the flowers.

That is the reason for the "Dark Ages". The period was characterized by the spread of superstition which grew into the Roman Church. It can be said another way. The Church, struggling for its existance took advantage of a fearful people by offering them life after death and a chance for paradise. When that is compared with the immediate condition it appears to be a superior opportunity.

The Dark Ages are thought to end with the birth of Abelard because Abelard provided the first real challenge to the grip of religious superstition. Let us follow Durant and Robby closely so that when we come to Abelard we will know what it is that he is challenging.

Justin
March 10, 2006 - 03:10 pm
It was the creation of human sin and the adoption of the power of absolution through a suffering God that made Hell and damnation a palatable concept.

Merijo tells us it is not the body that suffers. It is the immortal soul that endures the flaming punishment. It is a wonderfully intricate involved construct that the poor fearful wretch is offered for salvation. If one can just confess before death everything will be ok. That's why "shot in the back" is frowned upon. There is no chance to make amends with God.

This promise of reward for conformity, for forgiven sin, reminds me of the tens of thousands of Iranian youth who, weaponless, charged the Iraqui guns while wearing a plastic key to heaven where access to seventy virgins was assured. They were mowed down by the thousands but they prevailed because they continued to advance upon the guns long after the guns were out of amunition.

We were shocked in WW11 to find Divine Wind people willing to suicide in order to stop the Allies. We are shocked today to see suicide bombers blowing up innocents in the name of a God who promises virgin rewards in heaven.

I sometimes wonder about the motivation of these religious people who induce such behavior in people. Can it be power they seek?

Mallylee
March 10, 2006 - 03:53 pm
I trust it's not too late to join your discussion of these pages. I wonder just which medieval Christians were believers in real Heaven and real Hell. The village priests were an ignorant lot, so I have heard, but were the early popes not aware that Christianity, with its belief system of supernatural rewards and punishments ,necessary for keeping order?

3kings
March 10, 2006 - 04:22 pm
Justin I'm glad you took the time to remind us that the term "Dark Ages" referred, not to the condition of the general populace, but rather to the paucity of records of events and personages of the era.

The advancement of life style of ordinary folk in Western Europe, stagnated after the Roman destruction of Greek civilisation, right up to 11th-12th centuries. And following the fall of Rome, even the upper classes' condition sank into ignorance.

The Arab and Hindu intelligentsia preserved and augmented the science and arts of Greece, and the Dark Ages ended when the returning Crusaders brought back from the Arabs, those faint sparks of knowledge that began to disperse the European's enveloping ignorance. ++ Trevor

mabel1015j
March 10, 2006 - 04:49 pm

3kings
March 10, 2006 - 05:11 pm
MalllyleeLet me be among the first to welcome you to this discussion. You will find much of interest here I'm sure.

You wrote, "but were the early popes not aware that Christianity, with its belief system of supernatural rewards and punishments ,necessary for keeping order?"

I feel Christianity is not about "supernatural rewards and punishments". Those things are a derivative of "Churchianity", and the followers of St. Paul. They leaned rather heavilly on the philosophy of the Old Testament, and failed to enhance Christ's teachings.

As I understand it, Christianity is about love and forgivness, not punishment. I think you have put your finger on the great schism between the religious and today's "non believer". ++ Trevor

3kings
March 10, 2006 - 05:23 pm
Mabel1015j History for me is most definitely an avocation, as my stumbling remarks in these pages so clearly show ! BG ++ Trevor

robert b. iadeluca
March 10, 2006 - 05:58 pm
Mallylee and I are good friends in the discussion about "Origin of Species."

Robby

Justin
March 10, 2006 - 06:11 pm
History was a vocation but I have been "retired " so long the distinction is probably no longer relevant.

Justin
March 10, 2006 - 06:13 pm
Welcome, Mallylee. Any friend of Robby's is a friend of mine.

Justin
March 10, 2006 - 06:27 pm
Trevor:I hear from time to time that Christianity is about love and forgivness and not about punishment. You use a special term to indicate that all that mean stuff came from Paul and was expanded and implemented by the Church. Even Durant acknowledges that in this pile of infrastructure somewhere is a gentle Jesus, meek and mild. It would be nice if someone could really make the case for this mild form of Christianity. I cannot find the evidence to support it.

JoanK
March 10, 2006 - 08:39 pm
Welcome. Mallylee. You definitely aren't too late. This discussion will go on for years.

Guys, could we have a little less discussion of what WE believe and a little more of what people in 1095 believed. We are studying history, not philosophy.

Justin
March 10, 2006 - 09:52 pm
I agree JoanK. I slipped off the the target a little. We are of course dealing with the structure of the Church as it appeared in 1095 as well as the beliefs of people in 1095. Keep us on target.

Dan Griffith
March 11, 2006 - 02:50 am
The era of which we speak was out of control, and too, too dangerous, if you didn't die in some skermish serving your lord's ambitions, there was always famine, malnutrition, damp and dirty living conditions, or getting sick in an era of zero medical knowledge.

There was all the chaos that men's passions, free from outside restrictions a larger government might provide, could generate.

It seems to me the church promised to rein in those passions, and remind those who were strong, that a morality outside ruthlessness did in fact exist, was bigger than any one man's ambitions, and contained within it the promise of punishments for wrong doing.

The unrestricted bad behavior was the cause of many woes in the Dark Ages,combined with ignorance building upon ignorance, and the church promised the victims a mitigation of their troubles, and promised the strong redemption for their numerous sins.

The church taught human sin could only be mitigated by the Virgin Mother, the suffering God, the Last Judgement, the sacrements bestowing devine grace earned by the Redeemer.

I'm not sure what Durrant means by the "disappointments of the apostles".

But church theory promised the Second Advent of Christ, and the end of the world, and final judgement, and attached great importance to the year 1000, a year in which, embarrassingly, nothing significant happened.

And as we still see in today's charismatic evangelical Christians, "every great epidemic, or disaster, every earthquake or comet, or other extraordinary event was looked upon as heralding the end of the world", The fact that again, and again, these events did not herald the Second Coming, or the end of the world, then, as now, only caused the theory to be modified.

robert b. iadeluca
March 11, 2006 - 05:12 am
Oh, my God, Joan K!! This discussion will go on for years? No one told me that!

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
March 11, 2006 - 05:52 am
Please excuse this interruption into our discussion about the Roman Catholic Church. But many of us here followed Durant as he told us about the Islam and Jewish religions so I believe this LINK is relevant. After you have given your reactions (if any) we will return to the RC Church.

Robby

Mallylee
March 11, 2006 - 03:33 pm
Thanks for your welcome to this interesting discussion, I read the NYT article. That was a brave act!

I dont see the world against a backdrop of any religious beliefs.I am responsible for my own beliefs.I do hope to understand something of the medieval world view from this discussion.

I wrote earlier that I thought that mediaval Christianity was for social control, and now I wonder if it was also to inject some certainty and meaning into a world that was over full of death and danger of death.

Certainly we today never know when we will face the moment of death, but we have many more defences than medieval poor, and even medieval rich people. We have world trade to stave off local famines. We have fuel and housing that we can rely on to be fairly permanent.We have medical care that very often prevents our deaths.The medievals had none of that, they were at the mercy of local catastrophes.No wonder that they needed `the promise of an afterlife to give some meaning to earthly life!

Jesus was not meek and mild then,that's a 19th century interpretation, he was a stern judge and enforcer of the law

Mallylee
March 11, 2006 - 03:37 pm
I wonder if Dr Sultan sees the end of religions as we knew them, the death of God and all that, or if she thinks of herself as a secular person because she thinks Islam can adapt in some way to the 21st century.

Justin
March 11, 2006 - 03:56 pm
Merijo; How does your view that no bodies will burn in hell square with Acquinas' view that "the fire which will torment the bodies of the damned is corporeal."

A good view of the bodies in Hell can be found on Rodin's doors. If Mal is up to it, perhaps she can find those doors for us.

Justin
March 11, 2006 - 04:30 pm
Mallylee. I thought that was what Durant said about Jesus. He was a stern judge in those days not meek and mild. However, that said, the question then is where did all that meek and mild stuff come from. It's quite prevalent today.

The Churches of France and Spain in 1095 were full of imagery about rotting corpses depicting the short span of life and giving warning about death's unexpected imminence. Therefore one must be free of the stain of sin at all times. Some of these depictions have survived and may be viewed today in various churches. In some depictions one side reveals the form of a healthy person and the other a dead rotting scene of the same person.

Justin
March 11, 2006 - 04:43 pm
In this Roman Catholic infrastructure lie the roots of the concept defining woman as a source of evil. She lies with the devil and produces incubi and monsters. Her smiles and charms are bait to lure the devil's victims. We burned the poor lassies at the stake to purge them of their evil even unto modern times. Seventeenth century America was witness to some women laden incubi who were heated up and fried.

Malryn
March 11, 2006 - 04:54 pm

The Gates of Hell by Rodin. Click "Image Viewer" for larger image

MeriJo
March 11, 2006 - 06:28 pm
Justin:

In my instruction through the sixteen years - never was I described what you decribe. On the contrary, women were/are held on an equal level with man, and if you did read this, as I feel sure you did, I can only guess that the writer was a precursor of Cotton Mather and /or Jonathan Edwards. Some times creative humans develop and devise extraordinary images. They may have an image in mind to present what evil may do to a person - much as we notice today when one has abused himself/herself physically - or has been abused because of imprisonment or devastating illness or abandonment.

During the Middle Ages, there were those who wanted to impart a feeling of horror and extreme punishment for the commission of sins, and here is where those pieces of art originated - in the mind of the creator of that art.

There were many extreme things that took place then, but at the same time the Church produced scholars, scientists, humanitarians and other people in constructive and positives ways of life - often in spite of all kinds of odds - all giving good examples for living life.

The body is supposed to combine with the soul at the end of time, and, supposedly depending on that soul's condition the body will so be defined.

During the Middle Ages, the scriptures were only then beginning to be examined and exegeses were developed for various passages in them. As these studies continued and especially during Vatican II, there was a collection of new translations and meanings given to many of those older translations and meanings. Hell is supposed to be a place where God is not seen by those there. It supposedly lacks the element of happiness. It is not supposedly a place of fire and wrath. Studies are continuing in all areas of the scriptures.

MeriJo
March 11, 2006 - 06:29 pm
Malryn:

Thank you for the link.

Justin
March 11, 2006 - 07:38 pm
Merijo: Defensive revision is quite common today and an ok thing to do in certain circles but we learn nothing about the errors of man in revised history and we are then prone to repeat them again and again.

This painful view of women as the devil's agent is still with us though it is rapidly disappearing. When I was a boy women had to be "churched" after a pregnancy. In Islam, a woman fulfilling her days delivered in a special tent set apart from the rest of the tribe. She had to be purified after menstruation. Among the Jews a woman was relegated to "upstairs" in the synagogue.

The gals have had a bad time of it. There is little sign of the equality you mention either in the past or today. Women break through the "glass ceiling" only by force of arms.

robert b. iadeluca
March 12, 2006 - 07:22 am
"More alarming was the doctrine that 'many are called but few are chosen' (Matt. xxii, 14). Orthodox theologians -- Mohammedan as well as Christian -- held that the vast majority of the human race would go to hell.

"Most Christian theologians took literally the statement ascribed to Christ:-'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned' (Matt xvi, 16).

"St. Augustine reluctantly concluded that infants dying before being baptized went to hell.

"St. Anselm thought that the damnation of unbaptized infants (vicariously guilty through the sin of Adam and Eve) was no more unreasonable than the slave status of children born to slaves -- which he considered reasonable.

"The Church softened the doctrine by teaching that unbaptized infants went not to hell but to limbo -- Infernus puerorum -- where their only suffering was the pain of the loss of paradise.

"Most Christians believed that all Moslems -- and most Moslems (Mohammed excepted) believed that all Christians -- would go to hell.

"It was generally accepted that all 'heathen' were damned.

"The Fourth Lateran Council declared that no man could be saved outside the Universal Church.

"Pope Gregory IX condemned as heresy Raymond Lully's hope that 'God hath such love for His people that almost all men will be saved, since, if more were damned than saved, Christ's mercy would be without great love.

"No other prominent churchmen allowed himself to believe -- or say -- that the saved would outnumber the damned.

"Berthold of Regensburg, one of the most famous and popular preachers of the thirteenth century, reckoned the proportion of the damned to the saved as a hundred thousand to one.

"St. Thomas Aquinas thought that 'in this also doth God's mercy chiefly appear, that He raiseth a few to that salvation wherefrom very many fail.'

"Volcanoes were supposed by many to be the mouths of hell. their rumbling was a faint echo of the moans of the damned. Gregory the Great argued tahat the crater of Etna was daily widening to receive the enormous number of souls that were fated to be damned. The congested bowels of the earth held in their hot embrace the great majority of all the human beings that had ever been born. From that hell there would be no respite nor escape through all eternity.

Said Berthold:- Count the sands of the seashore, or the hairs that have grown on man or beast since Adam. Reckon a year of torment for each grain or hair and that span of time would hardly represent the beginning of the agony of the condemned.

"The last moment of a man's life was decisive for all eternity. The fear that that final moment might find one sinful and unshrived lay heavy on men's souls."

I'm sure that there many who lived in that era who wished that they had never been born -- better to be not born than know of your fiery fate. As no man is perfect, the guilt must have been terrible. Mental illness must have been rampant.

Robby

MeriJo
March 12, 2006 - 09:52 am
Justin:

I learned that the understanding of church tenets develped slowly. One must remember that Jesus did not write anything. It was all verbal instruction. St. Paul was not a contemporary of Jesus, hence his views were incipient in the teaching of the faith based on what every other early teacher in the Church was saying or had documented. As time progressed, and evidence came along via science, discovery, scholarly studies, the development of common sense that an all-loving God would protect and not condemn one of his children to such a cruel eternity, the focus of the Church became more positive. It took years.

Some very weird things went on during the Middle Ages. I think it was a matter of power and control by some in charge.

I wasn't churched after each of my children's birth. I really didn't hear of it. It sounds as though it was a voluntary prayer in some parishes for new mothers who had recently "gone through the valley of death " in giving birth.

Some of the women of the Middle Ages who were scholars and some who were mystics include, St. Catherine of Siena, St, Theresa of Avila, and St. Jeanne d'Arc.

Actually women did not live very long as a group. That is why it took so long to break the "glass ceiling." I, for one, never felt oppressed nor in a lower social place because I was a woman. Maybe it is just my personality.

MeriJo
March 12, 2006 - 09:58 am
Robby:

The biblical quote of "Many are called but few are chosen," was in reference to those who would choose the religious life of a priest, brother (monk) or nun. In my time, that is the only meaning I was given for that quotation.

It is an example of why the need for a center of study re the Scriptures developed. There were too many individual translations of excerpts in the Bible.

Limbo for infants or the unbaptized is considered not to exist. This is a recent declaration, and may still be under study, but it is the belief more than not now that innocents will not go to such a place for eternity.

Good for Raymond Lully. I had not heard of him.

Mallylee
March 12, 2006 - 10:08 am
Justin#49

Is that where i read this? I have difficulty remembering where I pick up ideas mainly because I read different stuff about the same topics. In fact, quite coincidentally I got the Sea of Faith mag which has as this edition's main theme the zero-future of religions in view of the evolution that has taken place since medieval world view.

I must niow re-read the article to try to find out where all that meek and mild stuff came from. I am myself steeped in the meek and mild story, and so I cannot imagine how it's not the true story, the Beatitudes for instance.

Scrawler
March 12, 2006 - 12:35 pm
Last night I watched the movie, "A Man for All Seasons." It was a beautiful portrayal of a man who was willing to die for his beliefs rather than accept the marriage of Henry VII and Anne Bolyn. But I think men like Sir Thomas Moore were few and far between. It seemed to me that most men and women would have done anything to get some comfort in their daily lives.

What was the church afraid of that they created such myths like those that said women were unworthy and lay with the devil? It seems to me that the church grew richer during these times from the very women they condemned. For it was and still is women who hold the responsibility of the morals for their individual families.

Justin
March 12, 2006 - 03:18 pm
This RC infrastructure is an amazing thing to me. They made it up as they went along. When policy became too obviously absurd like 100,000 to one and innocent babes were in the fiery pits of hell they invented limbo to cover that loop hole. I hear Limbo is gone to day. Merijo says they are studying it. What's to study. It's like celibacy. The thing is troublesome. Get rid of it. What a joke. Purgatory was invented to take some of the edge off this pain of everlasting life in hell. If Limbo is gone, what I wonder, is the current policy about babes in hell and the poor unbeliever.

How does one get loved ones out of Purgatory?. Prayer is the answer and the purchase of indulgences or are they only for oneself.The thought of people I love suffering in Purgatory, never Hell, would be too much to bear. Just think about all the anguish this kind of religious rule making brings about and all the pain and suffering it causes the living. . This is a good thing?

MeriJo
March 12, 2006 - 05:10 pm
Scrawler:

I doubt very much if the stories about women were perpetrated and/or perpetuated by the Church teachings. It is these teachings which venerated Mary, and which venerated Elizabeth, the Mother of John the Baptist, and Anne, the mother of Mary. There are other instances cited in the Scriptures and Church History. I do not doubt that some who disliked the Church/Christianity for one reason or another or women for one reason or another perpetuated these stories. We cannot control what people say or what people think.

Heavens, because I was of Italian heritage in a very anti-Southern European town while growing up in California, I was told my father was a bloody Italian, and it was insinuated Italians were less than desireable. Here, as we know from history, Italy and other Southern European countries are the source of the enhancement of the civilization we know today. One cannot combat ignorance very quickly. It takes a lifetime or two or three generations at least. And most of all it takes the right frame of mind and a willingness to understand.

Justin:

In all my life I have never heard of the Church's infrastructure. I have heard of its organization, but not its infrastructure.

Celibacy has nothing to do with the Church beliefs. Men in the Eastern Rite marry. This is a way of life men in the Western Rite choose to devote their lives completely to doing the work of God. This can be eliminated someday. It is not a law, but a choice, found in the Latin Church. If the candidate doesn't want to be celibate, he can look into the Eastern Rite.

The selling of indulgences was done by medieval priests who wanted to make money. This is simony, a sin. The Church never sold indulgences - but maybe some renegade clerics did. It just takes one bad apple to ruin a barrel of good apples. Remember, the Church is people.

As for making it up as they went along remember that in the secular life knowledge of the planet, Earth, was gained as time went along. It was thought to be flat for years. And Columbus's sailors were afraid of sea dragons and other monsters once they got beyond sight of land as they went in a westerly direction. Also, don't forget, they had no way of knowing longitude in those days, and they were afraid legitimately going into uncharted waters. If out there for too many days they could very well have hallucinated for lack of proper food. Any sailor who survived a harrowing sea voyage may very well have had a tale to tell of sea dragons and monsters. Civilization grew very slowly.

Justin
March 12, 2006 - 07:23 pm
Merijo: Infrastructure is my word for the bridges and roads the church has built over the years to the mind of man. Nothing sacrilegious or difficult to understand here. It's a metaphor for educational and public relations technique.

I think you hit on the issue this time. The church is human and it makes human errors. Roman Catholicism is a human creation. Durant and I and others are talking about a human creation and it's foibles. It is little different from a presidential administration. It makes giant blunders and struggles with damage control through denial and diversion. We can laugh about presidential blunders(somtimes painfully).

Mallylee
March 13, 2006 - 07:48 am
How did Jesus who for Christians is the paradigm human being, change from being a figure dispensing stern justice to a figure epitomising meekness and gentleness?

I have been searching, and have found nothing. Can anybody please give me a reference?

The only thing I can come up with (over-simplified)is that industrialisation changed the economy of a subject peasant feudalism as it's called,to a system where labourers and artisans were paid in money, and were therefore much more free to arrange their own lives.

The urban induststrial economy needed its workers but the workers were beyond the old controls of feudal class structure that the stern and judemental Jesus religious regime imitated.

The docile Jesus who inhabited the huge new city churches that were built for the urban masses , was a model for a docile work force in an age that had discovered the joys of individualism.Capitalism needs a docile work force.

To look ahead to the possible evolution from the 19th century industrialisation in Europe and America: the gentle and kind Jesus figure may head up the new and necessary ideal of green Christianity. Green Christianity may be a development hastened by the loving and gentle Jesus figure together with the death of the old authoritarian God of metaphysical dogmatism

mabel1015j
March 13, 2006 - 11:54 am
Those factors have given every individual in the world an opportunity to interpret bits and pieces of it to their satisfaction - well, no, not every individual, for the first 1900 years it was largely the clergy who were literate who did the interpretation. The clergy are representatives of the church, acting for the church, are they not? Perhaps the phrase "blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth," attributed to Jesus, lead some clergy along the way to think that that was an important factor in Jesus' way of life?....jean

mabel1015j
March 13, 2006 - 12:00 pm
Didn't Paul in his letters to the Corinthians, have some denigrating things to say about women and the subservient position that they should be in? And aren't those passages still being used to keep women from being prients in the RC Church? As we observe the College of Cardinals, we must presume that their is some institutional discrimination against women, even tho women are the majority of the workers and supporters of the institution.......jean

Justin
March 13, 2006 - 02:44 pm
There were some images of Jesus early on depicting a young, beardless, shepard carrying a lamb upon his shoulders. These were found in the caves used as catacombs.

So the idea of a gentle Jesus has been with us a long time. I think in some periods that role is brought to the fore and in other periods it is in retreat. The stern pantocrator was very evident in the Medieval period and through much of the Renaisance.

Rembrandt depicted Him with children in the 16th century, perhaps for the first time. This was during a period and in a place, when Protestantism was replacing Catholicism, due to the sternness of Jesus' followers. They were burning and torturing folks for not being one of theirs.

I think the concept of a gentle Jesus is a fairly modern one though I cannot point to this or that as evidence of change.

MeriJo
March 13, 2006 - 03:15 pm
mabel:

This is a very difficult thing for me to discuss what was written in the Bible from a cold start into the subject.

The Bible story supports the teaching of the Catholic Faith, but it is not one of the clearly defined documents for our faith, because so many wrote it, and it was misinterpreted, or interpreted literally and still is. There are four kinds of writing in the Bible and can be very mysterious for the layman to study and read. That is why we were not advised to read the Bible independently without the opportunity to ask questions of one who would be more expert. In my day, we did not study the Bible - but Bible history - so I am not conversant as a Biblical scholar, more on the actual teachings. Also, I have not participated in the Adult Bible Studies that have been introduced in many parishes. I did teach doctrine, but, as a volunteer, at an elementary school level.

St. Paul was speaking to the Corinthians. In his day, Corinth was known to be dissolute, and his letters were directed at the people of Corinth. The women had been participating at worship without the head covering normal in Greek society of the period.

In reading those passages, here again, Paul refers to a theological hierarchical organization of sociosexual society in ancient times. These defined men as the head and women as submissive, but each of these terms are in reference to the church's teachings and not men or women per se.

Last year I got a new translation of the Bible, and there are columns of explanations and notes along with the text. It would be overlong for here, but in no way is Paul's letters to the Corinthians written as to demean or dislocate women.

The reason given for women not being priests is that the hierarchy through the centuries in both the Eastern and Western Rites has recognized that the priest is the direct representative of Christ, a male. In administering the various rituals of the Church priests reflect the ministry of Jesus who established Christianity.

If as time goes on it is decided that there is no impediment to women being priests as defined in the Bible and/or tradition the world may see a change.

MeriJo
March 13, 2006 - 03:42 pm
Justin: Your #62

There is a difference in the human creation of Roman Catholicism. This is a term that had its origins after Constantine remained in Constantinople and allowed the Church to be divided into a western and eastern discipline. Eventually the Roman base which used Latin as its language became known as the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern/Byzantine became known as the Eastern Catholic Church, with an early Greek language but it fractured off into Greek, Russian, Serbian, Armenian etc. and this is another story.

Originally, Christianity had its beginnings because of the command by Jesus to go forward and teach all nations. All his teachings had been oral during the three years of his public ministry and the remaining teachings he gave following his resurrection for 40 days. Everything was verbal, but, it wasn't until Pentecost - fifty days after Easter that it is believed that the Holy Spirit inspired the poorly educated Apostles to be able to present his teachings.

History relates of the appearance of the doctors of the Church who began putting together writings of the oral teachings - Augustine, Cyril, Origen, Tertullian, and others. From these hesitant and mixed starts in developing literature about Christianity, Catholicism began to be documented.

It is the understanding that Catholicism has that God "will be with us all days even unto the end of time" that gives its teachings worth. God is with the Church in the person of the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, in spite of its human missteps, it is seen to survive because essentially it is being watched over by God.

Justin
March 13, 2006 - 05:25 pm
Merijo; I am amazed that after 16 years of indoctrination you are still not allowed to read the Bible without someone else on hand to explain what is said in that document. Has the Bible ever been listed on the Index?

robert b. iadeluca
March 13, 2006 - 06:07 pm
Let us not get too much into each other's backgrounds, teachings, and beliefs. Let us move on with the words of Durant.

"These terrors were in some careful measure mitigated by the doctrine of purgatory.

"Prayers for the dead were a custom as old as the Church. Penances undergone, and Masses said, to aid the dead, can be traced as far back as 250.

"Augustine had discussed the possibility of a place of purging punishment for sins forgiven but not fully atoned for before death.

"Gregory I had approved the idea and had suggested that the pains of souls in purgatory might be shortened and softened by the prayers of their living friends.

"The theory did not fully capture popular belief until Peter Damian, about 1070, gave it the afflatus of his fevered eloquence.

"In the twelfth century it was advanced by the spread of a legend that St. Patrick, to convince some doubters, had allowed a pit to be dug in Ireland, into which several monks descended. Some returned, said the tale, and described purgatory and hell with discouraging vividness.

"The Irish knight Owen claimed to have gone down through that pit into hell in 1153. His account of his nether experiences had a prodigious success.

"Tourists came from afar to visit this pit. Financial abuses developed. Pope Aleexander VI, in 1497, ordered it closed as an imposture."

Your comments about this paragraph, please?

Robby

Rich7
March 13, 2006 - 06:33 pm
News to me. There is nothing in scripture about purgatory? It's a later Catholic Church invention? Disregard the word "invention":- Augustine and Pope Gregory thought it was a "good idea" which explained a lot of theological gaps?

According to Durant, it began to take popular hold around the 11th century. How convenient for the selling of indulgences (time-off in purgatory for a price).

Justin
March 13, 2006 - 07:35 pm
Rich: It was an "afflatus" of the first order, this creation of a place to mitigate the sins of a certain degree. As I understand the concept, not all sinners get a shot at Purgatory. It is for those sinners whose sin has been classified as less than mortal. There is also something in the rules about "absolved but unatoned" that provides the ticket to the gates of Purgatory. It has been many years since I read Dante's Purgatorio. One must be familiar with the rules to fully appreciate the tale. .

Justin
March 13, 2006 - 07:40 pm
If Hell is inhabited by all those in the world who are not Muslim and all those who are not Catholic, Heaven is deserted. The Marine Hymn not withstanding.

Justin
March 13, 2006 - 08:01 pm
Wouldn't you know that St. Patrick's hole to Hell would attract tourists. I wonder if they showed up with sketch book in hand. Hell hole hawkers must have made money selling souvenirs. These things strike me as funny but they are sad commentary on the gulibility of humans. The relic fever which took hold in this period is of a similar nature. Good taste should tell us to leave this kind of thing alone. Let it pass without comment. But to do so is to ignore the seriousness with which it is taken and the damage done by human gulibility.

Mallylee
March 14, 2006 - 01:05 am
I wonder if ideas such as purgatory and hell were BELIEVED IN by ppeople such as popes and scholars, or if these ideas were created specially to be fed to the flocks as the only social control they were assumed to be capable of understanding.

I cannot imagine that a scholar like Thomas Aquinas who followed on Aristotelian thought , would have been interested in real purgatory or real hell. But I don't know.

(Googled to religioustolerance.org.)

Yes. I am afraid Aquinas did "That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly, they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell." Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 CE), Summa Theologica. 5

Rich7
March 14, 2006 - 07:50 am
"That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly, they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell." Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 CE), Summa Theologica. 5

Nothing like watching a lot of people He has condemmed to eternal suffering to make you love God more.

Rich

MeriJo
March 14, 2006 - 10:48 am
Justin:

It isn't that Catholics are not allowed to read the Bible, it is because of the different writing and meanings of some of the writings with most people not recognizing that the words had different meanings at the time these were written. It is best to have proper exegesis of the literal sense or else we have misunderstandings such as those folks who believe in handling serpents (much to their regret).

A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.

mabel1015j
March 14, 2006 - 11:52 am
I think we are agreeing about the reality of what was written or interpreted, we disagree about the consequences........jean

Scrawler
March 14, 2006 - 12:33 pm
It seems to me part of the problem involving women with the Church might go back to the ancient religions of Greece, Rome and Egypt, where there were sects that actually worshiped women as goddesses. Perhaps the Roman Catholic Church wanted to make it clear that women, because of original sin could not and would not be worshiped for any reason. Some of their priests, like Paul, just went a little overboard to make their point.

Wow! Owen went to Hell and back and lived to tell about it. Now is there any scientific proof that this could be done. It doesn't seem logical to me. Than is the church really about "logic."

MeriJo
March 14, 2006 - 12:39 pm
mabel 1015:

Thank you. You're welcome:

The consequences, whether good or bad, are the result of the choices made by individuals. Folks today are living in a world decided by the choices of past individuals.

It may be compared to baking a cake. Follow the recipe and the cake is fine and light and good.

Independently change the basic recipe adding too much dry ingredients and reducing the liquid and one may have a doorstop.

mabel1015j
March 14, 2006 - 12:56 pm
Can we separate the institutionalized decisions from "the Church?" History includes the decision-making and the consequences of the decisions. "The Church" has had enormous impact on history both for good and bad. It seems to me that the period we are discussing provided decisions that have had much more negative consequence thruout the rest of history than it has had positive consequence. There seem to be huge egos who are more interested in having power and influence than on perpetuating any teachings of Jesus.....jean

Justin
March 14, 2006 - 01:55 pm
Well said,Jean.

MeriJo
March 14, 2006 - 04:59 pm
mabel:

There is no doubt that what you say is true. Large egos always ovewhelm. In the context of these egos being churchmen much wrong was done. Wrong always stands out, doesn't it, when it is so obvious?

Women Who Influenced Christian Civilization

robert b. iadeluca
March 14, 2006 - 06:30 pm
"What proportion of the people in medieval Christendom accepted the doctrines of Christianity?

"We hear of many heretics but most of these admitted the basic tenets of the Christian creed.

"At Orleans in 1017 two men 'among the worthiest in lineage and learning' denied creation -- the Trinity, heaven, and hell as 'mere ravings.'

"John Salisbury, in the twelfth century, tells of hearing many persons talk 'otherwse than faith may hold.'

"In that century, says Villani, there were at Florence epicureans who scoffed at God and the saints and lived 'according to the flesh.'

"Giraldus Cambrensis tells of an unnamed priest who, reproved by another for careless celebration of the Mass, asked whether his critic really believed in transubstantiation, the Incarnation, the Virgin birth, and resurrection -- adding tht all this had been invented by cunning ancients to hold men in terror and restraint and was now carried on by hypocrites.

"The same Gerald of Wales quotes the scholar Simon of Tournai as crying out one day:-'Almighty God! How long will this superstitious sect of Christians, and this upstart invention endure?'

"Of this Simon the story is told that in a lecture he proved by ingenious arguments the doctrine of the Trinity and then, elated by the applause of his audiences, boasted that he could disprove the doctrine with yet stronger arguments. Whereupon, we are told, he was immediately stricken with parlysis and idiocy.

"About 1200 Peter, Prior of Holy Trinity in Aldgate, London, wrote:-'There are some who believe that there is no God and that the world is ruled by chance. There are many who believe neither in good or evil angels, nor in life after death, nor in any other spiritual and invisible thing.'

"Vincent of Beauvais mourned that many 'derided visions and stories' (of the saints) 'as vulgar fables or lying inventions' and added 'we need not wonder if such tales get no credence from men who believe not in hell."

So not everyone in that era was a believer.

Robby

Justin
March 14, 2006 - 07:36 pm
Clearly, we can not all be a link in the daisy chain. I wonder how much shift, if any, has occurred in the ratio of believers to non believers. Are there more or fewer proportionally today?

mabel1015j
March 14, 2006 - 08:28 pm
has her facts all wrong. ..."the Age of Faith. A period, by the way, feminists like to represent as the most oppressive because it was not egalitarian and vulgar, but hierarchical and sacral."

In fact, feminists and women's history scholars know very well that there were women who had much influence and some power during the MIddles Ages. And it is because of those feminists and women's history scholars that many of us have learned about those women. It was often because of the role of the church supporting abbeys and convents that those women were educated and in which they had some power and influence. We have already talked about some of those women, including Blanche.

Much of the academic history up until the 1920's did not write about those women, they were totally lost to history. Mary Beard et al began to tell us about them in the 1920's and 30's, but then along came another burst of patriarchy in academia and women were no longer a subject to study, until the 1970's and 80's when the contemporary feminist movement went looking for them again.

This is another example where a title or label subverts thinking. It is also another example where the church provides both positive and negative consequences. ......jean

Mallylee
March 15, 2006 - 06:03 am
Freedom of expression is both a product and a prerequisite of modernity. In the pre-modern world, social order was regarded as more important than freedom of thought. It was not feasible to encourage people to have original ideas or to criticise established institutions in the hope of improving them, because agrarian-based society lacked the resources to implement many new notions. But independent thinking became essential to the modern economy; society could only become fully productive if inventors and scientists were able to pursue their ideas without the supervision of a controlling hierarchy. Our right to free speech and free thought has been hard won, and western civilisation could not function without it. It has become a sacred value, symbolising the inviolable sovereignty of the individual.

Karen Armstrong The Guardian 11 March

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoonprotests/story/0,,1728653,00.html

MeriJo
March 15, 2006 - 09:36 am
As with any spoken word in those medieval days as in the little written word that existed, interpretations took many wrong turns. I am sure all those events must have taken place. It is indicative of the times that people had no background with which to compare the events related in the Scriptures. Even the clerics who did the teaching did not have this background.

Some of these events Durant describes sounded pretty bad. But they probably took place.

MeriJo
March 15, 2006 - 09:45 am
Justin:

There were 1.06 billion Catholics in the world 2001. (www.cathnews.com/news)

There were 2.1 billion Christians in the world in 2001. (World Christian Encyclopedia)

MeriJo
March 15, 2006 - 10:49 am
mabel: I missed the erroneous point of Horvat's statement that you give. I must have thought it reasonable for certain parts of Europe. Thank you for your information.

I attended Catholic schools from 1927 to 1943 and in our histories, (we had a history by a Beard in the eighth grade - remember the name was in bold on the hard cover) bible, church, secular,( we had history in ever-increasing levels of information from the fourth grade through my sophomore year in college with a big burst of information in my senior year in college on American Institutions presented by a Dr. Kramer, visiting professor from UCLA, the university just down the hill from my college.) Throughout all those years I read and studied about both men and women in history, their roles and contributions. Throughout those years, I missed the feeling that because I was a woman I was less important in the world's scheme of things. The feminist movement was a big surprise to me because of my experiences.

I believe, however, that segments of medieval society did minimize the importance of women, but there seemed to be reasonable excuses for that attitude to develop, and I accepted them. Many women did not live long. Many developed illnesses and lost most of their teeth by the age of twenty-five. Many worked very hard in the fields, or being shopkeepers, and craftspeople. Married women often had large families, and everything for living had to be made from scratch. There was probably little time for education.

I think, too, that some clerics of the Church contributed to this attitude. I did notice however, that some women did break barriers. Dorotea Bocchi took the chair of medicine, formerly held by her father, at the University of Bologna in 1390. This in a time when in France women could not receive a university degree and therefore could not aspire to the field of medicine.

I think all things need to be considered. The thinking of the times suggested the need for women, especially, on the part of their fathers, to receive proper care in their lives.. This usually meant a marriage or the convent.

mabel1015j
March 15, 2006 - 02:19 pm
feminist friends - and there are many of those BTW - that the nuns who taught them did give them more "women's history" then was happening in public schools. Lucky you Merijo, I didn't get much information about women in history until i did my own research in the 70's. Mary Beard was a member of a family of historians, so it may have been her book you were reading, or, more likely, it was one of the male members of her family.

For some others of you who,like me, weren't taught much about women of the middle ages and religion, here's a link that can take you to much more info than you probably want to know .....jean

about..http://womenshistory.about.com/od/medievalchristianity/

robert b. iadeluca
March 15, 2006 - 05:27 pm
Any further comments about Durant's text in Post 84?

John Salisbury? -- Florence epicureans? -- Giraldus Cambrensis? -- Simon of Tournai? -- Peter, Prior of Holy Trinity in London -- Vincent of Beauvais?

Robby

Justin
March 15, 2006 - 07:33 pm
Father Greeley tells us women are not ordained because they do not have the image of God. That's interesting isn't it? God has the image of a male figure because Jesus refers to God as Father and Jesus himself appears as a male yet the Church catachetically speaks of men and women as having been made in the image and likeness of God. That's a conflicting tautology isn't it?

MeriJo
March 16, 2006 - 09:19 am
That's news to me, Justin. However, I really do not know of Fr. Greeley's status right now He is a Jesuit teaching sociology? at the University of Arizona? His lurid novels caused a commotion at one point and he found himself in Arizona.

He does not speak with authority in that regard. It is the soul of a human being that is made in the image of God. It is believed to be immortal. There is no physicality connected with God - no gender. Jesus assumed a human nature to come on earth. He came as a man because the prophecy was that God would send His Son.

This is an example of how the misinterpretation of particular points in Christianity during the Middle Ages brought about some of those bad consequences Mabel spoke about.

3kings
March 16, 2006 - 01:19 pm
MeriJo You write :- "Jesus assumed a human nature to come on earth. He came as a man because the prophecy was that God would send His Son."

Perhaps you are not expressing your view as clearly as you would like. But is it your and the Churches view that God's actions are determined by the need to conform to a pre-existing prophecy ?

This has little to do with Durant, I know, but I was just wondering. ++ Trevor

MeriJo
March 16, 2006 - 02:37 pm
Trevor:

The prophets of the Old Testament were the ones to whom God spoke. This statement is about the only thing from the Old Testament that carries over into the New Testament for Christians to believe. These prophecies of the Old Testament cite information pertinent to Christianity.

This particular promise was given at the time Adam and Eve were sent out from Paradise - this is an allegory, I know, but the words of God's promise were that he would send His Son to redeem the world. This is also a religious point, and would need more information. It's to be found in the beginning chapters of Genesis.

The New Testament delineating the teachings of Christ are the ones upon which Christianity is based. There is reference to many words of the Old Testament prophets in them, a base upon which the changes of thought from the Old Testament time to the New Testament time is able to be followed.

MeriJo
March 16, 2006 - 02:50 pm
On Epicurus:

Here is a thought of his.

“Let no one be slow to seek wisdom when he is young nor weary in the search of it when he has grown old. For no age is too early or too late for the health of the soul. And to say that the season for studying philosophy has not yet come, or that it is past and gone, is like saying that the season for happiness is not yet or that it is now no more. Therefore, both old and young alike ought to seek wisdom, the former in order that, as age comes over him, he may be young in good things because of the grace of what has been, and the latter in order that, while he is young, he may at the same time be old, because he has no fear of the things which are to come. So we must exercise ourselves in the things which bring happiness, since, if that be present, we have everything, and, if that be absent, all our actions are directed towards attaining it.” —Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus

The Florentines may have developed the idea of presenting "la bella figura" - a thought even for today among Italians. This is the concept of putting on a good appearance. Literally: " a beautiful picture."

Happiness is closely aligned to a delicious meal - one that is savored in all the time needed to do so.

Dante was an Epicurean.

Justin
March 16, 2006 - 03:34 pm
John of Salisbury was a Scholastic and a close friend of Thomas Beckett. He was the Bishop of Chartres, and an English diplomat for Henry 11 and Thomas. I first came across this guy when I was doing research work at Canterbury in Kent and at Sens in the French Yonne region. There are wall plaques with his name on them at each of these places. Some day I will work out the linkage. Sens was the place in France to which Thomas escaped when the King wanted his hide. Sens was no small potato in those days. Two popes came from Sens. It was a metropolitan for 5 or 6 suffragan diocese including Chartres.

Justin
March 16, 2006 - 03:46 pm
Vincent de Beauvais, wrote scientific works. He was a monk. I'm not certain but I think he was a Dominican. It is not surprising to find a monk who thinks the tales of the Saints are fables. Some of them certainly have that quality. Vincent could well have been interested in improving the credibility of the Christian tale. Today, we have guys like Fr. Greeley, a Jesuit, who does not hesitate to attack the Church for it's sex perversions. He thinks sex is an ok thing. Where did he come from?

robert b. iadeluca
March 16, 2006 - 05:45 pm
I'll hold off until you folks are ready to get back to Durant from Post 84.

Robby

Justin
March 16, 2006 - 10:46 pm
You don't recognize 84 in 98 and 99? OK.

robert b. iadeluca
March 17, 2006 - 12:10 am
The expression was "you folks." I saw yours, Justin. I was hoping others would participate here as well.

Robby

3kings
March 17, 2006 - 12:16 am
OK, Robby. Sorry. ++ Trevor

Mallylee
March 17, 2006 - 12:54 am
Gerald of Wales (1146-1223) was one of the most fascinating individuals of his age. An outspoken churchman Gerald was also an accomplished naturalist, anthropologist, diplomat, traveller and prolific author. This course reveals how Gerald's life can give us a remarkable insight into the political and cultural world of medieval Britain.

http://www.cf.ac.uk/learn/archaeol/courses.php

Éloïse De Pelteau
March 17, 2006 - 02:59 am
"So not everyone in that era was a believer. And not everyone is this era either. But religion is a sensitive topic that reaches at the heart of believers who usually remain so in spite of detractors, because other belief systems do not touch the heart in the same way, if at all. Religion is personal and trying to explain it only makes it less logical to unbelievers.

I read S of C, but I am very busy elsewhere too Robby.

robert b. iadeluca
March 17, 2006 - 06:04 am
Thank you for participating, people. A Discussion Leader with no one to lead is a useless organism.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
March 17, 2006 - 06:20 am
"Apparently there were village atheists then as now.

"But village atheists leave few memorials behind them. The literature that has come down from the Middle Ages was largely composed by churchmen or was largely screened by ecclesiastical selection.

"We shall find 'wandering scholars' composing irreverent poetry, rough burghers swearing the most blasphemous oaths, people sleeping and shoring, even dancing and whoring, in church, and 'more lechery, gluttony, murder, and robbery in the Sunday (said a friar) 'than reigned all the week before.'

"Such items, suggesting a lack of real faith, might be multipled by heaping up instances from a hundred countries and a thousand years on one page. They serve to warn us against exaggerating medieval piety.

"But the Middle Ages still convey to the student a pervasive atmosphere of religious practices and beliefs. Every European state took Christianity under its protection and enforced submission to the Church by law.

"Nearly every king loaded the Church with gifts. Nearly every event in history was interpreted in religious terms.

"Every incident in the Old Testament prefigured something in the New. In vetere testamento, said Augustine, novum later, in novo vetus pater, e.g. said the great Bishop,

"David watching Bathsheba bathing symbolized Christ beholding His Church cleaning herself from the pollution of the world.

"Everything natural was a supernatural sign.

"Every part of a church, said Guillaume Durand, Bishop of Mende, has a religious meaning. The portal is Christ, through whom we enter heaven. The pillars are the bishops and doctors who uphold the Church. The sacristy, where the priest puts on his vestments, is the womb of Mary, where Christ put on human flesh.

"Every beast, to this mood, had a theological significance. Says a typical medieval bestiary:-'When a lioness gives birth to a cub, she brings it forth dead, and watches over it three days, until the father, coming on the third day, breathes upon its face and brings it to life. So the Father Almighty raised His Son Our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead.'"

So the title of this volume is "The Age of Faith."

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
March 17, 2006 - 06:44 am
Are we currently in an AGE OF FAITH?

Robby

Mallylee
March 17, 2006 - 10:18 am
I think the old, female pagan religion survived contemporaneously with medieval Christianity. Ceremonies such as dancing round a maypole which celebrates sex and fertility, and bonfires in the autumn, and at Yule,which I think are for sun magic, are pagan.

I think the Church incorporated a lot of pagan rites, such as the harvest festival, Easter, and the date of Christmas.Is it possible that the central doctrine about the self sacrifice of Christ reflects the ancient death of the priest-king for the benefit of the tribe?

Mallylee
March 17, 2006 - 10:32 am
In a way, yes, more than ever before, because believers cannot now argue with reason that God exists, or that it's possible for God to be both all-powerful and all-good, or that divine providence has any objective rationale. So sheer pure faith in the 'something else' besides the visible world is what is left.

Fewer and fewer people have this faith, but many people want to have it. Most people in the west divert their fears with entertainment or may even say that it's a sign of sub- clinical depression to try to face up to human fears. Others go searching among New Age type beliefs. Others try to work out personal spiritualities.

'Faith'( other meaning of 'faith') as unquestioning trust in the old magisterium is dead, except for the few old people, and the evangelicals.

Rich7
March 17, 2006 - 10:37 am
Well said, Malllylee. I did have to look up magisterium, however.

Magisterium (from the Latin magister: 'master') is a technical ecclesiastical term in Catholicism referring to the Pope and those Bishops who are directly under his supervision. According to their belief, the Magisterium is the only (earthly) authority qualified to teach or interpret the truths of the faith infallibly. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium

Rich

MeriJo
March 17, 2006 - 10:48 am
Robby:

I mentioned the Florentine Epicurean - part of #84 -. In some ways, history shows us that the philosophies of old repeat themselves. In this later epicurean period, there developed even more the creation and appreciation of beauty in literature, art and architecture. There were the beginnings of a revival of the art of cooking which had been started in Roman times. There began further development in the amenities for presenting and maintaining a clean home.

It is amazing to what level some human beings fall. Certainly, they recognize the difference between good and evil.

In the Middle Ages life would have been especially hard because things were mostly learned through the experience and the observation by a few as is evident by Durant's list of bad behaviors.

They had forgotten the importance of bathing that the Romans had offered earlier to the world. They had forgotten the importance of cleanliness of the body and of one's garments. It is no wonder that illness prevailed often. The connectiion between hygiene and good health appeared in bits and pieces.

Malryn
March 17, 2006 - 01:33 pm

Well, it does my heart good to read about all these youngsters who are going to Divinity School, even if they go out after graduation to be kind, generous stockbrokers. When I was little I thought Divinity School was where you learned to make candy. Guess why? Divinity, Click here.

It was always the "Soft Ball" stage that was my "falling." I hadn't thought about the Fall of Man for a long time until MeriJo mentioned it. M J, have you heard of Saint McMichaels, the Patron Saint of Feathers? If you like, I'll send you a story I wrote about him.

I always thought I'd like to marry a minister of the faith. Well, I did; I married a scientist. There's a lot of blind-faith-believing in that before scientific miracles happen, take my word for it.

I'm so happy to hear there were atheists at the time in history Durant is currently mentioning. I'd hate to think everyone in those days was Cloned From A Christian and following along without asking any questions. wouldn't you?

I was raised Universlist-Unitarian, which to some means I had no religion at all. I enjoyed this faith. It was good to me in its freedom and allowed me to question anything I wanted. I yearned for a while to be a Catholic -- so mysterious it seemed and so magical. In later years I have wanted to be a Jew. I'm not sure why.

We are talking about a Christian time in history, I/ve wondered so many times how it ever happened to catch on, this Christianity. Everybody carried so much guilt or something? Wanted a spank from Big Daddy when they stepped astray, so they'd continue to be Good with a Capital G? What was the fear in these people anyway? I can see why good, loving Jesus, as the Son of God, appealed. He was the feminine side of a very masculine religion, it seems to me -- except that he seemed to make every soft, kind, loving being a martyr, didn't he? Like what do you think?

Mal

Malryn
March 17, 2006 - 01:58 pm

FAITH.

The other day I went to an orthopedist, finally, to see if my broken femur (thigh bone) is healed. It only took me six months to get an appointment, so it should be by now.

"Yes," he beamed all over the place, nodding like one of those Asian dolls. "You can now put your leg brace on and attempt some physio-therapy and maybe even walk a little." (I've been trying to walk for a few years, manage to break a bone or something, and I haven't accomplished more than 20 or 30 steps with that what do you call it? Railing on either side of you?)

"Not only that," said beaming, bobbing doctor. He all of a sudden took my right arm and excruciated me with pain -- It's been bothering a whole lot; I've seen a rheumatologist. "Hey!" Doc Bone said, "This arm here is all messed up because of Post Polio Syndrome!"

"You've got to be kidding!" I said, rubbing my poor arm.

"Uh uh," he told me, "from now on you have to help your arm out by lifting it with a cane! Can you do that?"

"Why, sure," I replied. "I just happen to have an old-fashioned cane with a curved handle."

"Great," he said, "I'll arrange physio-therapy and see you in two weeks!"

Sure he will.

Well, I posted about this in WREX this morning, and the group of writers I know so well said essentially, "Isn't that great? He actually used the PPS words! Isn't that wonderful?"

Yeah, I thought, he practically told me my arm is useless. Isn't that lovely!

I've thought about this for a couple of days and decided that with faith my arm will feel a whole lot better than it has. In other words, I won't scream and cry every time I use it. In the 71 years since I had polio, I've thought this a lot. Substitute, arm, head, legs, neck, whatever you want to for arm.

The MIND is the heart of faith, I think. The MIND helps you believe that anything can happen and will. Thank God, if there is one, that my MIND thinks I won't have as much pain or as much trouble with my arm and my poor crippled up leg as I've had for quite a long time.

KEEP THE FAITH, GUYS!

Mal

Justin
March 17, 2006 - 02:32 pm
Mallylee: I don't think there is a single part of Christianity that is new. The roots of every concept may be found in Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, Greek, Egyptian,and Roman religious activity. In this SofC discussion we have covered each of these predecessors in detail. The virgin birth, death of the god figure and its subsequent resurection has been repeatd over and over again. The concept of the Trinity, of three in one, may be new but that's only because of the number three. Two in one and five in one is more common. Multiple personalities are common in religious history.

mabel1015j
March 17, 2006 - 07:58 pm
When we read history, or about people and events of the past, we must remember that we are NEVER reading ALL of it. As he mentions that there no memorials to athiests, etc. we have to remember that most people's history never gets written down, or objectified in anyway,for posterity. We need always to remember WHO we are reading, or reading about and who or what might be missing from what we are reading. Some people and events have gotten great p.r., others have gotten none and may have been just as important at the time.

So often the question is, "do we believe what we are reading at the moment, or not," and we all bring all of our past experience, present values and beliefs to every judgement we make at this moment.....that's what is so fascinating about all of us and our opinions and what makes for fascinating discussions in SN.....love it!....jean

Justin
March 17, 2006 - 11:29 pm
Is history what an historian chooses to write about or is it something more than that? Does it exist as an independent entity which even when described by multiple historians, is probably not reduced to reality? Is it what Thucydides describes as events he sees or is it more the result of reflective study of the record?

An historian can give us only a piece of the picture. I think that's accurate. But what is often left out, while representing the actions of ninety-five percent of the populace, is trivial in impact upon the society.

Mallylee
March 18, 2006 - 02:05 am
Justin, I wish I had been in on the Sof C discussion since it began! I have missed something good

Mallylee
March 18, 2006 - 02:17 am
There is at least one memorial to an atheist, Mabel. There is now a good statue at the top of the Mound in Edinburgh, Scotland, of David Hume. Hume's statue sits facing towards the old St Giles Cathedral of the Church of Scotland!

Mallylee
March 18, 2006 - 02:34 am
Mabel,#116 That's true, Mabel. I also think that unless each of us has a perspective from which we can view history, there would be no point from which each person could relate with the past. For instance 'more believing/less believing', or 'more tribal/less tribal' and so on.

I got a great social history book recently about actual peasant individuals in the French village of Montaillou from 1318-1325, drawn from a Christian bishop's extremely detailed Inquisition Register, as well as a whole lot of secondary sources.My copy is of an English translation. Much of the story of Montaillou at that time relates to the Cathar heresy.

(Le Roy Ladurie)

robert b. iadeluca
March 18, 2006 - 04:58 am
Mallylee:-Regarding your having missed our first three volumes, we can go on the pitypot remembering whoever it was who said:-

Of all sad words of tongue or pen
The saddest are -- "it might have been."

Or you can cheer yourself up with the thought that any comments or links about the Orient or Ancient Greece or the Roman Empire would remain relevant as we move along. Nothing says we can't from time to time refer back to what we have already read under those topics.

We're please you're with us, Mallylee!

Robby

Mallylee
March 18, 2006 - 02:46 pm
Justin, would you say that there are two meanings of 'history? I think that one meaning is the human past. The other meaning is the academic discipline that includes historical interpretation of the evidences.

Justin
March 18, 2006 - 04:32 pm
At least two if not more.

I see history as a stream of events and human interaction that exists outside human observation. The events and reports of human interaction can be observed and described as a newspaper reports daily observations or the events etc can be related over time and through reflection made to fit logical patterns. Hegel talks about reflective expression of historical events that result in critical analysis. .

robert b. iadeluca
March 20, 2006 - 05:53 am
"The power of Christianity lay in its offering to the people faith rather than knowledge -- art rather than science -- beauty rather than truth.

"Men preferred it so. They suspected that no one could answer their questions. It was prudent, they felt, to take on faith the replies given with such quieting authoritativeness by the church.

"They would have lost confidence in her had she ever admitted her fallibility. Perhaps they distrusted knowledge as the bitter fruit of a wisely forbidden tree, a mirage that would lure man from the Eden of simplicity and an undoubting life.

"So the medieval mind, for the most part, surrendered itself to faith, trusted in God and the Church, as modern man trusts in science and the state.

"Said Philip Augustus to his sailors in a midnight storm:-'You cannot perish for at this moment thoudands of monks are rising from their beds and will soon be praying for us.'

"Men believed that they were in the hands of a power greater than any human knwoledge cold give. In Christendowm, as in Islam, they surrendered to God and even amid profanity, violence, and lechery, they sought Him and salvation.

"It was a God-intoxicated age."

Your thoughts, please?

Robby

Scrawler
March 20, 2006 - 10:55 am
"The power of Christianity lay in its offering to the people faith rather than knowledge - art rather than science - beauty rather than truth."

"Men preferred it so. They suspected that no one could answer their questions."

Throughout this discussion group we have been discussing people who not only gave us knowledge, but science and truth. So I find the above statement hard to believe. We have already discussed where there were "non-believers" during this period of time. So, just who, did the power of Christianity affect? Was it the masses or did they "brain-wash", for lack of a better term, those who would have furthered science and truth?

Mallylee
March 20, 2006 - 12:33 pm
"So the medieval mind, for the most part, surrendered itself to faith, trusted in God and the Church, as modern man trusts in science and the state.

But I think we dont trust in science and the state without question.

We secular moderns are encouraged by our education systems to be sceptical. True, some people are more sceptical than others. It's science itself that has enabled faith to recede, and knowledge to take its place. I dont see science as a myth to live by, I see science as halting accumulation of knowledge, without the implication that there is any possibility that there could be a totality of knowledge.

Theistic faith for medieval people is total submission to a package of beliefs , or, for Jews, to a package of religious behaviours.

Éloïse De Pelteau
March 20, 2006 - 02:30 pm
""The power of Christianity lay in its offering to the people faith rather than knowledge -- art rather than science -- beauty rather than truth."

In unlettered masses of that era, faith transmitted knowledge through art and beauty. Science developed because knowledge could only be acquired in monasteries and artists revealed their own sense of truth in the exquisite beauty of a masterpiece. Who can resist beauty when they were searching for truth?

Faith is at the bottom of knowledge, science and truth.

Mallylee
March 20, 2006 - 03:08 pm
I just read over what i wrote and see that it doesn't make sense. I should not have written 'halting' when I wrote about science accumulating knowledge.

Justin
March 20, 2006 - 03:28 pm
Medieval man trusted the offerings of Christianity and believed that faith will see one through the after life, that art is the true expression of God and all his wonders and that beauty is the ultimate expression of all that is good. Nevermind, that it is all a glorious hoax, that faith is delusion, that art enhances delusion, and that beauty is superficial. When, as the con man,Christianity focuses an audience on delusion,knowledge, science, and truth are the enemy.

A search for knowledge, and truth, through science will help man to stand tall, have sand, be comfortable in his skin,and all the while doubtful of the truth he has learned in life.

robert b. iadeluca
March 20, 2006 - 05:46 pm
The Sacraments

robert b. iadeluca
March 20, 2006 - 05:53 pm
Following the GREEN quotes in the Heading, we move on - - -

"Next to the determination of the faith, the greatest power of the Church lay in the administration of the sacraments -- ceremonies symbolizing the conferment of divine grace.

"Said St. Augustine:-'In no religion can men be held together unless they are united in some sort of fellowship through visible symbols or sacraments.'

"Sacramentum was applied in the fourth century to almost anything sacred -- to baptism, the cross, prayer.

"In the fifth century Augustine applied it to the celebration of Easter.

"In the seventh century Isidore of Seville restricted it to baptism, confirmation, and the Eucharist.

"In the twelfth century the sacraments were finally fixed at seven -- baptism, confirmation, penance, the Eucharist, matrimony, holy orders, and extreme unction.

"Minor ceremonies conferring divine grace -- like sprinkling with holy water, or the sign of the cross -- were distinguished as 'cacramentals.'"

Any comments regarding sacraments?

Robby

Justin
March 20, 2006 - 07:35 pm
A limestone sarcophagus from about 500 BCE has been found on Cyprus. The cofin contains images of Homer's works, particualrly, images of Odysseus at Troy and escaping from Polyphemus.

Justin
March 20, 2006 - 07:56 pm
The Sacraments are wonderful devices for keeping the faithful on the hook. Augustine said that it is important to share a common experience to make one feel part of a group. In response the church has created seven experiences one can share with others.

Baptism brings the new born into the fold while adjusting for the stain of Adam and Eve. Communion is the mechanism for providing the body and the blood in transubstantiation. Penance atones for the sins conveniently provided by the Church. Confirmation makes one a soldier of the faith.Holy Orders provides the clerical support so necessary to durability. Marriage, connects the two essential elements of a family to the faith. On the surface Extreme Unction is for the dead but its impact is upon the survivors whose faith is reinforced by the Sacrament.

Mallylee
March 21, 2006 - 01:55 am
I think Augustine is right about sacraments. I wonder what a social psychologist would have to say about the ritualistic behaviours that bind together the emotional focus of all sorts of groups. This may apply to other animals too.

Looking through some of the Google entries it seems to be the province of anthropologists

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/ritual.shtml

robert b. iadeluca
March 21, 2006 - 02:43 am
Regarding your link, Mallylee -- Some of my patients have OCD. I find it hard to relate their obsessions or compulsions to regular attendance at church.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
March 21, 2006 - 02:49 am
"The most vital sacrament was baptism.

"It had two functions -- to remove the stain of original sin and, by this new birth, to formally receive the individual into the Christian fold. At this ceremony the parents were expected to give the child the name of a saint who was to be its patron, model, and protector. This was its 'Christian name.'

"By the ninth century the early Christian method of baptism by total immersion had been gradually replaced by aspersion -- sprinkling -- as less dangerous to health in northern climes.

"Any priest -- or, in emergency, any Christian -- could confer baptism.

"The old custom of deferring baptism to the later years of life had now been replaced by infant baptism.

"In some congregations, especially in Italy, a special chapel, the baptistery, was constructed for this sacrament."

Your comments about baptism, please?

Robby

Éloïse De Pelteau
March 21, 2006 - 03:55 am
Robby, in a church you will also find all kinds of people including criminals, abusers of women and children, con artists who attend regularly. What is a neighbor's secret life? we don't know. In fact among the thousands attending church, there is every kind of human beings. People are people no matter where they gather. Is there a place that says that everybody who goes to church is perfect? The act of going to church does not necessarily mean a person is cured of a mental illness such as obsessive compulsive disorders. Perhaps OCD is where they find refuge from the real world that is too painful to bear, that is how I see it.

Mallylee
March 21, 2006 - 04:17 am
Robby#135

Attendance at church can be a moving and beautiful experience. OCD is pathological because it is both painful and morbid. I can understand that there is a big difference both subjectively , and for an observer looking at people.

What is the kernel of the difference?Is it that people with OCD have lost their capacity to choose, lost their freedom? While attendance at church gives freedom from sin, and freedom to enter a group of good companions? The former is morbid, the latter is life-enhancing(stats prove this , I think I remember reading)

BTW a digression, do people with OCD want to suffer compulsive behaviours, in order to escape from existentialist angst? If this is the case, are the tightly enfolding arms of some religious denominations a remedy?

Justin
March 21, 2006 - 02:21 pm
Are there not degrees of attachment for people with OCD? These folks have simply lost their power to alter habitual behavior. Perhaps that's over simplified for the psychologist but at the borderline I'll bet smokers are included. Why not other, similar practices?

mabel1015j
March 21, 2006 - 03:09 pm
Even people who are not religious celebrate holidays because of the tradition, the warmth and fun of the celebration - if that's the way it happens at your house. And families, outside or inside of holidays, create traditions that are unique to their family and community, making them feel secure and bonded. Many people attend church, or church activities because of the community it provides for them. It seems to me that the church was institutionalizing some of those events thru the sacrements. It has probably brought more comfort than pain to people thru the ages, even if Justin's interpretation of the church's reasoning is accurate.....jean

Justin
March 21, 2006 - 04:16 pm
Jean: You make a strong argument. My family participates in Christmas as a traditional holiday and within that context believers and non-believers share the festivities.

During WW11 my parents had three boys in the service. My mother's burden was made less stressful by prayer and because her faith gave her a feeling of contributing to our welfare.

robert b. iadeluca
March 21, 2006 - 05:59 pm
"In the Eastern Church the sacraments of confirmation and Eucharist were conferred immediately after baptism. In the Wstern Church the age of confirmation was gradually postponed to the seventh year in order that the child might learn the essentials of the Christian faith.

"It was administered only by a bishop with a 'laying on of hands,' a prayer that the Holy Ghost would enter the candidate, an anointing of the forehead with chrism, and a slight blow on the cheek.

"So, as in the dubbing of a knight, the young Christian was confirmed in his faith and was sworn by implication into all the rights and duties of a Christian."

Your comments about baptism, please?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
March 21, 2006 - 06:26 pm
An item of interest to those of us here who were present when we were discussing ANCIENT GREECE.

Robby

Justin
March 21, 2006 - 07:02 pm
The Cyprus archeologist dates the sarcohagus at 500 BCE, the very beginning of the classical age. Yet,there does not appear to be any of the elements of Classicism in the find. Images found inscribed on the box are those of 1400 BCE as described in the Homeric works of 800 BCE.

Mallylee
March 22, 2006 - 01:17 am
I wonder if there is anything in common between baptism, the spilling if champagne over a new ship, the need that crops have for rain,and the blooding of a child at her first fox hunt.

They all mark beginnings, I wonder if anything special about beginnings.They seem to mark a changed way of life. Christenings wet a little baby with water and the Holy Ghost to welcome into the congregation.Initiation ceremony.

Being born of water and the Holy Spirit resembles the initiations mentioned by Frazer in The Golden Bough , where initiates symbolically die and are brought back to a changed way of life.

As for rain on the crops, April is The Opener, when, in Europe anyway, the weather is typically mild and rainy.It opens the fertile, productive phase in the year's round, ending with mature produce in the autumn

robert b. iadeluca
March 22, 2006 - 04:51 am
As we are discussing the Roman Catholic Church, this ARTICLE is appropos.

Robby

Malryn
March 22, 2006 - 06:35 am

I think baptism is a primitive, ritualistic way of cleansing a person of sin, original sin and the sins that come after. In the Baptist churches where I've worked as a musician, especially a Southern Baptist church in Florida, people first ran down the aisle to be saved -- dedicate their lives to Christ and Christianity. Then they were immersed in a tank of water at the back of the altar, which on non-baptismal days was covered by a theatrical type curtain. I saw many of the same people do this over and over, so figure one go isn't enough.

Mal

mabel1015j
March 22, 2006 - 10:31 am
....jean

Scrawler
March 22, 2006 - 10:40 am
In the Greek Church, it is the godparents responsibility to see that the child is raised according to the teachings of the church. It is my understanding that the sacraments are given all at once, because in the old days priests and especially bishops did not come often to the Greek villages and so the sacraments had to be done all at the same time.

Justin
March 22, 2006 - 07:26 pm
Three cheers, Roger. The good Samaritan idea is one of the good things about religion. Keeping it legal while controlling our borders is difficult but our good Christian, Republican,congressmen should be able to think of some way to do both.

On the other hand, Cardinal Roger, while ordering civil disobedience, is also saying that the practice of the good Samaritan is God's law and God's law trumps civil law. That's a very bad idea to promulgate. It's treasonous and it promotes treason in others.

3kings
March 22, 2006 - 08:42 pm
Justin Who's Roger, and what are you talking about ? ++ Trevor

mabel1015j
March 22, 2006 - 10:31 pm
in the first summer session, otherwise known as Western Civ I. I think I'll go back and read your discussions from the beginning - how long is that going to take me?? You guys probably had some very interesting things say about the first 3500 yrs . ... jean

Justin
March 22, 2006 - 10:45 pm
Trevor; Read Robby's 146.

Jean: That's a wonderful assignment. Six weeks of five days a week is a serious teaching chore. Good Luck.

robert b. iadeluca
March 23, 2006 - 02:48 am
Jean:-If you read all our discussions from the beginning, we'll grant you three credits.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
March 23, 2006 - 04:08 am
"More important was the sacrament of penance.

"If the doctrines of the Church inculcated a sense of sin, she offered means of periodically cleansing the soul by confessing one's sins to a priest and performing the assigned penances.

"According to the Gospel (Matt, xvi, 19; xviii, 18), Christ had forgiven sins and had endowed the apostles with a similar power to 'bind and loose.' This power, said the Church, had descended by apostolic succession from the apostles to the early bishops, from Peter to the popes, and in the twelfth century the 'power of the keys' was extended by bishops to the priests.

"The public confession practiced in primitive Christianity had been replaced in the fourth century by private confession to spare embarrassment to dignitaries but public confession survived in some heretical sects and a public penance might be imposed for such monstrous crimes as the massacre of Thessalonica or the murder of Becket.

"The Fourth Council of the Lateran made annual confession and communion a solemn obligation whose neglect was to exclude the offender from church services and Christian burial.

"To encourge and protect the penitent a 'seal' was placed upon every private confession. No priest was allowed to reveal what had been so confessed.

"From the eighth century onward 'Penitentials' were published prescribing canonical (ecclesiastically authorized) penances for each sin -- prayers, fasts, pilgrimage, almsgiving, or other works of piety or charity."

Your comments about penance, please?

Robby

Malryn
March 23, 2006 - 05:53 am
"They are in you and me; they created us, body and mind; and their
preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence. They
have come a long way, those replicators. Now they go by the name
of genes, and we are their survival machines."



These words are from The Selfish Gene, by evolutionary biologist
Richard Dawkins

mabel1015j
March 23, 2006 - 10:17 am
My assumption is that they do. Are they all rather similar to the Christian sacraments? I had a comparative religions course eons ago, but much of it is deep down in my "computer" (brain cells) and it's not appearing readily. What is the purpose? Is Justin right, that they are a means of control, or someting else?

Is the idea of "sins" a church concept? Or do we just look at them as acts of bad behavior? ARe we to feel worse for committing a "sin"? Penance seems like a good idea, if it is real and "punishment" is kept w/in reasonable bounds. It seems to me that "confessing" is good for the soul/psyche, what's your take on this Robby? It can also be used as a means of the church knowing what is going on in people's lives, or acting as a universal conscience. Robby, I think there was a discussion about "conscience" at the beginning of Vol I, so we are still uncovering the "mysteries" of life.

What I'm trying to sort out is if the Church is providing a structure for fulfilling human needs, or is the structure self-serving? Or, as w/ most things is the answer a combination fo the two?.....jean

Scrawler
March 23, 2006 - 11:45 am
"Carl Gustav Jung's studies of mythology convinced him that archetypes of gods and supernatural powers are deeply rooted in the collective unconscious. He believed religion enable[d] people to express an unconscious need for religious experience." And as such there must also have been a need for "sacraments." Baptism signals a fresh start experience, Confirmation is a faith experience while Penance was something needed especially for the Catholic church in order for the people to have a "forgiveness" experience. Not all churches agree on penance. There are some who believe it is only necessary for a person to relate their sins to God, rather than "relay" them to a priest etc.

Mallylee
March 23, 2006 - 02:26 pm
Should we remember that confessing to a priest is like confessing to God's deputy? In which case, since Christ has paid the penalty , why did a Roman Catholic have to do penance?

I think later denominations did penances too, such as standing on the cutty stool during the service in a Kirk of the Scottish Presbyterian denomination, as penance for sexual sins; maybe other types of sins too.

http://www.getchwood.com/punishments/curious/chapter-9.html

On second thoughts, there is a difference between private penance, as when the R C priest gives out a private punishment for a sin confessed in private, and the more socially-controlling public penance in church or market place

JoanK
March 23, 2006 - 07:11 pm
JEAN: congratulations on your assignment. I wish we could take your course. But don't abandon us.

I joined the discussion at the beginning of the Romans. I tried to go back, and read the earlier posts, but it's hard. This group has so much to say -- it's great day to day, but overwhelming in mass.

Justin
March 23, 2006 - 10:33 pm
The complexity of this infrastructure of sin,associated guilt, confession,and forgiveness should suggest to the believer, construction by the heavy hand of man, and not by the hand of a God. We know and Christianity acknowledges,the hand of Augustine and others in the formulation of these sacraments and their value in perpetuating the religion.

Over a period of two thousand years the clergy has constructed a formula for religious practice that works to hold the membership intact. When I was a child the membership of the Catholic Church appeared to me to be growing. (Statistically, of course,that may not have been the case) There were six Masses every Sunday and many were attended with standing room only.

However,in my life time, church and school closures have become commonplace. I wonder whether we are becoming more sophisticated or whether the Church's policies are driving away membership. The sacraments do not seem to have their old hold on the members.

Éloïse De Pelteau
March 24, 2006 - 04:33 am
Major religions of the world ranked by adherents HERE tells us that

Christians 33%
Islam 21%
Hinduism 14%
Non religious 16%
Judaism .22%


This survey was done in 1998.

Islam is growing and if the survey was done today perhaps percentages would be different.

Justin
March 24, 2006 - 02:02 pm
Eloise: Are you aware of any earlier surveys that might give us a basis for comparison. Perhaps, also, there is a survey that breaks out Catholics as a separate entity.

robert b. iadeluca
March 25, 2006 - 04:58 am
More about ROMAN CATHOLOCISM.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
March 25, 2006 - 05:32 am
"An indulgence was not a license to commit sin but a partial or plenary excemption, granted by the Church, from some or all of the purgatorial punishment merited by earthly sin.

"Absolution in confession removed from sin the guilt that would have condemned the sinner to hell but it did not absolute him from the 'temporal' punishment due to his sin.

"Only a small minority of Christians completely atoned on earth for their sins. The balance of atonement wold be exacted in purgatory.

"The Church claimed the right to remit such punishments by transmitting to any Christian penitent who performed stipulated works of piety or charity a fraction of the rich treasury of grace earned by Christ's sufferings and death and by saints whose merits outweighed their sins.

"Indulgences had been granted as far back as the ninth century. Some were given in the eleventh century to pilgrims visiting sacred shrines. The first plenary indulgence was that which Urban II offered in 1095 to those who would join the First Crusade.

"From these uses the custom arose of giving indulgences for repeating certain prayers, attending special religious services, building bridges, roads, churches, or hospitals, cleaning forests or draining swamps, contributing to a crusade, to an ecclesiastical institution, to a church jubilee, to a Christian war . . .

"The system was put to many good uses but it opened doors to human cupidity. The Church commissioned certain ecclesiastics, usually friars, as quaestiari to raise funds by offerng indulgences in return for gifts, repentance, and prayer. These solicitors -- whom the English called 'pardoners' -- developed a competitive zeal that scandalized many Christians.

"They exhibited real or false relices to stimulate contributions. They kept for themselves a due or undue part of their receipts.

"The Church made several efforts to reduce these abuses. The Fourth Lateran Council ordered bishops to warn the faithful against false relices and forged credentials. It ended the right of abbots and limited that of bishops to issue indulgences. It called upon all ecclesiastics to exercise moderation in their zeal for the new device.

"In 1261 the Council of Mainz denounced many quaestiari as wicked liars who displayed the stray bones of men or beaats as those saints, trained themselves to weep on order and offered purgatorial bargains for a msximum of coin and a minimum of prayer.

"Similar condemnations were issued by church councils at Vienne and Ravenna.

"The abuses continued."

Lots to discuss here.

Robby

Mallylee
March 25, 2006 - 01:17 pm
I am confused. I thought The Lamb of God Who Taketh Away the Sins of the World had paid the penalty in full,

I can see however, that this could give carte blanche to sin with no personal penalty.

Justin
March 25, 2006 - 02:15 pm
The sale of indulgences is the ultimate con. It is so complex and yet so simple in concept that the victim stands little chance of uncovering the scheme. Indeed, its many victims are prone to accept the plot long after its exposure as a con.

robert b. iadeluca
March 25, 2006 - 03:03 pm
Let us choose our words carefully, folks. I know Durant's topic at the moment is the Roman Catholic Church and includes all those items in the GREEN quotes in the Heading above.

However, as all of you know, there is a caveat on the topic of religion. Let us be very careful that we not lean too much either pro or con regarding our beliefs (or non beliefs).

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
March 25, 2006 - 03:30 pm
Action of the current POPE AND CARDINALS.

Robby

Justin
March 26, 2006 - 12:26 am
The Cardinals will come home to another problem of their own making. Bnnedict ruled that adoptions may not be arranged with same sex parents. San Francisco, on the other hand,can not pay agencies for adoption services if the agency discriminates. In Boston a similar conflict caused the Boston Diocese to discontinue offering adoption services entirely. On the one hand the Charity is trying to act like the "good Samaritan" but on the other hand it spreads it's message of hate and dissension.

Mallylee
March 26, 2006 - 02:26 am
I think the perfection of Christ's sacrifice is unmatchable, and therefore perhaps there is leeway for the magisterium who are only human and fallible, to interpret the implications of Christ's sacrifice, and to rule according to their interpretations that are only temporal.

The RC church is extremely conservative, and I suppose it was extremely conservative then; however 'conservative' was the whole tone of Christendom in the middle ages.

http://www.medievalchurch.org.uk/d_purgatory.php

robert b. iadeluca
March 26, 2006 - 06:54 am
"Next to baptism the most vital sacrament was the Eucharist, or Holy communion.

"The church took literally the words ascribed to Christ at the Last Supper -- of the bread, 'this is my body,' and of the wine, 'this is my blood.'

"The main feature of the Mass was the 'transubstantiation' of wafers of bread and a chalice of wine into the body and blood of Christ by the miraculous power of the priest.

"The original purpose of the Mass was to allow the faithful to partake of the 'body and blood, soul and divinity' of the Second Person of the Triune God by eating the consecrated host and drinking the consecrated wine.

"As the drinking of the transubstantiated wine risked spilling of the blood of Christ, the custom arose in the twelfth century of communicating through taking only the Host. When some conservatives (whose views were later adopted by the Hussites of Bohemia) demanded communion in both forms to make sure that they received the blood as well as the body of the Lord, theologians explained that the blood of Christ was 'concomitant' with His body in the bread, and His body was 'concomitant' with with His blood in the wine.

"A thousand marvels were told of the power of the consecrsated Host to cast out devils, cure disease, stop fires, and detect perjury by choking liars.

"Every Christian was required to communicate at lest once a year and the First Communion of the young Christian was made an occasion of solemn pageantry and happy celebration."

Any comments about the Eucharist?

Robby

Scrawler
March 26, 2006 - 10:18 am
In the Greek Church you partake of both the wine and the host and are required to do so only twice a year - at Greek Easter and again at Christmas.

Justin
March 26, 2006 - 04:05 pm
Let me struggle with you a little bit, Mallylee. I think you are right about excess "grace" coming from Christ's death.So too did the martyrs add to the treasury of "grace." The Magisterium (meaning teaching power)found justification for passing on some of that "treasury of grace" to gain advantage, to repay crusaders for services, or perhaps more importantly, to induce crusaders to take the cross. Once that was done, the step to selling to the highest bidder is only a question of occasion.

The process may well have started in the Ninth century, as Durant points out, when canonical punishment for sin was common. Punishment was severe and priests were empowered to reduce temporal punishment in exchange for charitable acts approved by the church. It is a small step from temporal commutation to commuting time in purgatory and the justfication can be found in the "Treasury of Grace."

Adrbri
March 26, 2006 - 04:50 pm
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/euchmenu.htm

Brian

Justin
March 26, 2006 - 05:56 pm
The Eucharist is probably the most sacred part of Christendom. It is not comparable to the Ark or the Kaaba. This is the god in edible form.There have been religions in the past in which the god is eaten to pass on the attributes of the god but Islam and Judaism are not among them.

Mallylee
March 27, 2006 - 12:49 am
that's interesting, Justin, about how the god is eaten in Christianity, but not in Islam or Judaism.

It's probably a strength of Christianity that eating the god is part of the package. I mean, eating the god is a physical enactment of acceptance of the god's sacrifice.

Did either Islam or Judaism carry on the pagan tradition of the sacrifice of a priest-king?

robert b. iadeluca
March 27, 2006 - 05:26 am
"By making matrimony a sacrament, a sacred vow, the Church immensely raised the dignity and permanence of the marrige bond.

"In the sacrament of holy orders the bishop conferred upon the new priest some of the spiritual powers inherited from the apostles and presumjably given to these by God Himself in the person of Christ.

"And in the final sacrament -- extreme unction -- the priest heard the confession of the dying Christian, gave him the absolution that saved him from hell and anointed his members so that they might be cleansed of sin and fit for resurrection before his Judge.

"His survivors gave him Christian burial instead of pagan cremation because the Church held that the body too would rise from the dead. They wrapped himn in his shroud, placed a coin in his coffin as if for Charon's ferriage and bore him to his grave with solemn and costly creiemony.

"Mourners might be hired to weep and wail. The relatives put on black garments for a year. No one could tell, from grief so long sustained, that a contrite heart and a ministering priest had won for the departed the pledge of paradise."

Any comments about the marriage bond within the Roman Catholic Church?

Robby

Scrawler
March 27, 2006 - 11:48 am
Some the ancient religions eat the various parts of their enemies in order to gain their strength and knowledge. Could this concept also apply to Holy Communion?

Justin
March 27, 2006 - 02:08 pm
Merijo should tell us what is happening here. Looking on from outside, it appears that the God is eaten in memory of that God but I think one acquires a state of grace which has the qualities of a God. The ritual and it's description is so tradition bound that it may be impossible to express it in other terms.

From time to time one hears about selfless acts in the Christian arena that are worth mentioning. The morning papers described a Fr. Sims who as a priest lives among the protitutes in San Francisco. He dispenses clean needles and condoms and gives spiritual advice only when asked. He lives on 15,000 a year and dispenses 150,000 in needles and condoms. He spends his time when off the streets in a soup kitchen. The man has been doing this for 15 years. He is an Apostolic Catholic. I don't know quite what that is but I think he and his Church deserve high marks for true charity.

Mallylee
March 27, 2006 - 02:27 pm
Justin Thanks for explaining about excess grace. I get a picture of a capital sum of grace placed in the bank, and it can be withdrawn when the occasion seems to justify a withdrawal of capital, as you say, to reward the Crusaders.

I wonder if ordinary run-of-the-mill Christians could add to the sum of grace, by certain actions. Is this perhaps the duty of monks and nuns to add to the sum of grace?

Does Father Sims acquire grace for himself alone, or for all Catholics?

Justin
March 27, 2006 - 02:54 pm
Mallylee, You draw a logical conclusion; a bank of stored up grace that can be dispensed as occasion requires.

JoanK
March 27, 2006 - 04:11 pm
Did any of you see the program broadcast on PBS in the DC area: "from Jesus to Christ": the story of early Christianity? It was very interesting: similar to Durant's approach, but with more info about specific local communities where Christianity developed and how they shaped it to suit their needs, and how the different points of view of the four gospel writers developed.

Justin
March 27, 2006 - 06:23 pm
Thank you JoanK. I will look for it.

robert b. iadeluca
March 27, 2006 - 08:29 pm
Any comments about Durant's remarks in Post 178?

Robby

Justin
March 27, 2006 - 10:33 pm
I wonder how the rate of divorce among catholics who marry in the Church compares with those more secular couples who contract by civil service. Catholics emphasize the importance of the marital undertaking and the necessity of a life time committment. The sacrament is delayed for several weeks while the banns are announced again and again in church at services. It's a cooling off period to ensure one is making a rational judgement as opposed to an emotional one. The couple is lectured before the ceremony by a priest on the nature of their undertaking.

robert b. iadeluca
March 28, 2006 - 04:37 am
Is engagement another term for "cooling off period?"

Robby

Justin
March 28, 2006 - 10:52 pm
Plenty of built-in stumbling blocks available and the divorce rate emains near fifty percent. Oh Well!.

Scrawler
March 29, 2006 - 11:14 am
There's an old wives tale that says: "You never know a man until you live with him."

mabel1015j
March 29, 2006 - 12:21 pm
probably appropriate for both men and women.....jean

robert b. iadeluca
March 29, 2006 - 07:00 pm
Any comments about Durant's remarks in Post 178?

Robby

Justin
March 30, 2006 - 12:03 am
Communion is the act of receiving. A communicant is one who receives.One who communes shares. Communism is a process of sharing. A commune shares. One who communicates gives. These are words that have the same root and are related in various ways. If I receive information from another, am I a communicant? A catholic says, "I received Communion this morning". Is that an acceptable use of the word? One alos says'"I went to Communion this morning." In both examples, it strikes me that the word Communion is used as a noun. Yet the act of receiving is a verb. Is it not? Communicant, on the other hand, is a noun. I need a dictionary. I am in over my head.

kevxu
March 30, 2006 - 01:38 pm
I believe that you will find that the original purpose of publishing banns had nothing to do with a "cooling off" period. Their purpose was to give wide publicity to an impending marriage so that anyone with information about one or both members of the couple that would bring their suitability to marry into question could make that information known - forbidden degree of blood relationship, certain non-blood family relationships, an inability to consumate a marriage (e.g. castration), coercion, apostasy, lack of baptism, etc.

kevxu

Justin
March 30, 2006 - 03:21 pm
Kevxu: Your comment has the ring of accuracy in it. Of course, while not intended as such, announcing the banns has the effect of delaying the marriage.

Bann announcements today might well serve to control, to some extent, the spread of disease.

Justin
March 30, 2006 - 07:44 pm
Religious practices among the Jews in the 14th century protected them from the plague. However, that result, while good for the Jews, served to engender more animosity with the Christians.

3kings
March 31, 2006 - 12:50 am
"Religious practices among the Jews in the 14th century protected them from the plague"

That's an interesting comment, Justin, one that I have not heard before. Could you be a bit more specific, please ?

By religious practices do you mean those pertaining to diet and hygiene? Were Jews more given to hygienic practices, such as washing after toilet etc. then were the Christians? ++ Trevor

robert b. iadeluca
March 31, 2006 - 06:02 am
People are always talking about science vs religion but what happens when SCIENCE EXAMINES RELIGION in a rigorously scientific methodological way?

In reacting to this, please keep in mind the caveat on your own personal views on religion in this discussion and choose your words carefully.

Robby

Mallylee
March 31, 2006 - 10:28 am
I dislike the article because it fails to define'prayer'. Unless all the components of a correlation experiment can be defined the experiment is useless.

Religious language is not scientific language:'prayer' is an item in religious language. By religious language I mean one sort of language that is less for denoting than for performing.

I am an atheist who prays. Because my praying does not involve any object, religious or otherwise some people call it talking to myself, a fair enough comment

Justin
March 31, 2006 - 12:18 pm
You guessed it Trevor. Hygiene kept the plague at bay.

Justin
March 31, 2006 - 12:46 pm
I wonder how Dr. Benson was able to get the three religious members of the team to state the null hypothesis. I agree with Mallylee. "Prayer" is ill defined and measurable only in replication. There is no control in the definition for intensity of prayer or for length of prayer, or to whom or to what, whether standing or on one's knees, whether emotional or passive, whether by saint or sinner etc. Measurement variation by frequency and multiplicity might be an interesting experiment. An inverse correlation; that is, the more one prayed the less successful operations appeared to be might be hard to understand for some but would be just as reliable as a positive coefficient of .9.

If I did not see that sponsorship was Baptist I would have supposed the experimnt to be a joke.

3kings
March 31, 2006 - 08:42 pm
I agree that there is no hard definition of what constitutes a prayer.And until prayer is defined no one can say whether so and so received prayers, and that some other person didn't.

There is no certain way for a researcher to distinguish between receivers and non receivers. Also, for a really scientific investigation, one would need a placebo prayer, to be received exclusively by a control group. I wonder what on earth such a placebo could be?

I'm presently taking part in a study about calcium supplements. The scheme separates us into groups that get full dosage, half dosage, or no dosage at all, without any of us knowing what group we are in. Only thus can the researchers get some handle on what is happening.

I can't see the effect of prayer being studied in this way. ++ Trevor

3kings
March 31, 2006 - 08:59 pm
Justin Is there any evidence that Jews did not suffer the effects of plague, while Christians did ?

I have heard that plague was spread by rats. Is there any evidence that Jews did not come into contact with rats, or foodstuffs contaminated by rats, as readily as non Jews did? +++ Trevor

Justin
March 31, 2006 - 11:28 pm
Trevor: I don't know what evidence exists. I am reporting here the work of other historians. However, if I come across any evidence I will pass it along. People like Petrarch, and Chaucer mention the observation. There are others but I can't recall who at the moment. Heck, we may find something in Durant when we come to the Plague period.

kevxu
April 1, 2006 - 12:54 am
I think that bubonic plague, which is the "usual" plague, is spread by fleas. Rats are their mode of transportation and their means of coming in contact with humans.

Perhaps the Jewish custom of using ritual baths would have de-fleaed them periodically.

There are some sketchy reports that those Irish who lived in rural areas and under native rule suffered less from the plagues than those in Ireland who lived in the Norse-Norman towns.

kevxu

robert b. iadeluca
April 1, 2006 - 05:06 am
Prayer

robert b. iadeluca
April 1, 2006 - 05:41 am
"In every great religion ritual is as necessary as creed.

"It instructs, nourishes, and often begets, belief.

"It brings the believer into comforting contact with his god.

"It charms the senses and the soul with drama, poetry, and art.

"It binds individuals into fellowship and a community by persuading them to share in the same rites -- the same songs -- the same prayers -- at last the same thoughts.

"The oldest Christian prayers were the Pater noster and the Credo. Toward the end of the twelfth century the tender and intimate Ave Maria began to ake form. And there were poetic litanies of praise and supplication.

"Some medieval prayers verged on magic incantations to elicit miracles. Some ran to an importunate iteration that desperately overruled Christ's ban on 'vain repetitions.'

"Monks and nuns, and later the laity, from an Oriental custom brought in by Crusaders, gradually developed the rosary. As this was made popular by Dominican monks, so the Franciscans popularized the Via Crucis, or Way or Stations of the Cross, by which the worshiper recited prayers before each of fourteen pictures or tableaux representing stages in the Passion of Christ.

"Priests, monks, nuns, and some laymen sang or recited the 'canonical hours' -- prayers, readings, psalms, and hymns formulated by Benedict and others, and gathered into a breviarium by Alcuin and Gregory VII.

"Every day and night, at interals of some three hours, and from a million chapels and hearths, these conspiring prayers besieged the sky.

"Pleasant must have been their music to homes within their hearing -- dulcis cantilena divini cultus, said Ordericus, Vitalis, quate corda fidelium mitigat ac laetificat -- 'sweet is the song of the divine worshi, which comforts the hearts of the faithful, and makes them glad.'"

Comments about prayer?

Robby

kevxu
April 1, 2006 - 05:51 am
The bunk, according to some Christians of this period. Disillusioned by the Church's cult of the saints, Mariolatry and indulgences groups such as the Cathars and Waldensians, popular in southern France and northern Italy, took a conservative view. The Cathars seem to have eschewed all prayers except for the Lord's Prayer, and that they may have reserved only for gatherings in which their spiritual leaders participated. The Waldenses began by restricting prayer to those passages in the scriptures actually recommended as prayer.

Of course, distancing ones self from developments as the saints, Mary and indugences, which played such a big part in the Church's public life, reinforced the tendency which has been constant in Christianity of repudiating powers attributed to the church as an organization, and the role of the clergy.

A salutary movement as religions so quickly become rigid and authoritarian.

kevxu

robert b. iadeluca
April 1, 2006 - 06:13 am
A current ARTICLE for your interest.

Robby

Malryn
April 1, 2006 - 07:32 am

I don't like to do this -- post a link to a page in Google -- but there are many plates for these paintings.

Miserere e guerre by Roualt

Éloïse De Pelteau
April 1, 2006 - 09:38 am
Prayer is the only thing left when everything else lets you down.

Scrawler
April 1, 2006 - 10:47 am
I believe that "prayer" like many things in our lives is part of our "belief" system and that for the most part it is used as a "comfort zone." Therefore, I believe that how we pray, or who we pray to is a very private ritual.

Perhaps in the century we are discussing; prayer came into being not so much for comfort, but more to bring people together and once they were together the church made it a ritual.

MeriJo
April 1, 2006 - 03:36 pm
Prayer is the lifting up of the mind and heart to God. No more - no less.

As children if you hate to wash dishes for your particular chore, but you do it because your mother asked you to do it to help out, and you decide to offer up to God the task of washing dishes, __that is a prayer.

When I can't find a parking place after once driving around the block, and pray that I find one, and I do - that is an occasion for a prayer of Thanksgiving.

Prayer may take many forms depending on the supplication.

The "Lord's Prayer" is the only prayer given directly to people by Jesus.

robert b. iadeluca
April 1, 2006 - 03:49 pm
"The official prayers of the Church were often addressed to God the Father. A few appealed to the Holy Ghost. But the prayers of the people were addressed mostly to Jesus, Mary, and the saints.

"The Almighty was feared. He still carried, in popular conception, much of the severity that had come down from Yahveh.

"How could a simple sinner dare to take his prayer to so awful and distant a throne? Jesus was closer, but He too was God, and one hardly ventured to speak to Him face to face after so thoroughly ignoring His Beatitudes.

"It seemed wiser to lay one's prayer before a saint certified by canonization to be in heaven and to beg his or her intercession with Christ.

"All the poetic and popular polytheism of antiquity rose from the never dead past and filled Christian worship with a heartening communion of spirits, a brotherly nearness of earth to heaven, redeeming the faith of its darker elements.

"Every nation, city, abbey, church, craft, soul, and crisis of life had its patron saint, as in pagan Rome it had had a god.

"England had St. George, France had St. Denis, St. Bartholomew was the protector of the tanners because he had been layed alive.

"St. John was involved by candlemakers because he had been plunged into a calldron of burning oil.

"St. Christopher was the patron of porters because he had carried Christ on his shoulders.

"Mary Magdalen received the petitions of performers because she had poured aromatic oils upon the Savior's feet.

"For every emergency of ill, men had a friend in the skies. St. Sebastian and St. Roch were mighty in time of pestilence .

"St. Apollinia, whose jaw had been broken by the executioner, healed the toothache.

"St. Blaise cured sore throat.

"St. Corneille protectd oxen, St. Gall chickens, St. Anthony pigs.

"St. Medard was for France the saint most frequently solicited for rain. If he failed to pour, his impatient worshipers, now and then, threw his statue into the waters, perhaps as suggestive magic."

Your comments about prayer, please?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
April 1, 2006 - 04:06 pm
This BOOK REVIEW fits right in with what we are discussing now.

Robby

Justin
April 1, 2006 - 04:10 pm
Roualt was a very special artist. I am surprised Jansen has droppd him though I suppose Soo Kang's experience and the Jansen decision are a reflection of the popularity of Roault's topic. La Guerre et Miserere, as Goya pointed out so well are not pleasant topics unless depicted with heroicaly. Roualt's hero is Ecce Homo at the moment following his scourging. The hard black edges of his work and the primitive appearance of his figures make his prints difficult to accept as a steady diet. He is not often displayed. His prints appear as folios that may be opened from time to time rather than as wall hangings that one sees everyday.

I have a Roualt Ecce Homo done in black paint on a brown paper bag. When I feel depressed and put upon, the painting reminds me that my life could be much worse and that I really have had a fairly good time of it.

Justin
April 1, 2006 - 05:08 pm
Thanks Robby the Lilla article was intresting but I wish these guys would learn to write so that one can grasp the message without long moments spent examining the context and wondering what the heck he is talking about. Lilla's opening paragraphs are clear and concise but his ending paragraphs are a jumble of confused jingoism.

Justin
April 1, 2006 - 08:24 pm
What is prayer? It is a conversation with one's God. It is supplication. It is a cry for help when all else fails. Jesus prayed when he said " My God, why hast thou forsaken me." The gospels put many of the words of the pater nostra in Jesus' mouth. The Noli me Tangere of Mary Magdalen is a rejection of a prayer.

Justin
April 2, 2006 - 12:27 am
Prayer is an act of hope in the face dispair.Prayer may be futile but it buoys the spirit of the one who prays. President Lincoln in his Second Inaugural expresses the utter futility of prayer. He is speaking of the defenders of the Union and of the insurgents of the Confederacy when he says,"... both pray to the same God, and each invokes his aid against the other. The prayers of both could not be answered. The Almighty has his own purposes."

I suspect it is not in hope of a response that one prays but rather in acquiring the benefits of a consoling act.

Mallylee
April 2, 2006 - 01:37 am
The RC parthenon of saints is most attractive to me, because it makes praying more accessible for those of us who prefer to have a material object or an imaginable character as a focus for the praying.

I dont use this device myself, as I am subvocally talking to myself when I pray, but there are many people who are unable to separate this fprm of self expression from supernatural beliefs, so such people need a person or object of some sort to focus on for someone or some thing to pray to.

kevxu
April 2, 2006 - 01:43 am
How many remember Janis Joplin's song "Mercedes Benz," a rather trenchant comment on much prayer....gimme, gimme. A clever song. (A brief quote)

"Oh Lord, won’t you buy me a Mercedes Benz ? My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends. Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends, So Lord, won’t you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?

"Oh Lord, won’t you buy me a color TV ? Dialing For Dollars is trying to find me. I wait for delivery each day until three, So oh Lord, won’t you buy me a color TV ?"

And then there is Fr. Boyd's interesting book, "Are You Running With Me, Jesus?" which is about prayer in guttier situations than the church pew.

And then there is the "flip side" or prayer, which I think is just as popular: "G*d damn so-and-so or such-and-such," or "Curse you!"

The urge to what we call "prayer" comes from a place so deep in humans that it goes far beyond the noble.

Historical and archeological research indicates that people very frequently continued to resort to formerly "pagan", i.e. non-Christian, shrines with prayers and offerings.

kevxu

robert b. iadeluca
April 2, 2006 - 06:17 am
"The Church arranged an ecclesiastical calendar in which every day celebrated a saint.

"But the year did not find room for the 25,000 saints that had been canonized by the tenth century. The calendar of saints was so familiar to the people that the almanac divided the agricultural year by their names.

"In France the feast of St. George was the day for sowing. In England St. Valentine's Day marked the winter's end. On that happy day birds (they said) coupled fervently in the woods and youths put flowers on the window sills of the girls they loved.

"Many saints received canonization through the insistent worship of their memory by the people or the locality, sometimes against ecclesiastical resistance.

"Images of the saints were set up in churches and public squares, on buildings and roads, and received a spontaneous worship that scandalized some philosophers and iconoclasts. Bishop Claudius of Turin complained that many folk 'worship images of saints. They have not abandoned idols but only changed their names.'

"In this matter, at least, the will and need of the people created the form of the cult."

Further thoughts about prayer?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
April 2, 2006 - 07:17 am
An ARTICLE of interest.

Robby

MeriJo
April 2, 2006 - 11:26 am
People pray to saints to intercede and join them in prayer to God. A special devotion grows for a saint who is recognized as being in heaven and close to God and may add his/her voice to that of the supplicant.

Mallylee
April 2, 2006 - 12:06 pm
worshipping images of saints and asking them to intercede sounds like a form of magic, By magic, I mean doing some action or saying some form of words that will go some way to causing Fate or God, or some other supernatural power, to be favourably disposed to one.

There is a difference between praying as a way of expressing a hope or a fear , and praying along with the superstitious belief that some supernatural personage is listening to one's prayer, and may respond.

Mallylee
April 2, 2006 - 03:10 pm
The West as a whole, and not just Europe, faces a double political challenge from religion today. One is to realize that the world is full of peoples whose genuine faith in the divine gives them a precise, revealed blueprint for political life, which means that for the foreseeable future they will not enter into the family of liberal democratic nations. Only if we give up the fantasy of a universal historical process driving all nations toward a secular modernity can we face this fact squarely and humanely.

I'm a European, I've been a member of Sea of Faith Network for ten years . I have never had any fantasy about any universal historical process, and I dont know of any other contemporary European who has such a fantasy.Such undiluted Marxist or Hegelian determinism is just not a useful way to view the particularity of history.

It 's true of course that we should look very closely at the phenomenon of religion.

We need to know what we mean by 'religion'. Only the big three Abrahamic religions are monotheisms, plus the special Trinitarian doctrine of Christianity.

Do all religions have an ethics component? I suppose they do, but I am not sure. Are so-called cults of charismatic leaders religions, or only to be called religions if the cult members have supernaturalistic beliefs or if the cults have a great many members?

Christianity is a religion that emphasises that believing stuff is what matters most. Jews and Muslims are more interested in performing the ritual behaviours of Judaism or Islam, than they are in fixed beliefs about God and other supernatural beings,

Is there something in common that all religions have? I doubt it.

What matters in evaluating religions is which ethics are important, and what are our basic criteria for our preferred ethics.

Mallylee
April 2, 2006 - 03:17 pm
The prayers of both could not be answered. The Almighty has his own purposes."

When people aim to change God by their praying, they are doing the impossible. God knows what is best for people, and God also knows exactly what is going to happen at any given time, therefore this kind of prayer is bad theology.

The only sort of prayer that is good theology is expressive, preferably non-rational, and not articulated according to any set form of words.

(BTW I write this from a theological point of view, personally I am atheist)

Justin
April 2, 2006 - 04:19 pm
Deterministic theology coupled with efforts to stop the merry-go-round; I want to get off,is an expression of the uncertainty that exists in all religions. When one chooses an all powerful deity to predetermine one's actions and then expresses a preference for alternative actions one is acting illogically. Which choice is illogical? The prior or the latter?

Justin
April 2, 2006 - 04:21 pm
What does BTW mean? I DU.

robert b. iadeluca
April 2, 2006 - 04:25 pm
Any comments about Durant's remarks in Post 221?

Robby

Justin
April 2, 2006 - 04:26 pm
MeriJo, Nice to see you back in here. I hope you have been well.

Justin
April 2, 2006 - 04:28 pm
Robby; 221 is what we have been talking about- prayer through intercession.

robert b. iadeluca
April 2, 2006 - 05:10 pm
Durant talked about the various saints, the canonizations, the calendars.

Robby

Justin
April 2, 2006 - 07:21 pm
oh!

Justin
April 2, 2006 - 07:29 pm
The Church probably teaches that prayer for intercession is the intended role of the saints but there is no denying that many folks look upon saints as worthy of veneration.

The calendar must do double and triple duty and vary from place to place since 10,000 plus saints vy for attention. If John Paul can make the grade without the usual background check maybe there is a chance for us. I don't think there is a Saint Robby.

Fifi le Beau
April 2, 2006 - 08:57 pm
Justin, 10,000 saints vying for attention....

Durant says, "But the year did not find room for the 25,000 saints that had been canonized by the tenth century.

Justin, I would have readily accepted your figures if I had not been amazed at the 25,000 figure by the tenth century while reading the book recently.

I had intended to look for the figure in the 20th century to compare but have been very busy and never got around to it. Are there fewer saints now because the people are less saintly, or is it because there is no longer a way to hide many of the imperfections from the prying eyes of the world?

Fifi

3kings
April 2, 2006 - 09:25 pm
Justin BTW usually means 'By The Way'. Now tell me, what does I DU mean ? (post #228 )

Like you, I too am pleased to see MeriJo back with us. More, I not only hope she has been well, but that she is well now, and remains so in the future. (Yeah, yeah, I know what sentiments you meant to express. (BG.))

Malllylee what does the phrase 'the particularity of history' mean exactly ? ++ Trevor

Justin
April 2, 2006 - 10:13 pm
Trevor: DU means "Don't Understand".

Fifi; Nice to see you in here from time to time. I thought I said 10,000 plus. I have to admit 25000 is a big plus.

Justin
April 2, 2006 - 11:33 pm
Mally: Your comment about Christianity emphasizing "believing stuff" and Jews and Islam putting emphasis on "behavioral things" is very astute. I think the comment makes a significant contribution to our understanding of religions. It is a generalization but I recognize the truth in it.

Mallylee
April 3, 2006 - 12:31 am
3Kings , by 'particularity of history'i tried to point out the difference between the idea that there are large historical patterns, and the idea that history should address particular and small bits of evidence without drawing out any grand theories from them.

I favour the latter, Lilla seemed to me to be assuming that contemporary Europeans are grand theorists, and I don't know of didn't know of any contemporary Europeans who are.

Perhaps I mistook what Lilla was saying?

kevxu
April 3, 2006 - 01:20 am
One of the effects of Rome taking control of these things, and to some degree and intended one I would think, is that the Christian religion became increasingly centralized. This, of course, made the Church and the popes more effectively able to compete with the kings and emperors.

Centralization and uniformity would also probably have helped the Church of Rome to root out "heresies," such as the Cathars and Waldenses, who in some areas where the local clergy and bishops were weak, or distracted, reached considerable numbers.

The Cathars and others often used forms of prayer that differed from those of the Roman church. The Lord's Prayer is a good example. The original Greek differs from the Latin translation, upon which the English is based, and Cathars and others often used the older Greek-derived version. Having someone recite the Lord's Prayer was one way of checking on someone's orthodoxy.

kevxu

robert b. iadeluca
April 3, 2006 - 03:25 am
"It is to the credit of the secular clergy, and of most monasteries, that while fully accepting the miraculous efficacy of genuine saintly relics, they discountenanced, and often denounced, the excesses of this popular fetisism.

"Some monks, seeking privacy for their devotions, resented the miracles wrought by their relics.

"At Grammont the abbot appealed to the remains of St. Stephen to stop his wonder working which was luring noisy croweds. He threatened:-'Othrwise we will throw your bones into the river.'

"It was the people not the Church that took the lead in creating or swelling the legends of relic miracles. The Church in many cases warned the public to discredit the tales. In 386 an imperial decree presumably requested by the Church forbade the 'carrying about or sale of' the remains of 'martyrs.'

"St. Augustine complained of 'hypocrites in the garb of monks' who 'trade in members of martyrs, if martyr they be.' Justinian repeated the edict of 386.

"About 1119 Abbot Guilbert of Nogent wrote a treatise On the Relics of Saints, calling a halt to the relic craze. Many of the relics, he says, are of 'saints celebrated in worthless records,'

"Some 'abbots, enticed by the multitude of gifts brought in, suffered the fabrication of false miracles.' 'Old wives and herds of base wenches chant the lying legends of patron saints at their looms and if a man refuse their words they will attack him with their distaffs.'

"The clergy, he notes, have rarely the heart or courage to protest. He confesses that he too held his peace, when relic mongers offered to eager believers 'some of that very bread which Our Lord pressed with His own teeth' for 'I should rightly be coandemned for a madman if I should dispute with madmen.'

"He observes that several churches have complete heads of St. John the Baptist and marvels at the hydra heads of that undecapitable saint.

"Pope Alexander (1179) forbade monasteries to carry their relics about seeking contributions. The Lateran Council of 1215 prohibited the display of relics outside their shrines. The Second Council of Lyons (1274) condemned the 'debasement' of relics and images.'"

Reactions to Durant's comments about relics?

Robby

Malryn
April 3, 2006 - 05:53 am

You'll forgive me, I hope, if I say, at the risk of offending you and my Catholic son, that I smile at some of the goings on in the Christian religion. Heavens to Betsy, worship of bones! Hydra heads? All those saints? Well, they never could match the sinners of the world in number, now, could they?

I keep wondering what happened to the gentle, kind, loving religion of Jesus and his preaching about one god to worship and no idolatry. Maybe we humans can't behave unless there's a stern disciplinarian in the picture who'll spank us good if we do wrong. Think of all those marvelous paintings that never would have been painted and glorious music that never would have been composed, if sin, suffering, punishment and retribution weren't on the scene.

Mal

kevxu
April 3, 2006 - 07:50 am
I think the Durants, at least in these quotes, are a good deal more lenient with the Church than history warrants. I have done quite a bit of reading in history, and the records of the times abound in references to relics being paraded around by the clergy. And for all the rules and regulations the trade in relics was brisk, and often done by clerics.

The memoirs of Marjery Kempe, a bumptious English religious show-off, make delightful reading if you can find a copy. Despite the burdens of a husband and family she managed to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, and her adventures are very entertaining, while Marjery herself was clearly a major pain in the neck and show-off at every shrine she visited. Fascinating reading. The Muslims in the Holy Land evidently found these Christian carryings-on quite ridiculous, and their noise and pious howlings were so annoying they locked them in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre overnight to be rid of them.

On the other hand, religion whatever it was in the way of belief in the supernatural, was also public entertainment - the religious feast days, the processions and rituals, and the pious shenanigans with miracles and relics provided entertainment in a world where one could not reach out and turn on a switch or go around the corner to the movie complex and a day off from work, maybe a chance to come to town for country folk. Even today in the area where I live, though belief is scant, the feast days of some saints are still celebrated by the community because they provide an opportunity to have fun, march in the costumes of a relgious guild, show off in front of neighbors and tourists, etc.

kevxu

kevxu
April 3, 2006 - 07:56 am
Your question as to what happened to the simple religion of Jesus (whatever that may have been), reminded me of something that wasn't brought up about the topic of prayer. Jesus is quoted as saying that people should pray in private and not make a show of their praying.

While some of the "heretics" gave this a go, the official church seems to have thrown it by the boards rather early on.

kevxu

mabel1015j
April 3, 2006 - 10:01 am
In a discussion about "being civilized" Trevor said

"I think an example of a 'civilised State' is one in which its people would not so abuse one another. That is something that no nation has so far achieved. There have been some men in history who have sought to develop such a civilisation, but their efforts have so far come to nought. In short, I think we are no more civilised than 'cave man' was. We are just more technically advanced, that is all.-- Trevor "

Did the rituals of the church specifically and the Church in its entirety at this period in history add to our being more civilized? .......jean

Mallylee
April 3, 2006 - 10:53 am
Mabel, I think that Roman Christianity was the birth place of Protestant reformation, which in turn encouraged individual thought, so allowing Renaissance, Enlightenment and the age of reason. Reason makes us more civilised. It's not in itself sufficient as civilising influence, but it is necessary.

The main image in Christianity, of a man/god suffering as a man suffers, is more powerful to generate humanistic reforms than anything that Judaism, Islam or the fatalistic Eastern religions have on offer

MeriJo
April 3, 2006 - 11:29 am
Thank you Justin and Trevor: I'm all right. Things just got busy around here.

There is a St. "Robby" - probably others - I know of a St. Robert Bellarmine!

Only God is worshipped. Saints are honored, venerated or appreciated. As is the Blessed Mother.

People being people, I think, as Durant pointed out get carried away with "celebrity". It is a mystery of the human pysche that people would get so involved with relics. There was legitimate alarm by the clerics of old that the attachment to some relics of holy people would carry folks into an unpleasant mental state. In those days, the word "neurotic" was unknown, but something did get fanatic with people when revering an item or body part of a holy person, and the clerics did not think such extremism was right - healthy, maybe.

I guess that is still going on. When Angelina Jolie and her then-husband Billy Bob Thornton were together they carried vials of each other's blood on a cord/chain around their necks.

Scrawler
April 3, 2006 - 11:41 am
Wouldn't "relics" be like a "talesman" of some sort - such a rabbit's foot or a horse shoe. Something physical to hold on to or to have around the house while you're trying to figure out what to to do about your latest crisis.

MeriJo
April 3, 2006 - 12:23 pm
Scrawler:

A relic is something that actually was part of the person's body or belongings. One would not carry it around. It is said that the Pope's ring has a fragment of the True Cross embedded in it. However, relics are usually placed in a container of some sort called a reliquary.

MeriJo
April 3, 2006 - 12:30 pm
Intercessionaries are not uncommon in the world. Ambassadors intercede for countries with other countries. Committees intercede for a main organization with other organizational entities.

One of the most visible and probably better known of intercessionaries among saints here in our country is St. Jude. As he is remembered as the patron saint of hopeless cases his name on the St. Jude Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, is well known. Much positive research has occurred there for the treatment of cancer in children.

robert b. iadeluca
April 3, 2006 - 05:33 pm
Well, if this Robby is to become a saint, I want you all to know that I will fight for many more years to keep you from getting hold of my bones.

And speaking of years, Trevor, did you ever think that your words spoken 4+years ago would be repeated here. Now that's immortality.

Robby

3kings
April 3, 2006 - 05:47 pm
Mabel1015j Oh dear. Reading that quote of mine from the past shows a tendency of mine to lean toward exaggerated language. My wife often asks me to curb such excesses, obviously with good reason!

I was probably upset at the time, possibly by some incident in the Middle East, which often sets me to fuming.

On reflection, I believe we are more civilized than cavemen. It was emotion speaking, rather than reason.

Malllylee thank you for your explanation. I like to ask if I am unsure...... ++ Trevor

mabel1015j
April 3, 2006 - 09:02 pm
....."Mabel, I think that Roman Christianity was the birth place of Protestant reformation, which in turn encouraged individual thought, so allowing Renaissance, Enlightenment and the age of reason. Reason makes us more civilised. It's not in itself sufficient as civilising influence, but it is necessary."

I like that "building blocks" theory, it will be interesting to see the discussion thru those events. We teach that about the Reformation in both Western Civ and in US History I, i have often wondered if those events that succeeded the Reformation could have come about w/out the Reformation, but that's ahead of us. I guess we have to say that w/out the Catholic Church there would be no Reformation - that's a "dah!" isn't it? LOL

re: Trevor's words returning after 4 yrs - i caution my children that "you never know who is watching what you do and listening to what you say - be careful lest they 'copy' (pun intended) or repeat!!" .......jean

Justin
April 3, 2006 - 10:39 pm
Mally: Christianity is an Eastern religion. All three- Islam, Christianity, and Judaism- are Eastern religions. In an earlier posting you pegged a significant difference between the three when you said,"Christianity emphasizes belief while Judaism and Islam emphasizes behavior. There are many similarities among the three but few distinctions have been drawn.

Mallylee
April 4, 2006 - 12:28 am
Justin, I dont think of the Middle East as eastern. True, the birth place of all three was the old ME.

However, even just in the context of religions, I think of Islam as western because it's Abrahamic. like the other two, and and also because Islam once unified Middle Eastern and much European culture.

I see a significant difference between the authoritarian structures of the 3 Abrahamic religions on one hand and the fatalistic, immanent- god religions on the other.(I mean Buddhism, 'Hinduism' and Taoism)

Mallylee
April 4, 2006 - 12:43 am
3Kings#252 Islam never had an Enlightenment. Islam has some catching up to do, in spite of medieval success. Maybe one strength of the RC leadership is that RC too is basically medieval, and this could be a diplomatic strength in making peace with Islam, while Islam gets itself sorted and Islamic countries a bit more prosperous.

MeriJo
April 4, 2006 - 12:34 pm


Christianity is completely a faith guiding personal behavior. This point is missed because, I think, of the inate need for people to herd together in groups and thereby, thought. It takes a good deal of self-initiative to be a Christian, and, in doing so, often those that do, incur criticism and/or downright objection and hostility.

Sir Thomas More

3kings
April 4, 2006 - 04:49 pm
MeriJo " It takes a good deal of self-initiative to be a Christian " Oh, how right you are !

To be honest, I don't think I have ever met someone who could rightly claim to be a Christian. People tell me "So and so is a real Christian" , but apart from taking my informant at his word, I really have no evidence as to the claim's truth.

The difficulty is, I think, Christianity is a way of life, not an isolated act of behaviour. In short, I don't think one can 'Do the Christian thing' today, and failing to do it tomorrow, still lay claim to be Christian. It is a full 24hours a day commitment, not just a Sunday attendance at Church.

Many are inspired to answer the call, and deserve credit for their attempt, but I doubt if any succeed. There is no such thing as a part time Christian.++ Trevor

Justin
April 4, 2006 - 05:42 pm
"Doing the Christian thing" seems to imply a behavior that is recognized as Christian. Certainly,there is ritual that is recognizable and if one fails to perform there is confession and absolution to adjust the failure. But I don't think that is what you have in mind. Perhaps, I misread but I think you have in mind one's daily secular activity. If that's case, then I don't think there is Christian behavior that is distinct from other behaviors.

The premise that behavior as well as belief is necessary to make one a Christian is often advanced but it is not a practical reality. . If it were so, there would be no Christians as you suggest. I think it was Luther who said "belief is enough."

robert b. iadeluca
April 4, 2006 - 05:56 pm
Is welcoming a person to one's home and giving him a cup of tea, a good Islamic behavior? Is it also good Christian behavior as well as good Jewish behavior? If we eliminate rituals, can we say that all religious behavior is identical. Or, the other side of the coin, can we say that behavior has no religious aspect to it at all?

This, of course, is what Justin was implying.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
April 5, 2006 - 03:33 am
"The finest triumph of this tolerant spirit of adaptation was the sublimation of the pagan mother-goddess cults in the worship of Mary.

"Here too the people took the initiative. In 431 Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, in a famous sermon at Ephesus, applied to Mary many of the terms fondly ascribed by the pagans of Ephesus to the 'great goddess Artemis-Diana.

"The Council of Ephesus in that year over the protests of Nestorius, sanctioned for Mary the title 'Mother of God.' Gradually the tenderest feature of Astarte, Cybele, Artemis, Diana and Isis were gathered together in the worship of Mary.

"In the sixth century the Church established the Feast of the Assumption of the Virgin into heaven and assigned it to August 13, the date of ancient festivals of Isis and Artemis.

"Mary became the patron saint of Constantinople and the imperial family. Her piacture was carried at the head of every great procession and was (and is) hung in every church and home in Greek Christendom.

"Probably it was the Crusades that brought from the East to the West a more intimate and colorful worship of the Virgin."

Comments about Mary, please?

Robby

mabel1015j
April 5, 2006 - 11:46 am
It was in response to Robby saying he admired me for starting to read thru the Durant discussion from Vol I.

"Robby

I admire you for having the perseverance to lead the discussion for five yrs. That's an amazing feat. Are you planning on reading and discussing all 11 volumes? That's VERY impressive. You do a great job of keeping everybody on task and providing great links - as do all the DL's. I just can't believe that i have been lucky enough to find SN and all of the intellectual, and fun, discussions that are here. Whoever tho't up this concept gets a lot madeira toasts from me!!!

Got to keep some madeira for the new GW discussion in May....LOL....jean"

Scrawler
April 5, 2006 - 12:00 pm
To me most religions believe in a superior being or beings and have a set of rules and regulations that the people must or should obey, but than the various religions differ in how one should interpret the superior being and how and when the people should obey the various rules. It is therefore, in the interpretation that the religions differ.

mabel1015j
April 5, 2006 - 12:01 pm
Did i miss your early discussion of how that came about?

Some 3 decades ago i read a great book entitled "When God was a Woman." I don't recall the author, I was not yet documenting that information, as i do today. It spoke to the goddesses such as those mentioned in Durant's statement above and theorized how they were co-opted by Judeo-Christian theologians.

Let me see if i can find the author......jean

mabel1015j
April 5, 2006 - 12:03 pm
is Merlin Stone. It's available on Amazon.

For a synopsis of the book, here's a link.

http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/whm2000/stone2.html....

if you've already discussed this somethime back, i apologize for going backward........jean

Justin
April 5, 2006 - 03:37 pm
We have seen in our review of past civilizations that nothing is ever lost, especially in religion. Things appearing in one religion are carried forward under a new name but with the old characteristics.

We took this as a matter of course when we observed Astate become Isis but now that these two and others have metamophosed into Mary, the Mother of the God and "Our Blessed Mother", we are a little uncertain that this could be. Isn't she of the tree of Jesse? Well, No. She is more likely of the tree of Astarte. It is our uncertainty about the origin and history of the Gods that shows us how ingrained these ideas have become in our consciousness.

I don't recall ever thinking about it before but as we see one religion phase out and another phase in with new words to describe the old thoughts we should realize we are looking at a moving target. Christianity, the word, has lasted two millennia but the concept that is Christianity has changed a great deal over the years.

In it's developmental years it changed rapidly, altering shape with each new council meeting.The Reformation and Counter Reformation changed it's shape substantially. Today, christianity is split into a thousand variations. Mary herself took on a new appearance only recently when she was proclaimed the Immaculate Conception- ie; one conceived without Original sin.

This is a new thought for me. I wonder if the religions of Greece are offshoots of one another. We know that the Greek forms moved into Roman forms under differnt names and that Roman forms combined with Judaic forms to become Christian forms and that Christian and Judaic forms became Islamic forms but what of cross fertilization in the Greek religions. That must have occurred but our level of understanding is too superficial to recognize such change.

Justin
April 5, 2006 - 03:51 pm
If these religious forms are constantly changing yet remain the same we ought to be able to speculate about the next metaphorsis. What new name and shape will Mary next assume? What form will the next Godhead assume?

Suppose, North Korea or some other little nut case, lets a nuclear explosion, occur. Nevil Shute wrote a tale of one such explosion some years ago. The cloud was advancing on Australia when a few survivors entered a submarine to find a haven. There were no religious advocates in the group. What would the next God be called, the next Mary etc?.

MeriJo
April 5, 2006 - 05:04 pm
In reading the history of the early Church one may not help but notice the lively discussion surrounding the teachings of Christ,

These discussions caused different ideas to float around and it took many years to collect the correct chronological order of events, to sort through the meanings of heard words, and other irregularities that occur when one tries to interpret spoken messages.

However, one thing was clear. When Christ was on the Cross and John and his mother were at the foot of that Cross, he said to John, "Behold thy mother", and to Mary "Behold thy son."

These words were taken to mean that Christ was giving the care of his followers to Mary and the care of his mother to John. In that intent was the disposition of the care of the Church to Mary.

It was also considered appropriate to continue to celebrate the old pagan holidays in connection with the new events being recorded in Church History. People were used to certain concepts, holidays, and it followed then that the change in teaching certain new ideas would be easier to understand if kept within the conscience of what people already knew.

robert b. iadeluca
April 5, 2006 - 05:11 pm
"The worship of Mary transformed Catholicism from a religion of terror -- perhaps necessary in the Dark Ages -- into a religion of mercy and love.

"Half of the beauty of Catholic worship, much of the splendor of Catholic art and song, are the creation of this gallant faith in the devotion and gentleness, even the physical loveliness and grace, of woman. The daughers of Eve have entered the temple and have transformed its spirit.

"Partly because of that new Catholicism feudalism was chastened into chivalry and the status of woman was moderately raised in a man-made world. Because of it medieval and Renaissance sculpture and painting gave to art a depth and tenderness rarely known to the Greeks.

"One can forgive much to a religion and an age that created Mary and her cathedrals."

Final thoughts about Mary?

The thing that strikes me the most about the grace, the loveliness, and the beauty that came into the religion is that it came about because "the people" wanted it, not from an edict from above.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
April 5, 2006 - 05:16 pm
Ritual

robert b. iadeluca
April 5, 2006 - 05:23 pm
"In art and hymns and liturgy the Church wisely made place for the worship of the Virgin but in the older elements of her practice and ritual she insisted on the sterner and more solemn aspects of the faith.

"Following ancient customs, and perhaps for reasons of health, she prescribed periodical fasts. All Fridays were to be meatless. Throughout the forty days of Lent no meat, eggs, and chees might be eaten and the fast was not to be broken until the hour of none (3 p.m.). Furthermore there were to be in that period no weddings, no rejoicing, no hunting, no trials in court, no sexual intercourse.

"These were counsels of perfection, seldom fully observed or enforced but they helped to strengthen the will and to tame the excessive appetites of an omnivorous and carnal population."

First the prayer buoyed the people up and then the rituals brought them down.

Robby

Justin
April 5, 2006 - 06:35 pm
Jesus was not a guy who was easy to get along with. He argued with elders.He tossed the money lenders out of th Temple they thought was theirs.He took his message of fear from John the Baptist and spread it about. Judgement is coming. Be careful what you do.

But Mary, in fact the three Mary's, lend a gentling hand to the image of christianity. Their beauty and their humaneness make them very sympathetic characters. They bring a message of mercy to a revenge laden world. Their influence and position in the Church did not help the Jews when they needed help so much but these gals did temper the message of Jesus.

We wondered earlier where the idea of a gentle Jesus came from. Now it is clear it came from Mary. The people clearly loved her. Every cathedral in France bears the name Notre Dame. Abbeys and parish churches honor others but the cathedrals belong to Our Lady.

mabel1015j
April 5, 2006 - 08:32 pm
Durant says:

"In the sixth century the Church established the Feast of the Assumption of the Virgin into heaven and assigned it to August 13, the date of ancient festivals of Isis and Artemis.

"Mary became the patron saint of Constantinople and the imperial family. Her piacture was carried at the head of every great procession and was (and is) hung in every church and home in Greek Christendom.

"Probably it was the Crusades that brought from the East to the West a more intimate and colorful worship of the Virgin."

Is this Durant's evidence that women became more esteemed in the church, that Mary's grace and gentleness had an impact on the church's behavior?

Justin says: every city in France has their Notre Dame.....she owns the cathedrals.

O.K. Mary is on the walls, her name is on the cathedral, her story was carried to the West during the Crusades, she has a feast day, she's the patron saint of Constantinople. BUT, we can't have any of her sex participating as any kind of authority in the the service. None of her sex can be "priests" or in any higher position of the church hierarchy. She may have brought a "gentleness and grace" to the people, but what impact does the Mary figure have on the institutional church? Everything mentioned is superficial, no substance.

I am not just being critical, I am not seeing the worship of Mary and the "great change" Durant is saying she made on the church. She raised women's standing slightly??? Where and how? Not in the institutional church as i am seeing it......As we said earlier, there were women in convents and abbeys who had authority and great administration skills, etc, but they are not in the church structure. I think it is pure hype that distracts us from the reality. If we talk about and adore Mary, we are including women in the church???? Pshaw!.......jean

Justin
April 5, 2006 - 11:26 pm
I don't know that the veneration of Mary has changed the status of women in the church one iota. Mary is not a woman. She is a pregnant virgin who gave birth to God. She is a holy vessel not a woman. She is the Blesed Mother.Nothing more is expected of her. She suffered as a mother would when her God-Child was crucified and human women empathize with her. She now intercedes with her Son for those who pray to her. Human women are something else in the eyes of the institutional Church. They are not quite the same.

Mary Magdalene is quite another thing. She is more human. She is not venerated but as one of Jesus' companions she played an important part in the story. She is the first one he appears to when resurected. But the church ignores her. I think they would be happy if she just went away. She screws up the happy picture somehow. Women just don't do well in the Church.

Mallylee
April 6, 2006 - 02:16 am
I dont have any experience of the RC Church. However, I feel that Justin and Mabel are both right.

What I think is this: Mary ,symbolising the Earth , the world, gave birth to humanity, and humanity includes hope for the future(i.e.Christ) Because the Earth is seen as fruitful and generous, so is Mary.

The Church, masculine and aggressive,is superimposed on the world as the human species imposed itself on the Earth,i.e. super-dominant over nature,as it was at the historical stage of the Church's inception.This is why the Church won't tolerate women priests, cardinals or popes, because the Church's symbolism is masculine.

However, I think Mary is more than a sop for those who are tired of cruelty and suffering.

We now know that our species can't continue to dominate in the old ,'masculine', RC way. I hope that we are due to have a revival of respect for the Earth and for its life forms. Not respect as in the old pagan religions, but scientifically-informed respect.

robert b. iadeluca
April 6, 2006 - 04:00 am
"The liturgy of the Church was another ancient inheritance, remolded into lofty and moving forms of religious drama, music, and art.

"The Psalms of the Old Testament, the prayers and homilies of the Jerusalem Temple, readings from the New Testament, and the administration of the Eucharist, constituted the earliest elements of the Christian service.

"The division of the Church into Eastern and Wstern resulted in divergent rites. And the inability of the early popes to extend their full authority beyond Central Italy resulted in a diversity of ceremony even in the Latin Church.

"A ritual established at Milan spread to Spain, Gaul, Ireland, and North Britain and was not overcome by the Roman form until 664.

"Pope Hadrian I, probably completing labors begun by Gregory I, reformed the liturgy in a 'Sacramentary' sent to Charlesmagne toward the end of the eighth century.

"Guillaume Durand wrote the medieval classic on the Roman liturgy in his Rationale divinorum officiorum, or Rational Exposition of the Divine Offices. We may judge its wide acceptance from the fact that it was the first book printed after the Bible."

Your comments about liturgy, please?

Robby

Scrawler
April 6, 2006 - 10:30 am
It is interesting that the "other" Mary got lost for centuries between the cracks so to speak. In fact is she was victimized by the church and it has just been recently that she has been thought of as a "companion" to Jesus. What a difference she would have made in the image of man and women being able to be on an equal footing. From what I've read Jesus told Mary Magdaline things that he did not discuss with either his mother or the apostles. Legend has it that the apostles became jealous of Mary Magdaline and that is why the church condemned her.

Justin
April 6, 2006 - 10:40 am
Some parts of the Catholic liturgy appear to be constant and others variable. The portion of the Mass dealing with the Eucharist follows the events of the Passover meal attended by Jesus and his followers and it has been essentially the same for many many centuries. If I am not mistaken I think this is called the Kyrie. Other parts of the Mass have been added over time by the various councils.

Beginning, sometime in the nineteen forties, I think, prayers were added at the end of the Mass for the destruction of communism. (That's an ironic twist isn't it?)

Hand holding and neighborliness was added after Vatican Two. Latin was dropped and a vernacular added.

MeriJo
April 6, 2006 - 12:12 pm
First of all: The Blessed Mother Mary is never worshipped. She is venerated. Only God may be worshipped. She was a human being chosen by God to bear the Messiah in fulfillment of the Scriptures.

Mary Magdalene is a saint. She was not wished away.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09761a.htm

The Repentant St. Mary Magdalene

The reason that women do not have access to the Sacrament of Holy Orders is because in the scheme of things men are fathers, women are mothers. Christ did not institute the Sacrament of Holy Orders upon women, but upon men, just as he as a man acted as a priest to his apostles.

Being a priest is not like being the chairman of the board. Being a priest is a service, a ministry for men. The Church is not a democracy. The Church is not masculine. In fact, it is often called, Mother Church.

If women want to be priests, then their idea of a priest is one of earthly accomplishment - not of heavenly grace. I think it may never happen. Not even in the schismatic Orthodox churches are women, priests. This does not diminish a woman in the least. It just is not her role - just as it is not her role to be a father - she can only be a mother. Another more prosaic example would be, a chocolate cake is not a spice cake, and another, three cannot be four. It just is that way. Here is certainty in its purest form.

kevxu
April 6, 2006 - 12:21 pm
The pre-Vatican II (Latin) mass took shape over centuries. It did have unchangeable parts, i.e. the Kyrie (one of the very few parts of the Latin rite liturgy spoken in Greek), the Creed, large sections of the canon of the mass of the Faithful, etc. Other parts of the mass changed to suit the feast day being celebrated or the liturgical season - most of these changeable parts were lifted from the Old and New Testaments. In fact, most of the Latin mass was made up of quotations directly from the scriptures, or paraphrasings of scriptural passages.

The color of the vestments the priest wears while celebrating mass also vary dependent upon what the purpose of the mass is and what the liturgical season is.

The mass has two parts: The mass of the Catecumens (those being instructed in the Christian faith and not yet baptized), and the mass of the Faithful at which the Eucharist was celebrated. In the early church the catecumens left the mass at the midpoint and the Eucharistic part of the service was seen by the Faithful only.

A similar distinction was and is preserved in Orthodox Christianity where the most sacred part of the service takes place behind the iconastasis, a large screen with doors in the front of the church. At the time of consecration the doors are closed shutting off the view of the altar.

It was emphatically taught as a required belief/dogma that every mass was a totally authentic re-enactment not only of the Last Supper, but - as the bread and wine became the actual body and blood of Jesus and were consumed - it was also the same as Jesus's crucifixion, and that is why it was very often referred to as the "holy sacrifice of the mass."

kevxu
April 6, 2006 - 12:39 pm
#279 First of all: The Blessed Mother Mary is never worshipped. She is venerated. Only God may be worshipped. She was a human being chosen by God to bear the Messiah in fulfillment of the Scriptures.

There are three levels of "worship" in the RC church:

latria - worship due to God alone. The worship afforded to any Divine Person of the Trinity, and the worship given the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

dulia - the worship given to the saints as friends of God

hyperdulia - the worship given to Mary above all saints due to her sanctity above all creatures

These are Greek words and they all apply to "worship," however, in English it is customary to reserve the English word "worship" for latria, and to use "veneration" for dulia and hyperdulia.

There are four dogmas concerning Mary that all Roman Catholics are required to accept:

1. that Mary is the "Mother of God" 2. that Mary was "Ever-Virgin" 3. that Mary was herself "immaculately conceived" (i.e. without original sin) 4. that Mary was assumed into Heaven and crowned "Queen of Heaven and Earth"

Another "potential dogma" has bobbed around the waters of the RC church for centuries, especially after the impetus to Mariolatry beginning with the Counter-Reformation. Pius XII was rumored to be on the verge of proclaiming it.

It is that Mary is "Mediatrix of all Graces, Co-redemptrix and Advocate." The theology of it has these functions being enjoyed by virtue of the power of God, but such a dogma would place her in a position hardly distinguishable from that of Jesus in the eyes of most lay people.

kevxu

kevxu
April 6, 2006 - 01:02 pm
Litanies are probably a very old form of prayer in the Christian church, though the litanies now in use may have been mainly composed in the late Middle Ages.

The link takes you to the text of the Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary. While its content is not considered to be a reflexion of mandatory belief regarding the B.V.M. it is interesting in that it was (and may still be) rather widely used group devotion. The whole is of it is extravagantly poetic - and the theological implications, even though not dogma, are mind-boggling.

http://www.catholic-forum.com/SAINTS/litany09.htm

kevxu

Justin
April 6, 2006 - 01:50 pm
I thought I said "Venerate", Yes, I did. But I see you are reponding to Durant who failed to make the distinction.

If 'Holy Orders" are granted as you say, then I agree, women will never become priests. The analogy used, Father/Mother, however, may not be quite apt. Jesus' apostles were men because in the Jewish culture women did not participate in religion. Mary Magdalene was part of the gang because Jesus wanted her as a companion. Remember he appeared to her first. That alone should have made women eligible for the priesthood. The father/mother argument seems like a contrivance to explain away an injustice.

Of course, Kyrie is Greek. There is no K in Latin. That never occurred to me before, perhaps, because it is followed by eleison which is Latin.

Somewhere during the sacrifice of the Mass there must be a reference to the Crucifixion. It just never occurred to me that the refernce followed Communion. I do not have access at the moment to the words of the priest and the responses. Perhaps, MeriJo can pin point the reference for us.

kevxu
April 6, 2006 - 03:38 pm
Early Christian ceremonies were often celebrated using the graves of departed martyrs as the altar table, and from this grew the custom of placing a flat stone containing a relic in the surface of the altars in churches (presuming that the altar was not already erected over a grave.) Thus, the mass was also recalling the sacrifices of the martyrs and pious Christians.

The priest would say early in the mass: "We beseech Thee, O Lord, by the merits of They saints whose relics lie here, and of all the saints deign in mercy to pardon me all my sins."

In the pre-Vatican II mass immediately after the consecration of the bread and wine, which transubstantiated them into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, the celebrating priest made the "Offering of the Victim."

In part it says"...Thy ministers, as also Thy holy people, offer unto Thy supreme majesty, of the gifts bestowed upon us, the pure Victim, the holy Victim, the all-perfect Victim....we implore Thee, almighty God, bid these offerings to be brought...unto Thy altar above...that those of us who by sharing in the Sacrifice of this altar...may be filled with every grace...etc."

In what were called the "Final Prayers" of the mass, just before the blessing and the last gospel, the celebrating priest said: "May the tribute of my worship be pleasing to Thee, most holy Trinity, and grant that the sacrifice which I, all unworthy, have offered in the presence of Thy majesty, may be acceptable to Thee...."

kevxu

Rich7
April 6, 2006 - 04:34 pm
FYI, I'm still here but not contributing lately. Just standing back and enjoying the outstanding postings that have, in the last week or so, been appearing in this discussion. (Not that they have not always been good, but postings in the recent discussion have been particularly well thought out, and presented.)

It makes very good reading.

Richard

robert b. iadeluca
April 6, 2006 - 07:33 pm
I agree with Rich. Thank you for these "outstanding" postings. Now let us move on to Durant's next remarks.

"The center and summit of the Christian worship was the Mass.

"In the first four centuries this ceremony was called the Eucharist or thanksgiving and that sacramental commemoration of the Last Supper renamed the essence of the service.

"Around it there gathered in the course of twelve centuries a complicated succession of prayers and songs, varying with the day and season of the year and the purpose of the individual Mass, and inscribed for the convenience of the priest in the missal, or book of the Mass.

"In the Greek rite, and sometimes in the Latin, the two sects were separated in the congregation.

"There were no chairs, all stood, or, at the most solemn moments, knelt. Exceptions were made for old or weak people. For monks or canons, who had to stand through long services, little ledgs were built into the choir stalls to support the base of the spine.

"These misericordiae (mercies) became a favorite recipient of the wood carver's skill. The officiating priest entered in a toga covered by alb, chasuble, maniple, and stole -- colorful garments bearing sumbolical decorations.

"The most prominent symbols were usually the letters IHS -- i.e. Iesos Huios Soter, 'Jesus Son of God, Saviour.'

"The Mass itself was begun at the foot of the altar with a humble Introit:-'I shall go in to the altar of God,' to which the acolyte added, 'To God Who giveth joy to my youth.'

"The priest ascended the altar and kissed it as the sacred repository of saintly relics. He intoned the Kyrie eleison ('Lord hve mercy upon us') -- a Greek survival in the Latin Mass, and recited the Gloria ('Glory to God in the highst') and the Credo.

"He consecrated little wafers of bread and a chalice of wine into the body and blood of Christ with the words Hoc est corpus meum and Hic est sanguinus meus and offered these transubstantiated elements -- namely His Son -- as a propitiatory sacrifice to God in commemoration of the sacrifice on the cross and in lieu of the ancient sacrifice of living things.

"Turning to the worshipers, he bade them lift up their hearts to God, sursum corda, to which the acolyte, representing the congregation, answered Habemus ad Dominum:-'We hold them up to the Lord.'

"The priest then recited the triple Sanctus, the Agnus Dei, and the Pater noster, himself partook of the consecrated bread and wine and administered the Eucharist to communicants.

"After some additional prayers he pronounced the closing formula -- Ite, missa est -- 'Depart, it is dismissal' -- from which the Mass (missa) probably derived its name.

"In late forms there still followed a blessing of the congregation by the priest and another Gospel reading -- usually the Neoplatonic exordium of the Gospel of St. John.

"Normally there was no sermon except when a bishop officiated or when, after the twelfth century, a friar came to preach."

Lots and lots to discuss here about the Mass.

Robby

Sunknow
April 6, 2006 - 08:37 pm
Question: If, as some one remarked, the the litanies now in use may have been mainly composed in the late Middle Ages.... my question is: are they Biblical? Or does that matter?

Frankly, even with half of my family being Catholic, I evidently know very little, and have learned more here than I ever hoped to learn.

I agree with Rich, and with Robby - the postings are excellent and educational.

Sun

mabel1015j
April 6, 2006 - 09:09 pm
so I'll just pose a thought - if Mary is all of those things listed above,(#281) including the result of immaculate conception, how does she differ from Jesus and should she not be included in the group of God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost? ......jean

Justin
April 6, 2006 - 09:38 pm
One might well expect that the birth mother of a god would be a god. Certainly, that would be so among the Greeks and Romans. However, in this case the birth mother is not giving birth to a god but to a human who, coincidently, is a god. Mary's humanity serves to emphasize the human characteristics of Jesus. He lives as a human and he dies as a human. He resurects as a god. We are dealing here with a peculiar blend of God and man with the emphasis on human when Jesus is alive and the emphasis on God when he is resurected. Is Jesus God? Yes. Is the resurected Jesus Christ God? Yes. This blend is said to be a mystery and clearly that is so.

3kings
April 6, 2006 - 10:40 pm
At the risk of repeatedly beating my same old drum, I feel that throughout the recent posts, each one is promoting Church ritual as the core of Christianity.

I beg to disagree. To me notions of The Trinity, The ritual of the Mass, the belief that grape juice and unleavened bread can be transformed into the blood and flesh of a God.... none of these things are concerned with the philosophy of Christianity, the love of one's fellow man. They are what I call Churchianity.

Those seem to be ideas hungover from Egyptian and Old Testament times, as I think Justin points out. Ritual, and the fancy dress of Church dignities, are peripheral. It is the content of the Message, not the formalism with which it is delivered that I am attracted by.++ Trevor

Fifi le Beau
April 6, 2006 - 10:58 pm
The world is so ordered that we must, in a material sense, lose everything we have and love, one thing after another, until we ourselves close our eyes..........George Santayana

The National Geographic has an article and television special on the Book of Judas that was found some time ago and has been verified as authentic in age. The book proclaims that Judas was told by Jesus to betray him to the Jews and Romans.

The Catholic church had ordered all copies destroyed, but this one escaped the order. It was written in Coptic, and has been translated.

Fifi

Mallylee
April 7, 2006 - 01:05 am
3Kings I agree. I like rituals, but I dislike the authoritarianism of churches which as representatatives of the body of Christ, could do with less fatty accumulations and less swallowing whatever is presented by the priestly hierarchies.

Basic Christian morality is common to all the big religions and to unbelievers.

Mallylee
April 7, 2006 - 01:16 am
Fifi, I got an introduction to the work of Santayana only last week, on another news board, re prayer. I am so grateful to have found out about Santayana and I hope to read more

Mallylee
April 7, 2006 - 01:20 am
Fifi, if Jesus did tell Judas to betray him, then Jesus did not go as a lamb to the slaughter, but as a willing martyr?

Is it perhaps also true, as one conspiracy theory has it, that Jesus never intended to die on the cross, but to be taken down and nursed and medicated back to health?

Mallylee
April 7, 2006 - 01:31 am
Justin.#289 I think it's a mystery only if I accept the story as literally true.

If it's a symbolic truth , that God became Man, then it's a story about God becoming more human, more immanent, and less the big transcendent boss. This has come to pass as a matter of history.

I particularly like the story of the fallible and human Peter, as a lesson in the nature of forgiveness

kevxu
April 7, 2006 - 01:55 am
In #290, "...(rituals, etc.)none of these things are concerned with the philosophy of Christianity, the love of one's fellow man. They are what I call Churchianity."

Although I am inclined to agree, I think this is a difficult area to make clear divisions. Many (most?) people are weak, lazy, beset with work, problems, etc., and the attractions of "Churchianity" with prescribed ritual behaviour is far easier than a life of constant ethical examination and conduct. No religions seem free of this development.

And, on the other hand, the ball seems to get rolling very early in all religions - including Christianity, of course - creating these ritual structures. They putative founder is hardly gone before they begin, perhaps we just have to "get real" as kids say, and accept the fact that the original message (or what we think the original message was) and developments BOTH are Christianity.

Perhaps it is like dealing with children. Who is your child? The little innocent of four and five who said all those cute things you treasure, or the complicated, vexing, man or woman of 25 or 35, who can often be an enormous pain in the ***, a worry, a humiliation, and a whole bunch of other things and whom you have gotten into dealing with in large measure by and with habits, i.e. - ritual. Clearly, or maybe not so clearly, all there really is to deal with is what is in front of you, but how many parents still expect to find the child in the adult?

If we are honest, I believe we must acknowledge that we haven't a bloody clue what Jesus meant or intended at what is called the Last Supper, for example. IF he meant his words literally, then, indeed, what we call transubstantiation was at the core of his message. If, on the other hand, it was an early interpretation by his gentile followers, based on the similar rituals of Mithraism, etc. that they were familiar with, then it was not part of the original message...but who knows? No one.

kevxu

kevxu
April 7, 2006 - 02:14 am
In #289, However, in this case the birth mother is not giving birth to a god but to a human who, coincidently, is a god.

My goodness!!!!!!!!!!! There must have been millions of martyrs and saints spinning in their graves like windmills when you wrote that "Coincidentally" !!!! Planned from the time of the Fall by the Almighty himself, an Old Testament filled with prophecies about it...this, I think, is a bedrock belief without which one cannot claim to be Christian. The Divine Plan for the salvation of man, coincidence had no part in it if you are a believer.

"....He lives as a human and he dies as a human. He resurects as a god. We are dealing here with a peculiar blend of God and man with the emphasis on human when Jesus is alive and the emphasis on God when he is resurected.

I have to seriously question this...as did many early Christians. Arians saw it one way, gnostics another. A man who can change wine into water, a man who can raise the dead...? I don't think so, he is at least a great magician, if not a god.

Given that he seems so obviously to have been a supernatural wonder-worker, I can see how belief became surrounded early on by wonderful rituals based on his "magic." The mass in some respects does seem like a great drama of the dual nature of this god-in-man.

kevxu

robert b. iadeluca
April 7, 2006 - 05:17 am
I want to thank every single one of you for the calm, thoughtful, respectful way in which you are covering this subject. Some of you are atheists, some of you are agnostics, some of you are devout believers -- but you are all acutely aware that Durant was a historian and you are all approaching it with that in mind. There are religious discussion groups here on Senior Net where they sling mud at each other in a disgusting manner.

Each of you have your own specific belief but you are not trying to foist it on the others. Thank you for that.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
April 7, 2006 - 05:33 am
:At first all Masses were sung and the congregation joined in the singing.

"From the fourth century onward the vocal participation of the worshipers declined and 'canonical choristers' provided the musical response to the celebrant's chant. The hymns sung in the various services of the Church are among the most moving producers of medieval sentiment and art.

"The known history of the Latin hymn begins with Bishop Hilary of Poitiers. Returning to Gaul from exile in Syria, he brought home some Greco-Oriental hymns, translated them into Latin, and composed some of his own. All of these are lost.

"Ambrose at Milan made a new beginning. Eighteen survive of his sonorous hymns, whose restrained fervor so affected Augustine.

"The noble hymns of faith and tranksgiving, The Deum laudamus, formerly ascribed to Ambrose, was probably written by the Romanian Bishop Nicetas of Remisiana toward the end of the fourth century.

"In later centuries the Latin hymns may have assumed a new delicacy of feeling and form under the influence of Moslem and Provencal love poetry. Some of the hymns (like some Arabian poems) verged on jingling doggerel, tipsy with excess of rhyme.

"But the better hymns of the medieval flowering -- the twelfth and thirteenth centuries -- developed a subtle turn of compact phrase, a melodiousness of frequent rhyme, a grace and tenderness of thought, that rank them with the greatest lyrics in literature."

Any comments here about various Masses?

Robby

kevxu
April 7, 2006 - 06:06 am
This is not a contribution of substance, but I can still remember the joy of discovering the musical settings for the mass by Dufay, Obrecht, Ockegham, DePrez...I was stunned for months each time I listened to these recordings. If you check out Amazon.com you can hear some snatches of their music. Go to Classical Music, then type in one of the composer names and then when the recording comes up play some of the selections (not all of the recordings have parts that can be played, but many do.)

Though not a Christian believer today, I still find this same music to be among the most moving that I have ever heard, although the music of the Russian and Bulgarian Orthodox traditions is glorious too.

The standard parts of the mass set to music were the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus and Agnus Dei and occasionally other parts. Although the Kyrie, for example, is only nine two-word sentences when spoken, when set to music it can last five minutes or more, and some parts last ten minutes or more. As I understand it, though the priest might have finished actually saying or chanting a part of the mass, he waited until the musical part being sung by the chorus was finished so that the mass itself wouldn't be way out of synch with the musical parts. This meant that masses could get very long...and I do remember Christmas Eve masses and in Holy week from childhood that went on for hours. I remember one Christmas Eve mass that started at midnight and at one point my mother exclaimed, "It's after two o'clock!"

These mass settings often have names, for example Missa L'Homme Armé, and often these names are taken from well known secular songs of the day. These religious composers would sometimes take the most well-known musical phrase from a "pop" song and use variations of it over and over again in various meters, inverted, sung in a round pattern as the basis for the mass they were writing. It was certainly a challenge for the composer and a great bit of work if well done, but I have wondered what people thought in mass when they kept hearing a snatch of popular music coming back at them again and again in various forms at mass.

I would not have been happy sitting through Missa Pop Goes the Weasel.

kevxu

kevxu
April 7, 2006 - 06:51 am
The expression to "hear" mass probably comes from the fact that it was not unusual when you went to mass to only hear it, but to not be able to see it - or certainly not well.

Similar to churches in Orthodoxy many churches in the West had rood screens that separated the congregation from the choir and the altar sanctuary. Sometimes these screens were made of wood, others were a stone fretwork, but in effect they reduced visibility of the mass considerably.

Early Irish churches were very tiny, and it was first thought that this was due to architectural constraints. A more recent view is that only the priests may have fit into some of these little churches, and that the congregation stood outside under a wooden structure.

What many of the congregation would have experienced at mass by the early Medieval era was the vague sounds of the priests hidden in the front of the church, a view of a large screen covred with religious paintings and surmounted by a cross and the impressive singing of a choir of monks and priests.

Very mysterious and impressive, I would think, though not necessarily very comforting - at least in a warm and cozy manner.

kevxu

Fifi le Beau
April 7, 2006 - 09:35 am
During the Dark Ages (Middle Ages if you prefer) when the Catholic church made such great inroads in Europe, the people were for the most part illiterate and could not read and write in their own language much less the Latin language of the church.

Since the mass was in Latin, ritual would have been necessary since they would not have understood a word the priest was saying. Eventually they simply cut the people out of the service altogether, and had their own learned choir from monasteries sing in the service.

Learners are visual, aural, and those who need both and must actually perform the task themselves to understand it. Those visual learners like Malachy McCourt who wrote the book, "A Monk Swimming" did not hear 'Blessed art thou amongst women', but 'Blessed art thou a monk swimming'. Education brought understanding but also rejection.

Eventually western Europe will reject Christianity, but we are still in the middle ages and the Wizard is still behind the curtain with all his bells and whistles while lulling them softly with a song.

Fifi

mabel1015j
April 7, 2006 - 09:57 am
Music is one of the most lovely, soothing, comforting, entertaining and interesting contributions of the Christian Church......jean

kevxu
April 7, 2006 - 10:07 am
3kings wrote message 290 pointing out the split between the "philosophy" of Christianity and the ritual. And Fifi commented in #302 that Western Europe will eventually reject Christianity, even if we are at present still beguiled by the "bells and whistles."

I wonder.

I think many (most?) people - even in our supposedly bettered educated times - want/need the bells and whistles, and I think that ethical messages, i.e. the philosophy still get short shrift.

Look at the growth and popularity of New Age beliefs and Wicca, both of which are laden with arcane ritual. And though the barebones, ethical Theravadin Buddhism has attracted few people in the West, the ritual heavy Zen and Tibetan Buddhism have attracted quite a few.

I have become inclined to feel that very few people can do without pretty heavy doses of ritual (e.g. ceremonies, talismans) or if not that then the ritual of unquestioned belief (e.g. infallible scriptures containing all the truth, all the answers), and truly prefer churchly certainties over the road of taking a "message" personally and abandoning the shows and crutches.

While it is not the focus of this part of the Durants just yet, I think that the history of religious reform demonstrates what I have said.

Elias Hicks, the Quaker reformer, said, referring to creeds and beliefs versus personal ethics and self-examination, "The blood of Christ—the blood of Christ—why, my friends, the actual blood of Christ in itself was no more effectual than the blood of bulls and goats—not a bit more—not a bit." But history seems to show that people prefer to focus out and not in, they prefer the spellbinding legends and "magic."

kevxu

Scrawler
April 7, 2006 - 11:52 am
To me the mass is symbolic. It represents the literal transformation of Christ into a shared shape that we can all partake in. But the transformation goes much further than that. It reflects the inner psychological identity of the person being transformed. In other words by partaking of the bread and wine; we literally are identifying with Christ - his gentleness and his love and that as we partake of this we to transform his gentleness and his love into ourselves.

Mallylee
April 7, 2006 - 02:38 pm
Kevxu I hope that people who do New Age and Wicca , will progress to accepting uncertainties. I hope that people who are searching for certainties will give up their search ,and tolerate the fact that there are no certainties.

I wonder if religious ritual can be enjoyed without beliefs. For instance, Mabel praises religious music, and I enjoy it too. I love the Mozart and Faure requiems. The latter has words as well as music, and I enjoy the words as well as the music.I don't believe the stories about Jesus, but they are like 'let us suppose that there was a man/god who --'etc . As we do when we go to the theatre.

Malryn
April 7, 2006 - 02:43 pm

Dear fellow travelers through civilization:

Are you forgetting one important thing about Christianity music? Most of the composers were paid and paid well for their evangelical major and minor endeavors. The Verdi and Fauré Requiems are two of my most favorite pieces of music to listen to, to enjoy, to live, to become enraptured by. Giuseppe Verdi and Gabriel Fauré did not write their music for nothing; keep it in mind.

Nor did Mozart or Bach, or any of the composers you've heard and well know, write their music for nothing. I have sung solos in masses in concert by composers you never heard of, who were also paid, either by the church or a rich patron thereof.

I have said before in this discussion that without Christianity we would have been deprived of some of the most majestically moving and awe-inspiring art and music ever created. That's a good thing about this religion, the manifestation of it by art. The bad thing about Christianity, as I see it, is the guilt about disappointing and letting down a perfect God, This prevailed far into the Reformation, and has to the present day, as have questions left unanswered.

I wonder what Christians and Creationists today would say about the fossil, Tiktaalik? Perhaps they didn't hear the news? Or perhaps they said, "What does that scientific gobbledygook nonsense have to do with me?" What would Jesus say?

Mal

Justin
April 7, 2006 - 02:44 pm
The dictim to "love one's fellow man" has appeared time and time again as we read through the various civilizations. It is almost unrecognizable in Christianity and it disappears completely in practice. Christians love a neighbor so long as he is not gay or lesbian, an unmarried couple, a pregnant teenager, a democrat, a heretic, a competing cult member, etc.etc.

Malryn
April 7, 2006 - 03:17 pm




Dali: Crucifixion


Malryn
April 7, 2006 - 03:34 pm

I guess I've lost my touch. I tried to link a page I made with the Dali painting on it, Couldn't. This is the result. Look quick because this ia against SNet rules, and no doubt will be deleted. I'll keep trying until I do it, That's what I get for pretending I've been sick for a year, Right?

Mal

Justin
April 7, 2006 - 03:46 pm
Mal: He would say, "I told you so"

Malryn
April 7, 2006 - 04:19 pm




"Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani"

These are the last words of Jesus (we are told). "My God, why has thou forsaken me?

Have you ever thought this? Does it take believing to get to this point?

I admit weakness lately. The broken femur in my "bad" polio leg healed. (Why does anyone call it "bad" that leg? What negative thing did it ever do to you?)

Then, suddenly, out of the blue, my right arm became very painful. Arthritis and muscle spasms and cramps like a Charley Horse. -- Post Polio Syndrome, I was advised. Hmm. Why so much pain? Like Why hast thou forsaken me?

I suppose I am basically a Christian, and I ask, not just questions about being forsaken, but "Why me, when I've suffered more than enough pain to learn a lesson or ten over all these years?"

Well, you see, I think this kind of talk is all bunk and bunkum, so I get along,

It would be nice though, if gentle (as rumored) Jesus gave me a hand through this up the ladder climb.

Mal

3kings
April 7, 2006 - 08:44 pm
Mal I wonder why, too. There seems to be no answer, or none that I can believe. If there is a caring, loving God, then why is this world the way it is?

I can't accept the lame excuse so often given, that "All things happen for the best, in this best of all possible worlds."

Considering all the questioning through the ages, to think the above is the best explanation we have found, is depressing, isn't it? ++ Trevor

Justin
April 7, 2006 - 09:19 pm
Nonsense. Not all things happen and whether or not things that do happen are for the best depends upon the viewer.

Adrbri
April 7, 2006 - 09:24 pm
Your picture by Salvador Dali is to be found here : -

http://www.artchive.com/artchive/D/dali/crucifix.jpg.html

and can be seen, greatly enlarged, by clicking the small image.

Religion or the lack of a religion cannot in itself justify the bad things that happen, or happened in the past.
How about the "Golden Rule" and "The Church that has no roof" ?

Brian.

kevxu
April 8, 2006 - 01:48 am
Malllylee wrote: I wonder if religious ritual can be enjoyed without beliefs. For instance, Mabel praises religious music, and I enjoy it too. I love the Mozart and Faure requiems. The latter has words as well as music, and I enjoy the words as well as the music.

That is my experience as far as religious music is concerned, and I found when I lived in an Orthodox country that I enjoyed the religious ceremonies as well.

The philospher Roger Scruton has written at length on the place of music as an experience of "faith" in modern times - essentially replacing religion in some respects. I think I'd really betray his thought and his writing if I attempted to summarize it, but his writing is pretty accessible, though not "kulcha lite" by any means.

On the paid religious composer, I can remember when reading Claudio Monteverdi's letters how often he had to nudge and complain about getting his dough. When listening to his glorious religious music it is difficult to bring to mind that he may have been thinking something along the lines of: I hope that blankety-blank duke comes across faster than he did last time!

Pain and loss are our two personal teachers, far more direct and real than the alleged words supposedly passed down from Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha & Co. As a teenager I remember having Extreme Unction, it was not called the sacrament of the sick back then but more directly the Last Rites as it was reserved for the dying and those expected to do so. And I thought as the priest went through the anointing, etc., "Get on with this and go, so I can get on with my stuff here."

Mallylee
April 8, 2006 - 02:12 am
The Salvador Dali crucifixion gave me a little frisson ; I never saw it before Malryn's posting.

There is something of the inorganic about fixed beliefs, as opposed to life, especially human life that has to evolve from belief to belief. Humans can reason and to an extent predict the upshot of what we do. So how our cultures evolve is unlike natural selection, and with the electronic age, unlike geographical selection.

I think that humans may have stumbled upon a lasting Golden Rule. (Adrbri : 'how about the golden rule or the church that has no roof)However, for me, the scientific, natural basis for morality is ultimate.

In this latter connection I recommend the work of Antonio Damasio

http://www.harcourtbooks.com/authorinterviews/bookinterview_damasio.asp

Adrbri
April 8, 2006 - 07:57 am
I'm not sure what you mean Malllylee. Are you talking about conscience?
Brian.

Mallylee
April 8, 2006 - 10:10 am
Natural basis of morality:

No, not conscience, as conscience comes from the culture, at least partly from the culture, and varies depending on which culture an individual has been reared in.

I am talking about the human being as brain and body proper, with all organs and secretions functioning. Damasio tells about an unfortunate man who had an iron bar pushed into his forebrain in a mining accident. This injury did not kill him, but his personality changed from that of a friendly, honest social man to one who lacked the ability to make social, i.e. moral judgements.This, and other clinical observations provided Damasio with evidence that moral sense is inborn, and may be damaged by physical lesions.

The human animal is social, because that is how we have evolved.

How there is such a lot of antisocial behaviour within one society, and between societies is a separate consideration from that of the physical basis of personality and morality

Mallylee
April 8, 2006 - 02:23 pm
I should have said that the moral sense is physically based, according to Damasio's clinical findings.

I suppose that a person whose forebrain had been irreversibly damaged, could still be trained by some behaviouristic technique, to appear is if she were capable of making moral judgements

Justin
April 8, 2006 - 02:36 pm
If morality (our sense of right and wrong) is a "built-in" as a result of our peculiar evolution, other things may also be built in which ordinarily we think of as culture based. I am thinking about our sense of rhythm deriving from an evolved sense of balance.

There is an implication in this premise of built-in morality that sociopaths are the result of a physical flaw and beyond that physical therapy or stem cell research might cure criminals of their deficiencies.

By extention we might include sin in this physical package except that sin is a transgression against the rules of a religion and not societal constants.

However, the elimination of sin by physical means would, it seems to me, eliminate the need for a God.If God's principle purpose for being is "forgiveness of sin," then God disappears when sin disappears.

Adrbri
April 8, 2006 - 03:37 pm
Next question. If morality is "built-in, that means that the newborn are born WITH sin and often IN sin - - - is that right?

Brian

Justin
April 8, 2006 - 05:03 pm
This built in morality stuff is nonsense. Built-in is an intellect that can make judgements. Morality is a human invention. Choices made between this and that are a function of the culture. One does not choose the current ok thing to do because there is an evolutionized piece of grey matter that has given us a bias in that direction. I don't think Damasas had that in mind. He is saying that the part of the brain that makes judgements (moral or immoral) may not function when damaged. May not make choices. The victim simply acts, perhaps in a random fashion.

mabel1015j
April 8, 2006 - 06:30 pm
But i recently had a real face-to-face talk w/ a friend who seriously asked me after we'd had a discussioin about homosexuals in the church, "well, then you don't believe babies are born in sin?" And I just exploded in exasperation, "Oh No!!! Babies are not sinful! They are innocent!" I have never been able to comprehend any institution coming up w/ that piece of theology, or to get others to agree....jean

Justin
April 8, 2006 - 07:15 pm
Jean; I think we erroneously make the assumption that religious people are rational when dealing with religious concepts. I don't think that's the case. Consider first, that one must accept Genesis as factual.Then,given that irrationality,sin stained babies are just part of the package. So too is Baptism that washes away the stain. In an effort to make the whole baby package internally consistent, the Vatican invented Limbo to provide a place in death for babes who had not been Baptised. I have recently heard Limbo has been disinvented. I don't know how they handle the problem today.

3kings
April 8, 2006 - 08:39 pm
Justin "Jean; I think we erroneously make the assumption that religious people are rational when dealing with religious concepts. I don't think that's the case. "

It depends on which concepts you have in mind. I agree there is no rationality in those "religious concepts " you list.

However, do you think "forgiveness of transgressions, or loving one's fellow man " are irrational?

There are those who do, aren't there? But I did not think you would be numbered among them. ++ Trevor

Justin
April 8, 2006 - 11:06 pm
Trevor: Unfortunately forgiveness is offered only for some sins and love is extended only to an approved set of fellow men. When love is offered to one's fellow man and all transgressions are forgiven I will acknowledge value in religion. As it is now religion serves only to separate us. Exclusion is not a valuable social activity. Inclusion is essential to bring peace to the world and an end to mortal conflict.

I am tired of looking outside ourselves for an end to war. We must look the bloody beast in the eye and recognize the irrationality we accept that promotes dissension.Jews roast children at Passover. Blacks are only half human. Slavery is encouraged by Jesus. Muslims brought this war on themselves because they rejected Jesus. Comments like these abound and have been permitted and from time to time encouraged by religion.

Justin
April 8, 2006 - 11:12 pm
Trevor: I think the concepts you mention are rational and worthy. I wish they were offered universally but perhaps,that is a great deal to expect. It's a start. Someday, perhaps...

Mallylee
April 9, 2006 - 03:00 am
Well, maybe 'morality ' is not the best word to use when I'm referring to a social sense, a sense of sympathy, and good judgement in social life. These, I think, are the bases of morality, and I believe they are physical.

Re; Ardbri#322: A newborn will learn from whatever culture provides for his learning, unless he is brain damaged in such a way that he cant learn this or that. I believe that every newborn child has the potential to develop into a social being.

Justin#323 Damasio addressed this question in his 'Descartes' Error'. Descartes' claim that there are two substances, the physical and the mental is disputed by Damasio who has much clinical , scientific evidence that there is one substance only, and that that substance is physical. One does not choose the current ok thing to do because there is an evolutionized piece of grey matter that has given us a bias in that direction. I don't think Damasas had that in mind. He is saying that the part of the brain that makes judgements

'Sin' seems to be a concept that relates only to belief in a judgemental God. I dont believe in God, so I recognise crimes against persons, society and humanity,but not sins. I think moral evil, which as I said I think is lack of social sense, is either the result of ignorance or brain lesions.

Ignorance is a large area of human experience, however, as it embraces all manner of 'tribalisms' that exclude others.As Justin#327 writes : Trevor: Unfortunately forgiveness is offered only for some sins and love is extended only to an approved set of fellow men. When love is offered to one's fellow man and all transgressions are forgiven I will acknowledge value in religion. As it is now religion serves only to separate us. Exclusion is not a valuable social activity. Inclusion is essential to bring peace to the world and an end to mortal conflict

Scrawler
April 9, 2006 - 09:24 am
Don't you think that in the same way governments gain control of our lives that the church also does this only in a much larger sense because the stakes are larger? The government says if you don't pay your taxes you are going to jail. And the church says if you don't observe our commandments you are going to hell. But in reality who is the government or the church? They are all men [and in some cases women]. So in reality we observe the rules of government or church by choice - we allow other men dictate our lives.

robert b. iadeluca
April 9, 2006 - 09:35 am
"To the moving ritual of her prayers, hymns, and Mass the Church added the imposing ceremonies and processions of religious festivals.

"In northern countries the Feast of the Nativity took over the pleasant rites wherewith the pagan Teutons had celebrated the victory of the sun, at the winter solstice, over the advancing night.

"Hence the 'Yale" logs that burned in German, North French, English, Scandinavian homes and the Yule trees laden with gifts and the merry feasting that tried strong stomachs until the Twelfth Night therafter.

"There were countless other feasts or holy days -- Epiphany, Circumcision, Palm Sunday, Easter, Ascension, Pentecost...Such days -- and only in less degree all Sundays -- were exciting events in the life of medieval man.

"For Easter he confessed such of his sins as he cared to remember, bathed, cut his beard or hair, dressed in his best and most uncomfortable clothes, received God in the Eucharist, and felt more profoundly than ever the momentous Christian drama of which he was made a part.

"In many towns, on the last three days of Holy Week, the events of the Passion were represented in the churches by a religious play, with dialogue and plain chant.

"Several other occasions of the ecclesiastical year were signalized with such 'mysteries.' About 1240 Juliana, prioress of a convent near Liege, reported to her village priest that a supernatural vision had urged upon her the need of honoring with a solemn festival the body of Christ as transsubstantiated in the Eucharist.

"In 1262 Pope Urban IV sanctioned such a celebration and entrusted to St. Thomas Aquinas the composition of an 'office' for it -- approprite hyumns and prayers. The philosopher acquitted himself wonderfully well in this assignment.

"In 1311 the Feast of Corpus Christi was finally established and was celebrated on the first Thursday after Pentecost with the most impressive procession of the Christian year. Such ceremonies drew immense crowds and glorified numerous participants.

"They opened the way to the medieval secular drama. They helped the pageantry of the guilds, the tournaments and knightly initiations, and the coronation of kings, to occupy with pious flurry and sublimating spectacle the occasional leisure of men not natively inclined to order and peace.

"The Church based her technique of moralizaion through faith not on arguments to reason but on appeals to the senses through drama, music, painting, sculpture, architecture, fiction, and poetry. And it must be confessed that such appeals to universal sensibilities are more successful -- for evil as well as for good -- than challenges to the changeful and indiviualistic intellect.

"Through such appeals the Church created medieval art."

By one of these coincidences which have taken place in this discussion group from time to time, today is Palm Sunday. Next Sunday is Easter. Much pageantry.

Many here are well acquainted with the Italian "fests" which are partly religious and partly "merry feasting."

What memories do you have regarding religious festivals?

Robby

Mallylee
April 9, 2006 - 10:01 am
Scrawler#330 Yes I do think so. History shows that the Church did just that, and was sometimes in cahoots with the kings and the Inquisition as well, to wring taxes from the peasants and lesser nobles

Mallylee
April 9, 2006 - 10:09 am
I am Scottish by birth and upbringing, and for me Christmas was not so important as it is now that the English customs are so widely taken up.

Easter was mainly rolling hard-boiled eggs down the sloping lawn of a little chum's garden.

Halloween, I remember because of dooking for apples, and the lovely hymn 'For all the saints who from their labours rest' (Walford Davies tune)

Scottish Presbyterians did not do much religious festivals, as far as I can remember. I suppose the Catholics had more fun in this regard

Justin
April 9, 2006 - 12:06 pm
Scrawler: I agree. Folks allow authority groups to control their lives with little complaint. There is one differnce however, between church and state. One has some control over who represents them in government. Not so in the church. One gets what one is given and lives with the result. I complain about what the government does more than I do about paying taxes. I wonder if others do the same.

The feast of St. Anne was always a popular festival in my home town. I have fond memories of gorging on tasty tidbits while watching the young men carry a statue of St Anne through the streets.

Justin
April 9, 2006 - 11:00 pm
Mallylee. Damassio's hypothesis is so contrary to all that I have come to rely upon in life, I am at sixes and sevens,nonplused. Morality is a variable. The brain is a fixed physical entity with a given set of functions, not all of which are clearly understood.

Mallylee
April 10, 2006 - 01:15 am
Justin, I find Damasio's hypothesis easy------not the neurophysiology, I am not a neuro- scientist, but the experiments and the findings are right up my street, as an long time unbeliever in any disembodied existence of mind or soul.

The two books 'Descartes' Error' and 'Looking for Spinoza' are both fairly easy reads.

robert b. iadeluca
April 10, 2006 - 04:09 am
Any further comments regarding Durant's remarks about religious festivals in Post 331?

Robby

kevxu
April 10, 2006 - 05:51 am
The three things I remember as "time" during my growing up were the seasons, the school year and the church year. By the time I was in Jr. H.S. the round of the school year activities and the church calendar were as familiar as the seasons. There were six Holy Days of Obligation on which Catholics were required to attend mass in addition to Sundays, which in those days meant before work or school as there were no masses between noon and midnight. Those holy days were the Feast of the Circumcision, Christmas, All Saints Day, Immaculate Conception, Acension and the Assumption. There were also the seasonal Ember Days when one had to abstain from meat as on Fridays - my mother seemed to forget the Ember Days all the time, and then get in a snit when she realized that she had made a mistake and had to put the meat aside.

Christmas eve all three Catholic churches in our small town were packed, and sometimes there was only standing room. And, at least early in my childhood, the Feast of the Three Kings was when all the Christmas trees were collected and burned and there was cider, donuts and music.

St. Blaise's feast in February was the blessing of the throats.

Of course, there was no meat on Fridays, but Lent meant less of it still. Some people attended morning mass every day during Lent, and I did it once or twice as a teenager. The was also no dancing.

There were many people of Irish and Italian extraction in the town, and St. Patrick's and St. Joseph's feast days were excepted from rules of Lent. There were dances and parties on each day, and the Sicilians held little traditional plays in their homes for St. Joseph's day.

When the statues and pictures in the churches where shrouded in purple at the beginning of Holy Week, you know that Lent was almost over.

The midnight mass at Easter was very long because there were a whole bunch of preliminary ceremonies that had to do with blessing baptismal water, as I recall.

I have no recollection of Corpus Christi processions, but I do remember that there was a procession outside the church for the Rogation Days, which were concerned with the crops and harvest.

The was a big ceremony in May when a statue of Mary was banked with flowers and she was crowned by a procession of small children with a crown of flowers.

After this it seemed almost like there was a vacation from the church calendar until the minor Rogation Days and the Feast of the Assumption in August.

And then it all began again. It was all as regular and comfortable as the predictable school year and the seasons, and they were tied together in my mind. Christmas eve was often extremely cold and snowy, and it was also the time when nothing was going on at school and travelling was difficult, so everything seemed to come to a stop for Christmas. August was often broiling and humid and sitting in church was very uncomfortable, by this time even school vacation and the summer job were hateful because of the heat, and the Rogation Days had real meaning because the fields were drying out. These three strands all weave together in my memories of growing up in a small town.

kevxu

Scrawler
April 10, 2006 - 11:47 am
A memory of Easter for me was having my grandfather tell of the Easters of his boyhood in Greece.

On Good Friday, the entire village would go to the cemetary with a picture of Christ carried by the priest. And they would literally bury the picture of Christ as if it were a real body.

If you looked out across the village on early Easter Sunday morning, everything would be in total darkness. Than the priest would light one candle and carry it to the nearest house. There the priest would light the candle of the householder who would carry his candle to next and so forth and so on until the entire village was lite by the light of Christ. Than the whole village would travel up the mountain side to go the church were the priest said Mass.

There is a tradition at Easter time that you crack eggs with one another and who ever has a whole egg at the end will have good luck throughout the coming year. Now when my grandfather was a little boy, he and his friends would go down to the river and find the smoothest "egg-shaped" rocks they could find. Than they would paint them and proceed to crack eggs with everyone. [I won't tell you what happened to my grandfather after his father found out about it - I guess boys will be boys!]

Justin
April 10, 2006 - 07:27 pm
Passover is upon us. Does anyone know an approprite greeting in Hebrew or English? ? It is a happy event.

Adrbri
April 10, 2006 - 09:02 pm
is :

or : Shalom (Peace)

Brian

Justin
April 10, 2006 - 09:09 pm
Thank You, Brian. Shalom it is.

robert b. iadeluca
April 11, 2006 - 04:09 am
"To these varied religious services the Church added social services.

"She taught the dignity of labor and practiced it through the agriculture and industry of her monks. She sanctified the organization of labor in the guilds and organized religious guilds to perform works of charity.

"Every church was a sanctuary with right of asylum in which hunted men might find some breathless refuge until the passions of their pursuers could yield to the processes of law. To drag men from such a sanctuary was a sacrilege entailing excommunication.

"The church or cathedral was the social as well as the religious center of the village or town. Sometimes the sacred precinct or even the church itself was used with genial clerical consent to store grain or hay or wine, to grind corn or brew beer.

"There most of the villagers had been baptized, there most of them would be buried. There the older folks would gather of a Sunday for gossip or discussion and the young men and women to see and be seen. There the beggars assembled and the alms of the Church were dispensed.

"There nearly all the art that the village knew was brought together to beautify the House of God.

"The poverty of a thousand homes was brightened by the glory of that temple which the people had built with their coins and hands and which they considered their own, their collective and spiritual home.

"In the church belfry the bells rang the hours of the day or the call to services and prayers. The music of those bells was sweeter than any other except the hymns tht bound voices and hearts into one or warmed a cooling faith with the canticles of the Mass.

"From Novgorod to Cadiz, from Jerusalem to the Hebrides, steeples and spires raised themselves precariously into the sky because men cannot live without hope and will not consent to die."

Again I am impressed with the beauty of Durant's style of writing.

Any comments here about social services sponsored by the church?

Robby

Mallylee
April 11, 2006 - 04:42 am
I like the writing style too Robby.

I wonder if it's correct, historically, to generalise as much as the Durants do. 'The Church' may have been less benign and more punitive in some areas than others, perhaps depending on the whims of the local bishop, or the local bishop's perceived need of heavy tithes.

I am impressed by the particular and local in historiography, and I do want to be wary of generalisations

kevxu
April 11, 2006 - 07:07 am
It strikes me that Durant's picture of the church is often decidedly skewed in the direction of the neat and tidy and the sentimental. I wonder if his own RC background hasn't caused him to ignore much in history that does not reflect well on the Church.

The church owned the lives of serfs, just as lords did, and used their involuntary labor in the same way. The hierarchy were passionate collectors of religious benefices and the taxes and fees due to them. The lower orders of clergy were often quite uneducated and their morals were not always the best with concubines and bastard children not that unusual.

Early on clerical positions became a way to make a living and not a pious vocation dependent upon crusts of bread and a few pennies in donations from the faithful. It guaranteed you a full stomach and a roof over your head, and for the clever and/or the highly placed a life of luxury.

For those who are familiar with Karl Orff's musical setting of the "Carmina Burana," may recall that these poems and songs, passionate and ribald, were often the work of priests and monks dedicated to pursuits other than the pious.

The paintings of the Middle Ages, showing the tortures awaiting the sinful, are well populated with bishops, priests and monks. Bosch and the Breugels showed the clergy in their works quite as dedicated to the coarser pleasures of the world as the peasants and townsmen.

Charity, yes, though I wonder on what scale - I suppose it would be difficult to know. But oppression, exploitation and libertinage as well. The Church was, after all, Big Business as much as anything else, and we needn't look much farther than our television news to see what that often entails, even in these days of tight control and widespread publicity.

kevxu

mabel1015j
April 11, 2006 - 10:18 am
Churches have often taken up the cause of the powerless and unfortunate when few others have helped. I grew up in south central Penna and the Mennonite congregations that i knew were going all over the world to help rebuild after disasters, long before our recent domestic disasters stirred ordinary peoples consciences and w/ no fanfare, no tv coverage, not 15 mins of fame.........jean

Scrawler
April 11, 2006 - 10:23 am
"In "Metahistory", [Hayden] White argues that historians write history not as disinterested outsiders but as interested parties who structure their narratives, perhaps unconsciously, tropologically in order to make a particular point...White makes the historian a creator who fits together, consciously or unconsciously, various modes that will the historian to construct a true story." ~ "The Alternate History: Refiguring Historical Time"

Justin
April 11, 2006 - 11:11 am
The Medieval village people felt so close to their cathedrals during construction that when the animals were unable to pull a load townspeople harnessed them selves into the traces and pulled loads to the cathedral site. The cathedrals at Laon, Noyon, and Amiens are known for such human contributions. The cathedral at Laon is decorated with carvings of the beasts of burden who bore the load.The oxen look out from the tower over the town and the people remember days they shared the load with the beasts.

robert b. iadeluca
April 11, 2006 - 05:45 pm
Canon Law

robert b. iadeluca
April 11, 2006 - 05:52 pm
"Side by side with this complex and colorful liturgy there developed the even more complex body of ecclesiastical legislation that regulated the conduct and decisions of a Church governing a wider and more varied realm than any empire of the time.

"Canon law -- the 'law of the rule' of the Church -- was a slow accretion of old religious customs, scriptural passages, opinions of the Fathers, laws of Rome or the barbarians, the decrees of Church councils and the decisions and opinions of the popes.

"Some parts of the Justinian Code were adapted to govern the conduct of the clergy. Other parts were recast to accord with the views of the Church on marrige, divorce, and wills.

"Collections of ecclesiastical legislation were made in the sixth and eighth centuries in the West and periodically by Byzantine emperors in the East.

"The laws of the Roman Church received their definitive medieval formulation by Gratian about 1148."

Comments about canon law as described in this paragraph?

Robby

Justin
April 11, 2006 - 10:41 pm
Canon Law was the source of the conflict between Henry ll and Thomas Beckett. Tom thought Canon Law should apply when one of his monks bumped off a King's man. The King thought he had jurisdiction. In the final analysis, Tom was bumped off by the king's men and as a result Tom became a martyr saint and his bones and all his body parts became relics.

kevxu
April 12, 2006 - 02:03 am
My introduction to Canon law was in the Forties and Fifties involving Catholics with marriage problems. For a Catholic to resort to secular courts for a divorce was virtually unheard of and had all sorts of dire consequences in the religious context. Annulments were rarely granted and tediously investigated.

There were two obscure grounds for dissolving a marriage, one was called the Petrine privilege and the other the Pauline privilege. I cannot at the moment recall the nexus of either, and haven't the time to look it up on the web.

I can recall a Catholic woman who divorced and remarried to a non-Catholic. She continued to attend church, her children were raised as Catholics, her husband converted to Catholicism - but she as a Catholic who had divorced and remarried was not able to take communion.

kevxu

robert b. iadeluca
April 12, 2006 - 03:39 am
"As a monk of Bologna Gratian may have studied under Irnerius in the university there.

"Certainly his digest shows a wise acquaintance with both Roman law and medieval philosophy. He called his boook Concordia discondantium -- reconciliation of discordant regulations. Later generations call it his Decretium.

"It drew into order and sequence the laws and customs, the conciliar and papal decrees, of the Church down to 1139 on her doctrine, ritual, organization, and administration -- the maintenance of ecclesiastical property -- the procedure and precedents of ecclesiastical courts -- the regulation of monastic life, the contract of marriage -- and the rules of bequest.

"The method of exposition may have stemmed from Abelard's Sic et non, and had in turn some influence on Scholastic method after Gratian. It began with an authoritative proposition, uoted statements or precedents contradicting it, sought to resolve the contradiction, and added a commentary. Though the book was not accepted by the medieval Church as a final authority, it became, for the period it covered, the indispensable and almost sacred text.

"Indeed, the field covered by canon law was larger than that covered by any contemporary civil code.

"It embraced not merely the structure, dogma, and operation of the Church, but rules for dealing with non-Christians in Christian lands -- procedure in the investigation and suppression of heresy -- the organization of crusaders -- the laws of marrige -- legitimacy -- dower -- adultery -- divorce -- wills -- burial -- widows and orphans -- laws of oath -- perjury -- sacrilege -- blasphemy -- simony -- libel -- usury and just price -- regulations for schools and universities -- the Truce of God and other means of limiting war and organizating peace -- the conduct of episcopal and papal courts -- the use of excommunication -- anathema and interdict -- the administration of ecclesiastical penalties -- the relations between civil and ecclesiastical courts -- betwen state and Church

"This vast body of legislation was held by the church to be binding on all Christians, and she reserved the right to punish any infraction of it with a variety of physical or spiritual penalties, except that no ecclesiastical court was to pronounce a 'judgement of blood' -- i.e. condemn to capital punishment."

Lots and lots to discuss here regarding the power of Canon Law.

Robby

kevxu
April 12, 2006 - 05:20 am
This came up last week in neighboring Spain, and is germane to this part of the discussion, I think.

The govt of Prime Minister Zapatero has instituted a variety of changes in Spanish life, all of which seem to have been well received by most of the public and to reflect the changes in Spanish life since the demise of fascism. The RC church has objected to many of these, and has resorted to increasingly strong language of condemnation culminating in a pre-Easter message from the bishops.

Finally last week in an interview with a national magazine, Zapatero, made the following statement: "The Catholic Church may evoke the aspiration that ecclesiastical laws are above the laws of the people but I consider that attitude to be an ideological relic."

kevxu

kevxu
April 12, 2006 - 09:19 am
"...except that no ecclesiastical court was to pronounce a 'judgement of blood' -- i.e. condemn to capital punishment."

And this is why the Inquisition always handed over convicted heretics to lay authorities as they were the ones who did the executing for the church.

kevxu

Scrawler
April 12, 2006 - 11:46 am
I wonder why the church didn't give down a judgment of blood when they did everything else to control the masses? After all it was they who were do the condemning.

robert b. iadeluca
April 12, 2006 - 05:08 pm
Further comment about Canon Law?

Robby

Justin
April 12, 2006 - 06:33 pm
Scrawler: A group that makes such a fetish of blood should not have any objection to blood on it hands. They did not seem to mind getting bloody when torturing the poor heretics. I suppose it was the secular arm that lit the faggots after the clerics stacked the wood so the person would feel the heat before sucumbing to smoke.Ain't religion grand?

Justin
April 12, 2006 - 10:16 pm
I wonder how much influence Canon Law had on English and US Law. Are there any lawyers in our group?

Mallylee
April 12, 2006 - 11:44 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law

In the official Anglican Church of England, the ecclesiastical courts that formerly decided many matters such as disputes relating to marriage, divorce, wills, and defamation, still have jurisdiction of certain church-related matters (e.g., discipline of clergy, alteration of church property, and issues related to churchyards). Their separate status dates back to the 12th century when the Normans split them off from the mixed secular/religious county and local courts used by the Saxons.

kevxu
April 13, 2006 - 01:02 am
Previously I mentioned the Pauline and Petrine privileges, which allowed for the dissolution of marriages by the RC church. At that time I didn't recall clearly what the conditions of the Canon Law were, so here they are:

Pauline Privilege: The Catholic Church can dissolve a marriage bond, allowing the Catholic party to re-marry, if both persons were not baptized at the time of their wedding. Meaning that if subsequently one partner was baptized the marriage can be dissolved for these reasons:

The unbaptized person departs physically by divorce or desertion, or morally by making married life unbearable for the baptized person. The unbaptized person refuses to be baptized or to live peacefully with the baptized person. Civil divorce has been granted by the state.

Petrine Privilege: The implementation of this procedure is reserved to The Pope. It involves the circumstance where one of the parties in the marriage is unbaptized and the other is baptized. Either party wants to become Catholic or wants to marry a Catholic. This marriage can be dissolved, permitting the person to become Catholic or to marry a Catholic. Thus, the Pope may act in favor of the Christian faith. Another example may be that a Methodist lady who is married to an unbaptized man falls in love with a Catholic man. The Pope may dissolve the marriage of the Methodist to facilitate her marriage to the Catholic man This is done in favor of the faith of her Catholic fiancé.

kevxu

robert b. iadeluca
April 13, 2006 - 03:51 am
"Usually, before the Inquisition, the church relied on spiritual terrors.

"Minor excommunication excluded a Christian from the sacraments and ritual of the Church. Any priest could pronounce the penalty. To believers it meant everlasting hell if death should reach the offender before absolution came.

"A major excommunication (the only kind now used by the Church) could be pronounced only by councils or by prelates higher than a priest and only upon persons within their jurisdiction.

"It removed the victim from all legal or spiritual association with the Christian community. He could not sue or inherit or do any valid act in law but he could be sued and no Christian ws to eat or talk with him on pain of minor escommunication.

"When King Robert Of France was esxcommunicated for marrying his cousin he was abandoned by all his courtiers and nearly all his servants. Two domestics who remained threw into the fire the victuals left by him at his meals lest they be contaminated by them.

"In extreme cases the Church added to excommunication anathema -- a curse armed and detailed with all the careful pleonasm of legal phraseology.

"As a last resort the pope could lay an interdict upon any part of Christendom -- i.e. suspend all or most religious services. A people feeling the need of the sacraments and fearful of death supervening upon unforgiven sins sooner or later compelled the excommunicated individual to make his peace with the Church.

"Such interdicts were laid upon France in 998, Germany in 1102, England in 1208, Rome itself in 1155."

How powerful is Belief!

Robby

Sunknow
April 13, 2006 - 01:22 pm
My father was one of those "excommunicated individuals", for marrying a Methodist Minister's daughter. He did not seem troubled by it at all in later years. My Grandmother disowned him and despised my Mother.

When one of Dad's Uncles was near death, I was in High School, and the Uncle was living in the same city. When he was near death, I would go to the hospital and sit with him...his sister (my Great Aunt) came to join the death watch, and I listened as she convinced him of the error of his ways (In late life, he had married a younger, divorced woman, and was excommunicated).

Before the Great Uncle died, he was convinced that it "...meant everlasting hell if death should reach the offender before absolution came..." I watched as he signed over ever thing he owned to the Church, leaving nothing to his young wife and child....and received absolution. Last rites were received.

I went to his funeral with the Great Aunt...my Grandmother came from out of town to the Funeral Mass in the Catholic Church, and the two elderly ladies left town and never went near my Mother or our home. They never accepted her, but both were very kind to me. I suppose they held out hope that I would some day become a Catholic.

Sun

kiwi lady
April 13, 2006 - 01:46 pm
My grandmother emigrated to NZ because her Scottish Presbyterian family forbade her marriage to the love of her life a Roman Catholic. She left Glasgow station weeping with her weeping love running alongside the train. In those days children did not disobey their parents even if they were over 21. On her deathbed she talked about her lost love. My grandfather was always second best.

It is because of this attitude against interfaith marriage that was so strong I am me and live here in NZ. My grandmother was a staunch ally when her nephew wanted to marry a Catholic girl. He married his love with the family's blessing. My daughter is married to a Roman Catholic she has not converted.

I never forgot the story my grandmother told me about her terrible loss. She never got over it. It was so sad.

Carolyn

robert b. iadeluca
April 13, 2006 - 04:50 pm
If a family member or friend is such a strong believer that he/she takes the actions described in the previous postings, does that make that person "bad?" How should we react to their behavior?

Robby

kiwi lady
April 13, 2006 - 06:06 pm
Well Robby nowdays kids would wait til they were legal marriagable age in most cases and get married. I know that there are some religions that ban their kids forever if they do this. Orthodox Jews, some odd Christian sects, and Fundamentalist muslims. Probably some Northern Ireland families would still be like my great grandparents. My great grandparents although they lived in Scotland came from Northern Ireland and my great grandfather was an Orangeman. It would be very difficult for children from those sorts of backgrounds to be divorced from what may have been otherwise a loving family. I know my grandmother adored her parents and they were loving and kind to their children but on the matter of marrying a Roman Catholic it was a non negotiable NO thing on their part.

carolyn

3kings
April 13, 2006 - 06:07 pm
How should we react ? Clearly, if we would do the Christian thing, we would love and support those persons, as they struggle against the dictates of the Church.

These episodes recounted here, point up the difference that I have frequently referred to. Namely, the blind clinging to the clerics, that points to "Chuchianity", as against the loving forgiveness that is the essential core of Christianity.++ Trevor

Sunknow
April 13, 2006 - 09:23 pm
Your question, Robby: How should we react to their behavior?"

I never heard my Grandmother described as anything but cold and unloving. Even as a child, I never believed that...though I did not understand it all at the time. She must have been convinced that she did the right thing, but in the end, I feel she died alone and lonely.

When I set out to find her place of burial last year, the Catholic church helped me find it. She did die alone in a nursing home without family, but She was NOT alone when I found her grave site.

She shares a headstone with her last still born child, and her husband, a few feet away from another large headstone: my two Great Uncles, her brothers and one of their wives. Between the two large stones is my Great Grandmother, and my Great Grandfather...the one that came from Ireland and raised a Catholic family. They all rest in a lovely, old, closed Catholic Cemetery in Dallas, Texas.

I know that at least three of them left everything they had to the church, but at least the church continues to carefully look out for their grave sites. It's what they wanted, so how can I think that is bad?

Sun

Justin
April 13, 2006 - 11:26 pm
.The innocent victims of Trevor's Churchianity are to be pitied. They become enmeshed in an evil web woven to protect the body politic from contamination. It would be nice if the love Trevor sees at the core were more prominent but faith and love do not seem to be compatible. Many people can not put God first and man second and at the same time honor a human contract. It is no wonder the Church advocates celibacy for clerics. One can not serve two masters without conflict.

Mallylee
April 13, 2006 - 11:31 pm
I think that Sunknowe's great aunt and grandmother, and Kiwi's grandmother were so indoctrinated that they were unable to feel the the suffering of the living people who were their descendants.

Not bad, when I try to think rationally about what they did,only ignorant. But when I FEEL the injustice of what they did , I feel that they are bad.But this is wrong, to feel that they are bad, because their beliefs were inescapable for them, being born into the lives that were marked out for them in that time and place ,and those family situations.

I guess your question, Robby, is about rational thoughts, not immediate feelings

robert b. iadeluca
April 14, 2006 - 04:40 am
"The excessive use of excommunication and interdict weakened their effectiveness after the eleventh century.

"Such occasional indifference marked the beginning of a decline in the authority of canon law over the laity of Europe. As the Church had taken so wide an area of human life under her rule when -- in the first Christian millennium, secular powers had broken down -- so in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, as secular government grew stronger, one phase after another of human affairs was recaptured by civil from canon law.

"The Church properly won in the matter of ecclesiastical appointments. In most other fields her authority began to decline -- in education, marriage, morals, economy, and war.

"The states that had grown up under the protection -- and by the permission -- of the sociaial order that she had created declared themselves of age, and began that long process of secularization which culminates today.

"But the work of the canonists, like most creative activity, was not lost. It prepared and trained the Church's greatest statement. It shared in transmitting Roman law to the modern world. It raised the legal rights of widows and children and established the principle of dower in the civil law of Wstern Europe, and it helped to shape the form and terms of Scholastic philosophy.

"Canon law was among the major achievmements of the medieval mind."

And so canon law was not so bad after all?

Durant speaks of "that long process of secularization which culminates today." But what about the United States? We speak today of the strong secularization of Western Europe as opposed to the heavy emphasis on religion in America.

Where are we now in what Durant describes as "one phase after another?"

Robby

kevxu
April 14, 2006 - 07:11 am
It [Canon Law] shared in transmitting Roman law to the modern world. It raised the legal rights of widows and children and established the principle of dower in the civil law of Wstern Europe...

I have to raise the issue of Durant's sweeping and benevolent generalizations again. I wonder if he wasn't captive of the thing he was trying to evaluate, and perhaps rather limited in his knowledge of of the rest of European history. He seems to ignore the fact that much of European law - and culture in general - is an inheritance from the non-Roman cultures of the past, and that our modern Euro-American culture while it may have very high-falutin' ideas about being the heir of ancient Rome and even Greece is equally indebted elsewhere.

From personal study of the Irish Brehon law tracts, I can say that while they evolved and changed over generations, on the whole they gave a far more generous slice of life to women than the law of the Roman Church did. The rights of women to inherit, rule, and divorce were far more liberal, and an intricate system existed for providing for the education and fosterage of children.

Roman Christianity proved to be somewhat rigid, and alien, of course, to the Irish who had never experienced Roman rule. They reshaped and restructed the church they received from Patrick and pre-Patrician Christians, and they spread their own version of it (usually referred to as "Celtic particularism", which appears may have been influenced by contact with Eastern Christians) with very energetic missionary work through Scotland, northern England, Gaul into Switzerland and as far as modern Austria. St. Columbanus the Irish missionary in Gaul had no inhibitions about writing a letter to the Pope reproving him on various points.

One of the most notable differences was that bishops were reduced to sacramental officials and usually resided in monasteries, which, of course, put the kabosh on their accumulation of power and their ability to exercise Roman notions of hierarchy and law.

This formulation of Christianity severely upset Rome, which had already experienced schism and heresy among Eastern Christians, and in the Eleventh and Twelfth centuries the papacy was vigorous in stamping it out in the West and in taking over the numerous monasteries that the missionaries had established according to their own rule.

The founders and developers of the Anglican church were to hark back to the church of the Irish (i.e. Celtic particularism) frequently in justifying the separation from Rome as historically legitimate - and the popularity of the Celtic style cross in post-Reformation England was emblematic of these claims.

The present-day vogue for "Celtic Spirituality" - sometimes blatant nonsense conflated with New Age rubbish, unfortunately - is derived from attitudes and ideas of Celtic particularism rejected by Rome.

Though I have not read up on the Germanic cultures of these times, I am familiar with some of their institutions which were more democratic than what evolved under the Roman church.

My own conclusions are that Roman Christianity was first of all what we got - no matter what we think of it. Its centralization and authoritarianism had good points and bad points for the development of Western European civilization. How things would have gone if the more "liberal" ideas that were contained in other traditions had survived is anyone's guess. But the rule of Rome, in this case, Canon Law specifically, sacrificed some things that today we value rather highly. I do wonder if we haven't paid a rather high price for its rigid, dogmatic, totally know-it-all view of things - the idea that it is possible to know everything, to always be right and to therefore "spread the gospel", be it religious or secular.

Perhaps this kind of cultural inheritance shapes much of the secular tone of Euro-American culture and history. Self-righteous religiousity and secular chauvinism and authoritarianism seem hardly different when the rubber hits the road.

kevxu

Mallylee
April 14, 2006 - 08:35 am
I'm on your train Kevxu

Mallylee
April 14, 2006 - 09:12 am


http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/maxpages/classes/his381/histlaw.htm

With canon law, Roman law formed the medieval common law, the ius commune of Western Europe. To separate the two legal systems is artificial and even misleading. Both laws were taught in law schools throughout Christendom, students studied both laws as a part of their legal education, and the medieval jurisprudence can only be understood with a knowledge of each. The vocabulary and structures of Roman and canon law shaped academic and secular law.

Malryn
April 15, 2006 - 06:25 am

I'm way back on Post # 365. I hope that's right because today I CRS from one page to another.
I was left to be raised like Topsy in Uncle Tom's Cabin. Worse than that, I was taken to the Universalist (later Universalist-Unitarian) church , which I didn't know had been banned at that time from the Council of Protestant Churches for its outrageous beliefs, like "there's no hell."

Anyway, like Topsy, I had to create my own rules of behavior. My aim at the time was to keep from being punished. So if I believed anything, it was to save my own skin and psyche from wounds and abuse. That meant agreeing with the potential abuser.

I haven't done very well, actually. I'm not a god and don't really know what's perfect, if anything. My brain stands in my way. I'm not very smart, but I am open to suggestion and learned early to look up everything I read and heard to see if it was right. What's right? That further confused me because nobody seemed able to agree when I was age 9,. 10. or now almost 78. Hmm, what to do?

Once again I am making my own rules and questioning anyone who questions my behavior or the way I think without making some qualifications. I'm only smart enough to ask questions, that's all.

My mother-in-law told me when I first started seeing my future husband that my IQ was only average. Later some psychologist, who tested me and had to know, told me I am well above average. Who to believe?

Starting on the premise that when I was born I didn't know very much about what was right or wrong, according to the edicts of the day, or what was going on in 1928, I concluded that my mother-in-law was right. I couldn't tell then that her son's promise in science, which he developed to a very high degree, even though he did not win the Nobel Prize, was not really "smarts" or right, but a left-brained knack ( or itch ) he had and worked on,

I decided finally, many years later, that my tendencies toward the arts and literature and just plain common sense were valid.

I've been chastised in my life because my goals and aims aren't the usual ones. It took a long time to figure out that those people who chastised and shunned me had problems of their own, which they'd probably never recognize. This is not passing the buck; it's how I see it. I'e been hurt terribly by people who knew what was right, and told me I am all wrong.

Older now, I say, as I told people in WREX that my answer now is "I don't give 2 *&^&& in a hot summer breeze what you think or say, as long as it makes you happy." Know what I mean? Hell, it's a philosophy of life! I think I might just write a book about this. Why not? It would probably sell as well as Precarious Global Incandescence has.

I have another book about to be released called Caroline's Muse. It's about a writer who buys an old house on the rocky New Hampshire shore. The ghost of the widow of the man who built it insists that Caroline write her story. Strangely enough, her story about the 1700's and the writer Caroline's are very much alike. I hope you'll have the chance to read it.

ROBBY, according to the orthopedist I saw day before yesterday, the debilitating pain I've had is because there is a very large bone spur and one or more tears in the rotator cuff of my right shoulder. I need that right arm to function and compensate for polio weakness in my leg. I'm just cantankerous enough to live a long time, when I probably should have died when I had polio in 1935. It's been a long, long year of ill health and terrible loss. I'm anxious for a new horizon.

Whoever you are that comes on this discussion. Don't be afraid to join us. We are ordinary people who use our brains once in a while, and are not to be feared.

Mal

Malryn
April 15, 2006 - 07:03 am

About the IQ thing in my previous post. Who cares? I don't, except in the way that my brain can possily compensate for the physical weakness I've had for 7 decades.

JUSTIN wrote me an email recently which opened my eyes, really. He said he'd watched a program about Polio, and though he'd been sympathetic, he'd never been able to empathize with the physical weakness polio brings. He called Bubble and me heroes. I don't feel like a hero, I live as I'm able to live.

From my point-of-view on this mountain where I live, I see compensation as a very great factor. What you don't have, you compensate for in a very big way with what's possible. How does this apply to Darwin?

My mind is askew. I keep translating what I say here to Origin of the Species. Do you know what I Mean? So much, too much, Only the names change. I see one thing one place, related to another in life? Did Durant? Of course, he did. That is the wide base of science.

Mal

Scrawler
April 15, 2006 - 10:45 am
Mal, I don't about anyone else, but I consider you a very smart lady. Anyone who writes like you has to have not smarts. So let us known when your next book is released. I really loved the last one you wrote.

MeriJo
April 15, 2006 - 01:31 pm
I am here, and have thoroughly enjoyed and appreciated all the posts I had missed. I feel that everyone is so well versed here historically and more. So much knowledge. Lots to absorb. Thank you all!

I had ninety-eight posts to read in order to catch up.

My Best Wishes For A Happy Easter

Justin
April 15, 2006 - 07:44 pm
I also enjoyed Precarious, Scrawler and I agree with you. Mal is one smart lady. We have lots of smart ladies in this discussion and it"s been a pleasure conversing with you all.

Justin
April 15, 2006 - 09:53 pm
Happy Easter, Merijo.

robert b. iadeluca
April 16, 2006 - 09:14 am
The Clergy

robert b. iadeluca
April 16, 2006 - 09:24 am
"Medieval parlance divided all persons into two classes -- those who lived under a religious rule and those who lived 'in the world.'

"A monk was 'a religious' -- so was a nun. Some monks were also priests and constituted the 'regular clergy' -- i.e. clergy following a monastic rule (regula).

"All other clergy were called 'secular', as living in the 'world' (saeculum).

"All ranks of clergy were distinguished by the tonsure -- a shaven crown of the head -- and wore a long robe of any single color but red or green, buttoned from head to foot.

"The term clergy included not only those in 'minor orders' -- i.e. church doorkeepers, readers, exorcists, and acolytes -- but all university students, all teachers, and all who, having taken the tonsure as students, later became physicians, lawyers, artists, authors, or served as accountants or literary aides. Hence the later narrowing of the terms clerical and clerk.

"Clerics who had not taken major orders were allowed to marry and to take up any respectable profession and they were under no obligation to continue the tonsure."

Your comments, please, about the two classes?

Robby

Justin
April 16, 2006 - 12:46 pm
... and so we come to the real "church," to the men of God who are responsible for whatever shape religion has taken.

These are the people who have written the creeds and dogmas and established the traditions that have made the Roman Church the great power that it is in the world. These are the people who created the current concept of Jesus as a God. These are the people who created the rituals of the Church. They are the inventors of all that we know about the Christian religion. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the first clerics who introduced Jesus as a God. Paul, Ireneus, Augustine, Acquinas, and Luther, all clerics, who continued to define Jesus as the Christ, the God figure.

...and so we are here now at the beginning of a discussion of the perpetrators, the real cause of the thing we call Roman Catholicism. It is man made, in every aspect of its form. It is a product of the clerics.

kiwi lady
April 16, 2006 - 01:07 pm
The Early churches were house churches. Humble with humble leaders including women. Lydia the woman who dyed robes with the new purple was a church leader in the baby Christian movement. The formal ritualised churches we know today I am sure were not what Christ envisaged. They became and are today Kingdoms with their own govt and power struggles.

Justin
April 16, 2006 - 01:11 pm
Durant sets us off on this discussion with an "us and them" distinction. There are those who are "in the world" and those who are "clerical." The clerics are "other worldly." They are, I suppose, "spiritual beings" who owe their allegiance to God rather than to their fellow men. They have created for themselves a hierarchy, ranging from pope, to cardinal,bishop,priest,deacon,and subdeacon. None of these may marry. They are in "Holy Orders".

These fellas may well have been from the cream of intellectual Europe in the middle ages. They progressed to the priesthood after a period as a student indicating an interest in intellectual pursuits. It is these fellows who take their semen out of production and deprive the world of what might have been first class off spring.

robert b. iadeluca
April 16, 2006 - 01:22 pm
Re: Post 383 -- The term "perpetrator" ususally refers to someone who commits an offense or crime or wrongdoing of some sort. That is, of course, the opinion of one person who is entitled to that view so long as we realize that there may be others in this discussion who see the formation of Roman Catholicism from a different point of view.

That is why we will want to choose our words carefully perhaps adding such phrases as "in my opinion,"as I see it," etc.

Robby

kevxu
April 16, 2006 - 03:21 pm
The Christian scriptures at Matthew 6:5-6 attribute the following to Jesus:

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

Albeit the vocubulary of the translation is antique now, I'm sure that everyone grasps that the command is to pray in private and to refrain from making a show of oneself.

How quickly the Christians - and their leaders - abandoned this plain and radical command, though, long before the Middle Ages.

I have come to believe that most people need the supernatural and its earthly manifestations to be a Big Show in order to allay doubt, and need to do exactly the opposite of what the quotation above demands, and rather to make a spectacle of one's belief. Almost none of the Reformers in the coming centuries gave it up either, they simply made up their own productions. There is no difference between the crowds in Rome's St. Peter's Square and the hordes that fill football stadiums in Atlanta for Easter services.

They are both quite clearly repudiations of the message in Mathew (and else to the same effect.)

These Big Shows while they may be styled and maintained by "clerics," are no more than a reflection of what most humans want, I think. "Believe with me, that I may know I'm right!"

The "know thyself" message that seems basic to many religions - Zoroaster in the Gathas, Jesus here and there in the gospels, Gotama in the Pali Canon and so on is too daunting, the crowded temples and hurlyburly of haranguing quickly evolve to insulate the great mass of people from that very task. And it has ever been so. I find the clergy of the Church of Rome here, and the Christian clergy overall, and their buildings full of worshippers simply doing what comes naturally - debauching an ethical message with shows and beliefs and babble. It is what most men live on.

The Buddhist think, and quite wisely, I would say, that the religious message decays and becomes unrecognizable over and over again, and over and over again the message is brought and the cycle repeated.

It has always been this way, no religion long escapes - nothing special in the Roman concoction.

kevxu

Justin
April 16, 2006 - 03:52 pm
Robby; I don't think I stand alone in condemning the actions of the historical church as evil. Even today,its message is harmful to society. Its condemnation of gays and lesbians, its position on priests who diddle little boys, it's position on family planning, etc. alienate people rather than bring people together. It is not, though it purports to be a force that brings good to the world. It is too easy to ignore the wrongs done by this group,to give them a free pass because they say one thing and do another. I am reminded of our current leader who thinks a leak is a press release.

I understand your concern, however, and will as always strive to be fair but honest, and mindful of the feelings of others..

mabel1015j
April 16, 2006 - 07:51 pm
The setting was a congregation sitting in a church sanctuary. The camera focuses on a woman holding a baby who is crying loudly. The next picture is a hand pressing a button - the mother and baby shoot up out of the pew. The next picture is of two men in a pew, one has his arm around the back of the pew and the other man.......the button is pushed.....the two shoot up out of the pew...there are other, maybe two, more similar events shown and then the next picture is two well-dressed (suits, ties) men in a pew, a woman who is dressed as we might think of as a homeless woman - dirty hat, many clothes, heavy coat - sits down beside them, they shift away from her. On the scene is printed, and a narrartor says, "Jesus didn't reject anyone and neither do we. All are welcome at the United Church of Christ." .....I almost cheered. Now - IMO - that's "Christian " behavior!......jean

winsum
April 16, 2006 - 10:21 pm
there's quite a terrifying vision of hell in Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce. Claire

Mallylee
April 17, 2006 - 12:38 am
I think that people need the supernatural as they need other esccapist fantasies, or as they need other lying threats to make them obedient to their superiors.

I think the reason that priests were not allowed to marry was that daughters would have to be given dowries, and sons would have to be given portions or entire inheritances. The Church did not want to be impoverished through its priests' families. Concubines were okay because the offspring of concubines had no rights to dowries or portions.

I wionder when it was that priests were stopped having concubines. I suspect that very rural priests openly had concubines long after priests in cities had to go under cover

kevxu
April 17, 2006 - 12:45 am
Apropos the clergy topic. I wonder if once we start talking about "Christianity" or "Buddhism" or Zoroastrianism," etc. we aren't already talking about human, and of course clerical, inventions.

Jesus, Buddha and Zoroaster never spoke of these entities or used these words nor did anything that that can directly connect them with the convoluted speculations and fantasies of these insitutions.

So, my point would be that "Christianity" (etc.) is exactly what it appears to be: the religious institutions of men created over time. Christianity IS the RC church, the Anglicans, the Lutherans and so on whether we find that palatable or not.

kevxu

kevxu
April 17, 2006 - 12:49 am
One of the reasons put forward for celibate clergy was that a clergy with children would encourage attempts to pass down church property to one's heirs.

As for concubines - 1956. Small town of 5,000 in upstate NY.

kevxu

robert b. iadeluca
April 17, 2006 - 03:54 am
"The three 'major' or 'holy orders' -- subdeacon, deacon, priest -- were irrevocable and generally closed the door to marriage after the eleventh century.

"Instances of marriage or concubinage in the Latin priesthood after Gregory VII were recorded but they became more and more exceptional. The parish priest had to content himself with spiritual joys.

"As the parish was normally coterminous with a manor or a village, he was usually appointed by the lord of the manor in collusion with the bishop.

"He was seldom a man of much schooling for a university education was costly and books were rare. It was enough if he could read the breviary and the missal, administer the sacraments, and organize the parish for worship and charity. In many cases he was only a vicarius, a vicar or substitute, hired by a rector to do the religious work of the parish for a fourth of the revenues of the 'benefice.'

"In this way one rector might hold four or five benefices while the parish priest lived in humble poverty eking out his income with 'altar fees' for baptisms, marriages, burials, and Masses for the dead.

"Sometimes, in the class war, he sided with the poor, like John Ball. His morals could not compare with those of the modern priest who has been put on his best behavior by religious competition but by and large he did hs work with patience, conscience, and kindliness. He visited the sick, comforted the bereaved, taught the young, mumbled his breviary, and brought some moral and civilizing leaven to a rough and lusty population.

"Many parish priests, said their cruelest critic, 'were the salt of the earth.' Said the freethinking Leeky:-'No other body of men have ever exhibited a more single-minded and unworldly zeal, refracted by no personal interests, sacrificing to duty the dearest of earthly objects, and confronting with dauntless heroism every form of hardship, of suffering, and of death.'"

Please keep in mind when Durant used the term "modern priest" that he wrote this in the early 20th century.

Robby

Scrawler
April 17, 2006 - 11:19 am
In the Greek church the priests are allowed to marry and raise children. I think this is better from the stand point that they understand from personal experience what it means to raise a family and be husband and father. I never had a problem going to any of my uncles who were also priests when I had problems, but the same wasn't true with Catholic priests. The Catholic priests seemed to have their answers already set in concrete even before you ask the question.

MeriJo
April 17, 2006 - 11:36 am
As far back as I can remember which is quite a few years, candidates for the priesthood attended seminaries that at the college level were equivalent to the studies found in a secular university. Most priests back in the twenties when I started school had attended such seminaries. I am speaking of the United States. Even the Irish priests who were sent to mission territory, California, were graduates of such a school in Ireland or in Rome.

At that time, Church law made quite an impression upon the faithful, and some people were very strict with themselves and quite devout.

I do believe it is the perspective one brings to the Catholic Church or the make-up of that individual's brain that directs the behavior of that person in one's practice of one's faith.

Many thoughts and perceptions imprint themselves upon people as they go through life and these are the things, I believe, that motivate their beliefs.

I have always looked at faith as being a way to conduct one's life. Like a recipe, deviate from it and the result will be different. If stuck in a bad situation remembering what to do is a help and an assurance that no matter what develops the result will be correct for that belief.

Comments by those who do not actively practice any faith quite often reflect the acquired knowledge and perception of what they have learned about that faith. It may be affected by personal experiences which do not include all the sides of the matter.

I hesitate to criticize the tenets of a faith simply because some of its leaders and followers behaved differently than what was known to be right in that case. Historically, the Catholic Church - Christianity - was growing with the rest of the world. It did not appear full grown on earth. It is still being examined and studied.

Rich7
April 17, 2006 - 01:23 pm
Merijo, I found interesting your "God isn't finished with it yet" comment on the Catholic church.

"Historically, the Catholic Church - Christianity - was growing with the rest of the world. It did not appear full grown on earth. It is still being examined and studied."

At what stage of growth is the Catholic church, today? Terrible two, growing child, know-it-all teen ager, self assured young adult, mature adult, senior citizen?

After you answer that for yourself, what answer do you think the church would have given to that same question during the time of the Inquisition? My guess is that the answer would have been the same.

Rich

MeriJo
April 17, 2006 - 02:08 pm
Rich:

During the time of the Inquisition a lot of ignorance abounded in many areas not just religious behavior.

I think that the essentials of Christianity were embellished upon by notions clerics and even lay people had. The essentials are, "Love God. Love your neighbor as yourself".

The growth that I think has happened is the ongoing development of some ideas behind the simple command I mentioned above. More information coming out in the areas of church history, earlier perceptions in Lenten observances by some cultures - such as not eating anything from mammals - eggs, butter, milk. In Italy among some peasants this was the custom. Also, there has been some return to earlier customs. New scientific information and new pyschological information has been advanced and studied.

I do not think it can be equated with human growth, more with the growth in knowledge of the natural world and understanding of the human being. As the world reveals itself so does the church begin to see and understand more of what it needs to address.

I think this is only a natural assumption as new discoveries are made. The church looks at them and begins its own studies. This tendency to examine and study new directions is the reason in my estimation why John Paul II went to Jerusalem's Wailing Wall to pray, and why he made the statement that Jews as a people were not responsible for Christ's Death. It is also the reason why Galileo's premise of the earth orbiting the sun was recognized formally, and his imprisonment deplored.

The Church has been managed by people, good ones, bad ones and indifferent ones. And it has had similar followers.

Sunknow
April 17, 2006 - 02:45 pm
"The Church has been managed by people, good ones, bad ones and indifferent ones. And it has had similar followers"

Priceless statement, Merijo.

Sun

robert b. iadeluca
April 17, 2006 - 05:18 pm
"Priesthood and episcopate constituted the sacerdotium, or sacerdotal order.

"The bishop was a priest selected to co-ordinate several parishes and priests into one diocese. Originally and theoretically he was chosen by priests and people.

"Usually, before Gregory VII, he was named by the baron or king. After 1215 he was elected by the cathedral chapter in co-operation with the pope. "To hies care were committed many secular as well as ecclesiastical affairs and his episcopal court tried some civil cases as well as all those involving clergy of any rank. He had the power to appoint and depose priests but his authority over the abbots and monasteries in his diocese diminished in this period as the popes, fearing the power of the bishops, brought the monastic orders under direct papal control.

"His revenues came partly from his parishes, mostly from the estates attached to his see. Sometimes he gave more to a parish than he received from it.

"Candidates for a bishopric usually agreed to pay -- at first to the king, later to the pope -- a fee for their nomination. As secular rulers they sometimes yielded to the amiable weakness of appointing relatives to lucrative posts.

"Pope Alexander III complained that 'when God deprived bishops of sons the Devil gave them nephews.' Many bishops lived in luxury, as became fuedal lords. But many were consumed in devotion to their spiritual and administrative tasks.

"After the reform of the episcopate by Leo IX the bishops of Europe were, in mind and morals, the finest body of men in medieval history."

Comments about bishops?

Robby

3kings
April 17, 2006 - 05:52 pm
Sunknow I read your remark "Priceless statement, MeriJo " as being heavy with sarcasm.

MeriJo was speaking about the Catholic Church, an institution, and was pointing up some of its well known mistakes.

I think it unfair to dismiss her remarks with a riposte directed at her person, rather than her argument.

If I have misjudged your intention, then please accept my humble apology, for reading something into your remark that you did not intend. ++ Trevor

Justin
April 17, 2006 - 10:42 pm
Durant tells us that after Leo's reform of the episcopate the bishops became,in mind and morals, the finest body of men in Medieval Europe. Then the paragraph ends. Perhaps, subsequent reading will reveal Leo's reforms. Bishops in this period were appointed by secular rulers. They lived in luxury, drawing revenues from parishes and their own land holdings. Their power was second only to that of kings. Their pleasures were provided by concubines and a doting court.

Justin
April 17, 2006 - 11:16 pm
Merijo says," As the world reveals itself," the Church reexamines it's positions in the new terms. (I am not showing a direct quote but a paraphrase of your comment.)

As I read that line I recalled hearing similar language from priests I know. They assume that the world "reveals itself". It's as though the world were some human animal with the power to act, to reveal itself. But such is not the case. Humans who examine the world reveal its characteristics and deserve full credit for discoveries.

Does the church really reevaluate its posture as new information about the world is brought to light? Several centuries had to pass and Gallileo was much abused and his theories retracted under threat of torture, before the church realized it looked like a complete ass and reversed its position.

On the question of the wailing wall apology, as I recall, John Paul 11, admitted much less than you say and that was two thousand years, and millions of deaths before coming.

kevxu
April 18, 2006 - 01:06 am
Durant's statement above is ridiculous!

Many bishops were rich, dissolute, and evil...from the time of Leo's attempted reform of the clergy and 1700 the Chuch of Rome was so burdened with a morally bankrupt hierarchy - and a Papacy that was as bad, if not worse - that it could no longer stave off the massive contempt of the populace and many educated people. The inability of the Roman church to effect a lasting reform in the minds and morals of the hierarchy was one of the most salient features of the Medieval and Renaissance church.

Too many of Durant's statement are preposterous as history and not credible in the least.

kevxu

robert b. iadeluca
April 18, 2006 - 03:40 am
Neither Durant nor any other historian is an infallible god (to use a word which might be apropos in this discussion). Please read in the introduction above the paragraph which begins "This volume and the series . . .". This is why we decided years ago to read him.

I am pleased that we have in this discussion group discerning people who do not necessarily take his comments at face value. On the other hand, let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
April 18, 2006 - 04:00 am
"In theory, the authority of the pope was derived from his succession to the power conferred upon the apostles by Christ.

"In this sense the government of the Church was a theocracy -- a government of the people, through religion, by the earthly vicars of God.

"In another sense the Church was a democracy. Every man in Christendom except the mentally or physically defective, the convicted criminal, the excommunicate and the slave was eligible to the priesthod and the papacy.

"As in every system, the rich had superior opportunities to prepare themselves for the long hierarchical climb. But career was open to all and talent, not ancestry, chiefly determined success. Hundreds of bishops and several popes came from the ranks of the poor.

"This flow of fresh blood into the hierarchy from every rank continually nourished the intelligence of the clergy and was for ages the only prctical recognition of the equality of man."

Do you folks have any examples to prove or to dispute what Durant says here?

Robby

kevxu
April 18, 2006 - 06:25 am
I have read the introduction, which also says: "In this Discussion Group we are not examining Durant. We are examining Civilization but in the process constantly referring to Durant's appraisals."

It is impossible to do the latter with clarity and integrity and not the former.

When Durant's appraisals are contrary to historical fact, then this needs to be pointed out. And he seems rather often to deal in inaccurate, glittering generalities.

I love the study of history, and have spent many, many decades reading it, and in some cases at considerable depth. I shall go back to it.

kevxu

Rich7
April 18, 2006 - 06:27 am
These days the flow of fresh blood into the priesthood (and sisterhood) comes primarily from poorer, third world nations.

Is that because the priesthood offers a better life than what otherwise might be experienced in that environment, of is it because "developed" nations offer so much more opportunity for success in other pursuits?

Or, looking at it more cynically, is there a higher percentage of uneducated people in the poorer parts of the world who are more easily sold a bill of goods?

Rich

Scrawler
April 18, 2006 - 03:06 am
Historians tend to record history with a more than slanted vision because they want to make point. But that shouldn't stop us, as indeed it doesn't in this discussion, from questioning that particular "slant" on history.

MeriJo
April 18, 2006 - 03:32 am
Rich 7:

The church has been growing in the Third World, Africa, for example. There are increasing numbers of Catholics from which priests and nuns do come. It is quite personal a choice and one would need to talk to a candidate for his/her reasons.

There has been an increase in candidates to the priesthood from our local parish. These include several nationalities.

MeriJo
April 18, 2006 - 03:43 am
During the Middle Ages, the Church was a temporal power so it had as its leader the Pope. One of his roles was to manage the Vatican area and other holdings of the Church. This was a purely secular position attending to the maintenance and protection of the land and buildings.

I do not know if it was a true theocracy. It was not a democracy and still isn't. Having the freedom to enter a religious order is an area that I think does not make it a democracy. The members of the Church do not choose which laws or tenets to follow of the faith. These laws were proclaimed from time to time and the faithful were/are expected to heed them. The faithful does not vote for things it wishes to obey.

MeriJo
April 18, 2006 - 04:03 am
Justin:

With regard to my statement, the "world reveals itself." It applies to the knowledge that keeps bubbling up from discoveries, studies, and any reversal of former thinking that results from these.

For example, it was once believed very strongly that individuals understood things equally especially in the areas of mental capacity - that may not be the right word - but early on, the Church recognized that some people became very affected by beliefs to the point where wrong interpretations were made and their lives affected adversely. The Church addressed these as being "scruples", and they encouraged such scrupulous folks not to take some of the things they were allowing to impact their lives adversely, so seriously. They would think that they were unforgiveable. This is a danger in one taking religious beliefs too seriously.

The emphasis gradually became one on God's love and that as His Children He certainly understood their worries - and not to be afraid.

Since Vatican II more and more emphasis has been given to God's love and not to punishment.

History identifies well the notion of the hierarchy's emphasis on punishment and God's displeasure at a human being's misbehavior.

The Church does take a long time to recognize things in the world such as Galileo's view, but I read of his imprisonment and he wasn't tortured. He was in his home, but at one time during his removal from the world he lived with the Archbishop of Siena in a very nice situation.

The fear was that people would discard the information found in the Scriptures about the world and the heavens which could have led to a loss of faith.

Pope Urban (don't remember the number) had been open to scientific discoveries and the work of Galileo before he became Pope, and after his election to the Papacy this change in his behavior toward science did puzzle Galileo.

Justin
April 18, 2006 - 05:25 am
Merijo; I don't recall saying Gallileo was tortured. I think, I said he was threatened with torture.

The Church is a theocracy and certainly was a theocracy during the period of temporal dominion. It was never a democracy as Durant tells us. It's process for selection of priests may have been eclectic but never democratic. Sovereignty at all times resided in the hierarchy of the clergy. The layman, then and now, has no voice.

Justin
April 18, 2006 - 05:48 am
Kevxu: Robby may wish to explain what he meant by the sentence"We are not examining Durant."

I think, the sentence should read" We are not only examining Durant but also civilization and in the process constantly referring to Durant's appraisals. Durant makes a nice counter voice because he does extend his reach occasionally and he does allow his background to color his judgement. If Durant's interpretation of history agreed with all of our individual views he would have said nothing worth reading. When you say his position on some point is "ridiculous" you are doing exactly what is expected of you in this discussion. Your comments have been worthy and greatly appreciated by me and I am sure by others. So stick around.

MeriJo
April 18, 2006 - 07:33 am
Justin:

There is no land or government being directed by the Church only its parts are being governed by its Administrative arm. Maybe during the Middle Ages it operated as a theocracy although in all the years I studied about the Church in the Middle Ages that aspect was never mentioned.

I never thought of it as a theocracy.

Egypt was a theocracy. The Aztecs were governed by the Aztec priests. Tibet was a theocracy.

Yes, I understood you to say Galileo was not tortured. I guess my follow-up was unclear there.

Mallylee
April 18, 2006 - 07:58 am
Without references and footnotes it's difficult for an inexperienced student of history like me to know which of Durants' statements are supported by significant evidence, and which aren't. I am suspicious of sweeping generalisations in any work that purports to be history.

However, this material is most interesting because being obviously flawed, it propels us into dispute about not only the facts of the human past, but also about historiography itself, both of them interesting areas

Mallylee
April 18, 2006 - 08:11 am
I read your explanation Merijo, and it satisfies me, but only as far as it goes.

However the ontological question remains 'is there a world to be revealed'?

We have evolved to have the sort of central nervous systems that make patterns from our experiences. This ability helps each person to survive because the ability to make patterns allows us to predict more or less , what is going to happen next. It's a matter of fact that there is no proof that there is an ordered cosmos already in existence, before we humans have made theories about it.

To assume that the cosmos is ordered according to some pre-existing plan or Plan, is a matter for faith.

robert b. iadeluca
April 18, 2006 - 09:45 am
The Papacy Supreme

1085-1204

robert b. iadeluca
April 18, 2006 - 09:53 am
"The conflict between Church and state over lay investitures did not die with Gregory VII and the apparent triumph of the Empire.

"It continued for a generation through several pontificates and reached a compromise in the Concordat of Worms (1122) between Pope Calixtus II and the Emperor Henry V.

"Henry surrendered to the Church 'all investiture by ring and staff' and agreed that elections of bishops and abbots 'shall be conducted canonically' -- i.e. by made by the affected clergy or monks -- 'and shall be free from all interference' and simony.

"Calixtus conceded that in Germany the elections of bishops or abbots holding lands from the crown should be held in the presence of the king -- that in disputed elections the king might decide between the contenders after consulting with the bishops of the province -- and that an abbot or bishop holding lands from the king should render to him all feudal obligations due from vassal to suzerain.

"Similar agreements had already been signed for England and France. Each side claimed the victory.

"The Church had made substantial progress toward autonomy but the feudal nexus continued to give the king a predominant voice in the choice of bishops everywhere in Europe."

The pendulum swings?

Robby

Sunknow
April 18, 2006 - 12:43 pm
Before we move on to a new subject area, I would like to say that I admired Justin's statement to Kevxu: "...Your comments have been worthy and greatly appreciated by me and I am sure by others..." What a pleasant and acceptable exchange.

At the same time, I would like to say to Trevor that his remarks to me in Post #401 were not appreciated, and were uncalled for. Instead of intending heavy sarcasm as you stated, I intended only complements to MeriJo. What she writes is always informative, and enjoyable as are the writings of many who post here.

I do not need you to tell me that MeriJo was speaking about the Catholic Church, an institution, and pointing up some of its well known mistakes. Good heavens, do you think I cannot read?

Yes, you misjudge my intention....and I accept your humble apology. At the same time, I should apologize to you because I stepped out of line and posted at all, and just go back to lurking, but sooner or later, I will forget my place again.....and say what I get good and ready to say.

(Sorry, Robby)

Sun

robert b. iadeluca
April 18, 2006 - 08:08 pm
Exchanging ideas in print always has its problems. Misunderstandings come so easily. You are all a wonderful group and each of us is a human being carrying whatever it means to be human.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
April 18, 2006 - 08:10 pm
Any comments about Durant's last remarks regarding conflict between Church and state?

Robby

Fifi le Beau
April 19, 2006 - 03:51 am
Malllylee your statement.....

Without references and footnotes it's difficult for an inexperienced student of history like me to know which of Durants' statements are supported by significant evidence, and which aren't. I am suspicious of sweeping generalisations in any work that purports to be history.

However, this material is most interesting because being obviously flawed


Durant has hundreds of references and footnotes. The number of books, essays, poetry, scribblings, translations, and etc. he had to have read and researched (with his wife's help) to have compiled this series of volumes is staggering.

Durant's writings have included the good, the bad, and the ugly in all religions discussed in his books. Just because he is currently writing about some of the good things the church did during the middle ages does not mean he left out their disasters, debauchery, murders, bribery, and etc.

Durant gives us what he has found and lets us decide how we will interpret it, like all good historians. It would be difficult to make a reasoned judgement on any material if only selected parts are read, in my opinion.

Fifi

Justin
April 19, 2006 - 04:16 am
The Concordat of Worms brought Henry V and Gregory to an important shift in the power of the state in favor of the Church. Investiture quarrels have influenced the course of a great many contests between Pope and royalty and for many centuries. But Worms put an end to the struggle. Some residual remained, of course but the great battle was essentially over. Local canons were given the power to elect bishops and the position was to be confirmed by the Papacy where advise and consent rules applied. Feudalism, which continued, but was doomed to break down with the Crusades and the influence of the cities, allowed the Kings to have confirmation rights over new bishops for another century or so but the main control had clearly shifted after Worms.

Mallylee
April 19, 2006 - 04:39 am
Fifi, Oh I accept the correction. I did not know that there were refs and footnotes.

I still dont like the generalisations without accompanying info about which persons did what, and in what circumstances.

robert b. iadeluca
April 19, 2006 - 11:21 am
"In 1130 the college of cardinals divided into factions.

"One chose Innocent II, the other Anacletus II. Anacletus, although of the noble family of the Pierleoni, had had a Jewish grandfather, a convert to Christianity. His opponents called him 'Judaeo-pontifex' and St. Bernard, who on other occasions was friendly to the Jews, wrote to the Emperor Lothaire II that 'to the shame of Christ a man of Jewish origin was come to occupy the chair of St. Peter' -- forgetting Peter's origin.

"The greater part of the clergy and all but one of Europe's kings, upheld Innocent. The populace of Europe amused itself with slanders charging Anacletus with incest and with plundering Christian churches to enrich his Jewish friends but the people of Rome supported him until his death.

"It was probably the story of Anacletus that led to the fourteenth-century legend of Andreas 'the Jewish Pope.'

How about that?

Robby

Justin
April 19, 2006 - 02:28 pm
How easy it is to forget one's origins. It also seems easy to forget that the God of Israel and of Abraham had loved the Jews more than any other group of people. In addition, at this early date (1150), the Christians have forgotten that their God was and is a Jew and that all his buddies were Jews. Moreover, that Christianity was a Jewish cult in the early centuries. I wonder just when Christianity stopped being Jewish and began to think of itself as something new and different? It may have begun to think of itself as something apart when Paul began to break bread with gentiles and ended the circumcision requirement for new members.

MeriJo
April 19, 2006 - 02:35 pm
Justin:

I think you are right. The explanation is in the Acts of the Apostles and in St. Paul's Epistles somewhere. I read it some time back, but I would need to research it to find it.

MeriJo
April 19, 2006 - 02:55 pm
Malllylee:

Searching for an ontological meaning would enter the realm of metaphysics. I was thinking of Christianity, the Church teachings as being a guideline for living lives that would be happy, orderly, with a knowledge of goodness, a difference of right from wrong, and somewhat peaceful.

We know that during the Middle Ages, ill people were thought of being beset by bad humors or because of misbehavior of some sort their illness was that they had offended God. This kind of thinking lasted past the Middle Ages and even into Modern times, despite the discovery of germs, the possibility of defective immune systems, slowing mitochardia in the nervous system and the presence of recessive genes becoming dominant - and no doubt, many other possibilities.

As this type of physical knowledge gained merit, the Church would begin its own studies, and in time recognize the relationship of an illness to the general disposition of human beings. Scientific explanations went a long way to dispelling notions of God's punishment being a cause of illness.

All around the world the Church has universities and hospitals and pioneering projects in a large array of disciplines. It is within settings such as these that the Church learns to modify its teachings and reassess what has been customary. It is a slow process, but it does take place.

Malryn
April 20, 2006 - 09:07 am
I'm here for roll call. Present, ROBBY.

Mal

robert b. iadeluca
April 20, 2006 - 09:51 am
We miss some of your wonderful links that you used to give us, Mal.

Robby

Malryn
April 20, 2006 - 11:42 am

ROBBY, someone kindly loaned me an electric wheelchair. Now my arm is much less painful. Maybe I'll be able to get back into the swing of things again. I HOPE SO!

All of these links go to different articles about Anacletus.

Anacletus


Anacletus

Anacletus

robert b. iadeluca
April 20, 2006 - 08:38 pm
"Innocent III was born at Anagni, near Rome in 1161.

"As Lotario dei Conti, son of the count of Segni, he had all the advantages of aristocratic birth and cultured rearing. He studied philosophy and theology at Paris, canon and civil law at Bologna.

"Back in Rome, by his mastery of both diplomacy and doctrine, and his influential connections, he advanced rapidly on the ecclesiastical ladder. At thirty he was a cardinal deacon, and at thirty-seven, although still not a priest, he was unanimously chosen pope (1198). He was ordained on one day and consecrated on the next.

"It was his good fortune that the Emperor Henry VI, who had acquired control of South Italy, had died in 1197, leaving the throne to the three-year-old Frederick II. Innocent seized the opportunity vigorously -- deposed the German prefect in Rome -- ousted the German feudatories from Spoleto and Perugia -- received the submission of Tuscany -- re-established the rule of the papacy in the Papal States -- was recognized by Henry's widow as overlord of the Two Sicilies -- and conseented to be the guardian of her son.

"In ten months Innocent had made himself master of Italy."

It's not what you know, but who you know -- and what you do about it.

Robby

Justin
April 21, 2006 - 04:12 pm
Innocent lll studied under the Scholastics at Paris and may even have been a pupil of Abelard. He is no hack,this guy. He is a powerhouse. He rises to the rank of Cardinal Deacon without ordination in his thirties. Takes control of the two Sicilies from the Germans and restores the secular power of the vatican in the Vatican states. Just wait till he puts on the the three crowned derby.

kiwi lady
April 21, 2006 - 04:33 pm
I was thinking maybe if the Pope of the 21st century was only 37 maybe the Church would have some much needed reformation by now.

Mallylee
April 21, 2006 - 07:07 pm
That's an interesting thought Kiwi. I wonder if it's because so many important men in the church are old men, that the Church is so conservative

Mallylee
April 21, 2006 - 07:21 pm
The History of Civilisation will, I hope fill in some of the big gaps in my knowledge about history.

I am aged 75, and so long ago, when I was a child at school in Scotland, school history was all about Scottish history. Then at secondary school it was limited to British history, and that as I recall nearly all British history: kings and queens, battles, prime ministers, and in the 19th century the way laws changed to deal with social and other problems.

One of the best ways I learned history at school were the books from the school library'A History of Everyday Things in England'by the Quennells. I still own the books.

History was much better taught at university, as social history, although it was only part of the foundation course ,according to my choice of subjects.

robert b. iadeluca
April 21, 2006 - 08:15 pm
"In 1204, through the conquest of Constantinople by the Crusaders, Innocent achieved one part of his plans. The Greek Church submitted to the Boshop of Rome and Innocent could speak with joy of 'the seamless garment of Christ.'

"He brought Serbia and even distant Armenia under the dominion of the Roman See.

"Gradually he secured control over ecclesiastical appointments and made the powerful episcopacy the organ and servant of the papacy.

"Through an astonishing succession of vital conflicts he reduced the potentates of Europe to an unprecedented recognition of his sovereignty.

"His policies were least effective in Italy. He failed in repeated efforts to end the wars of the Italian city states. In Rome his political enemies made life so unsafe for himn that for a time he had to shun his capital.

"King Sverre of Norway successfully resisted him despite excommunication and interdict.

"Philip II of France ignored his command to make peace with England but yielded to the Pope's insistence that he take back his discarded wife.

"Alfonso IX of Leon was persuaded to put away Berengaria whom he had married within the forbidden degrees of kinship.

"Portugal, Aragon, Hungary and Bulgaria acknowledged themselves as feudal fiefs of the papacy and sent it tribute yearly.

"When King John rejected Innocent's appointment of Langton as achbishop of Canerbury, the Pope drove him by interdict and shrewd diplomacy to add England to the list of papal fiefs.

"Innocent extended his power in Germany by supporting Otto IV against Philip of Swabia, then Philip against Otto, then Otto against Frederick II, then Frederick against Otto, in each case exacting concessions to the papacy as the price of his favor and freeing the Papal States from the threat of encirclement.

"He reminded the emperors that it was a pope who had 'translated' the imperium or imperial power from the Greeks to the Franks, that Charlemagne had been made Emperor only by papal anointment and coronation and that what the popes had given they could take away.

"A Byzantine visitor to Rome described Innocent as 'the successor not of Peace but of Constantine.'"

A tremendous example of the power of Diplomacy!!

Robby

Mallylee
April 21, 2006 - 11:48 pm
What was the basis for the Pope's power? Was it simply the power of unquestioning belief on the part of the ruling class?

Or did the Pope have the power to exert sanctions of some sort against non-compliant rulers?

3kings
April 22, 2006 - 12:05 pm
I guess the Pope's power came from the people. They were so frightened of the whole nation being excommunicated, that the rulers courtiers would quite possibly kill the obstructive ruler. The ruler, being fearful of losing his own life, even if he had no fear of personal excommunication, would knuckle down to the Pope's demands.

"There is nothing so concentrates the mind, as the fear of one's own immanent demise". ++ Trevor

mabel1015j
April 22, 2006 - 03:15 pm
re: marriage and "acceptable degrees of kinship?" Can we determine when royals decided that it may be unhealthy to marry your sister? I can't recall reading anything about when or where that was first forbidden.......jean

Mallylee
April 22, 2006 - 04:43 pm
Marrying your sister----- an anthropologist explained to me thta it was taboo because if there was too much marrying within a family the family became too separate from the interests of the tribe as a whole.Also, marriage between people from different families was a useful means of increasing a family's wealth if the bride brought a dowry. or if the bride was a productive worker.

I dont entirely believe this, as it's well known that when closely related humans mate the children are more likely to have some heritable disease.I should imagine that even the ancients who knew nothing about genetic inheritance would have seen that offspring from brothers and sisters or fathers and daughters were more likely to have something wrong with them. The two explanations are not mutually exclusive

robert b. iadeluca
April 23, 2006 - 01:09 am
"As the property of the Church was inalienable, and, before 1200, was normally free from secular taxation, it grew from century to century.

"It was not unusual for a cathedral, a monastery, or a nunnery to own several thousand manors, including a dozen towns or even a great city or two.

"The bishop of Langres owned the whole country. The abbey of St. Martin of Tours ruled over 20,000 serfs. The bishop of Bologna held 2000 manors. So did the abbey of Lorsch. The abbey of Las Huelgas, in Spain, held sixty four townships.

"In Castile, about 1200, the Church owned a quarter of the soil. In England, a fifth. In Germany a third. In Livonia one half.

"These, however, are loose and uncertain estimates.

"Such accumulations became the envy and target of the state. Charles Martel confisciated church property to finance his wars. Louis the Pious legislated against bequests that disinherited the children of the testator in favor of the Church. Henry II of Germany stripped many monasteries of their lands, saying that monks were vowed to poverty.

"Several English statutes of mortmain put restrictions on the deeding of property to 'corporations' -- meaning ecclesiastical bodies.

"Edward I levied from the English Church in 1291 a tenth of its property and in 1294 a half of its annual revenue.

"Philip II began, St. Louis continued, Philip IV established the taxation of ecclesiastical property in France.

"As industry and commerce developed, and money multiplied and prices rose, the income of abbeys and bishoprics, derived laggely from feudal dues once fixed at a low price level and now hard to raise, proved inadqequate not only for luxury but even for maintenance.

"By 1270 the majority of French cathedrals and abbeys were heavily in debt. They had borrowed from the bankers at high interest rates to meet the exactions of the kings -- hence, in part, the decline of architectural activity in France at the end of the thirteenth century."

Comments about money and the Church?

Robby

Malryn
April 23, 2006 - 12:05 pm

Was this what Jesus had in mind?

Mal

Justin
April 23, 2006 - 12:18 pm
Jesus threw the "money changers" out of the Temple. The Roman Church brought them back and took a piece of the action for its trouble. .

kiwi lady
April 23, 2006 - 05:15 pm
Jesus never envisaged a Church like the Church of Rome or the Church of England with all the wealth they have accumulated. Imagine how many starving people could be fed if all the treasures in the Vatican were sold and the huge household was pared down to the Pope and a Housekeeper. The same applies to the Archbishop of Canterbury and his household. I cannot reconcile the message of Jesus with what has happened in organised religion.

The Church of England has huge packets of land here which it has leased out for residential housing. The leases were brought up for renewal all at once a few years ago and the rents were just exhorbitant. Quite a few of the leaseholders had to sell their homes as they could no longer afford to live there. Yes organised religion is big business.

robert b. iadeluca
April 23, 2006 - 08:02 pm
"The Church herself joined in this criticism of clerical money-grabbing and made many efforts to control the acquisitiveness and luxury of her personnel.

"Hundreds of clergymen from St. Peter Damian, St. Bernard, St. Francis and Cardinal de Vitry down to simple monks, labored to mitigate these natural abuses. It is chiefly from the writings of such ecclesiastical reformers that our knowledge of the abuses is derived.

"A dozen monastic orders devoted themselves to preaching reform by their good example. Pope Alexander III and the Lateran Council of 1179 condemned the exaction of fees for administering baptism or extreme unction, or performing a marriage.

"Gregory X called the Ecumenical Council of Lyons in 1274 specifically to take measures for the reform of the church. The popes themselves, in this age, showed no taste for luxury and earned their keep by arduous devotion to their exhausing tasks.

"It is the tragedy of things spiritual that they languish if unorganized and are contaminated by the material needs of their organization."

Are we painting with too broad a brush?

Robby

Mallylee
April 25, 2006 - 02:04 am
"It is the tragedy of things spiritual that they languish if unorganized and are contaminated by the material needs of their organization."

Are we painting with too broad a brush?


As a general comment, I like it, although I would like more precise language. If he means that any human institution ,including religions,inevitably become hierarchical, with the best will in the world. The Quakers made a good attempt to make a democratic organisation and I am not sure to what extent they succeeded.

Is this what Durant meant?

robert b. iadeluca
April 25, 2006 - 03:38 am
The Early Inquisition

1000-1300

robert b. iadeluca
April 25, 2006 - 03:48 am
"Anticlericalism rose to a flood at the end of the twelfth century.

"There were, in the Age of Faith, recesses of religious mysticism and sentiment that escaped and resented organized sacerdotal Christianity.

"Moving perhaps with returning Crusaders, new waves of Oriental mysticism flowed into the West.

"From Persia, through Asia Minor and the Balkans, came echoes of Manichean dualism and Mazdakian communism.

"From Islam a hostility to images, an obscure fatalism, and distaste for priets.

"And from the failure of the Crusades a secret doubt as to the divine origin and support of the Christian Church.

"The Paulicians, driven westward by Byzantine persecution, carried through the Balkans into Italy and Province, their scorn of images, sacraments, and the clergy. They divided the cosmos into a spiritual world created by God and a material world created by Satan. And they identified Satan with the Yahveh of the Old Testament.

"The Bogomiles (i.e. Friends of God) took form and name in Bulgaria and spread especially in Bosnia. They were attacked by fire and sword at various times in the thirteenth century, defended themselves tenaciously and finally surrendered not to Christianity but to islam."

Durant reminds us that there was not just one type of belief in that era. He calls it the Age of Faith but not just one specific faith.

Any comments on this section?

Robby

Scrawler
April 25, 2006 - 10:08 am
It makes me wonder if this wasn't the Church, Christ had visioned, what kind of Church did he foresee, and furthermore would it have survived the pressure of other religions that were spreading throughout Europe and Asia at this time.

We know that the Roman Catholic Church was forced or compelled to legitimize a December 25 date as Christ's birth because of the popularity of Mithraism, Christianity's major rival religion. One can only wonder what influences were forced upon the Church from other religions. Changes that were made, perhaps, to insure that Christianity would survive.

Justin
April 25, 2006 - 11:49 am
Durant makes fair comment. It is the age of faith but faith in a variety of concepts. In a broad sense they range from the Islamic view of Allah to the Judeo-Christian view of God but within the Judeo-Christian view and indeed within the Christian view there is great variety of concept.

MeriJo
April 25, 2006 - 12:35 pm
Well, I am flabbergasted by Durant's excerpts and even more flabbergasted by conclusions derived from them. I cannot imagine 2000 manors belonging to Bologna. Where were they? Scattered around the Adriatic coast?

I am further appalled by the conclusions that the Church is wealthy. In temporal terms it may seem wealthy, but the works of art, the buildings and the churches belong to the faithful unless one thinks of the Czech Republic where the ownership of the main Cathedral in Prague has been in dispute between the Church and the government of the Czech Republic for years.

Kiwi Lady:

Surely, you can't say that the Church -(hate to have to use that word, because it is not really true) - does not use what monies and gifts in kind that it receives to help the poor worldwide. That has been one of the primary functions of the Church since it was founded. In this context, there have been hospitals, orphanages, clinics, old folks' homes, and schools for the deaf, blind and mentally impaired since time immemorial. Pearl Buck, who wrote "The Good Earth" gave birth to a beautiful little girl that was mentally deficient. Doctors wanted Buck to institutionalize the little girl, but one in particular advised her to take her to a Catholic home for such youngsters, because there "the nuns believed in the soul" and the child would be cared for beautifully.

There is a penchant among some folks to condemn - throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak, before doing sufficient research about anything pertaining to the Catholic Church.

December 25th was selected as Christmas because it coincided with the Saturnalia of the Roman people when they celebrated the midwinter festival. The calendar also had changed at that time, and the December 25th date would have fit since it was known that Jesus had been born in winter. The Church recognized that too many changes for the simple folk of those ancient times might have sent them on more superstitious journeys than they were on already. So it stayed with the date for the Saturnalia. Many of the holydays coincide with the Roman pagan festivals.

robert b. iadeluca
April 25, 2006 - 04:16 pm
Merijo:-Are you saying the leaseholders that Carolyn mentions are paying their rent to "the faithful?"

Robby

MeriJo
April 25, 2006 - 04:41 pm
Robby:

I have no idea how the Church of England (Anglican) manages its finances. Kiwi is referring to that Church with regard to leaseholders.

Since the Catholic Church has not had significant holdings since 1929, I can say that any land it holds now belongs to the diocese in title and thereby to the faithful members of the diocese. The bishop does not own it except for legal purposes (title). In California, all church property is taxed except the actual building used for worship.

The Vatican has jurisdiction over the Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. If it owns the land then the Vatican pays taxes on that land if that is the law in D. C. That is the only place in the U. S. that I know about with a direct link to the Vatican.

Hospitals and universities are owned by the religious orders running the institutions without monetary support from the Vatican. Sometimes, the diocese in which the institution is located will make a donation to it.

Donations are the source of any working capital for the Church for maintenance and support.

(A personal note: I contribute to my high school, my college, and the university my sons attended. Each reports throughout the year how their conributions are allocated. Each is very well endowed, thanks to energetic students, alumni and friends.)

3kings
April 25, 2006 - 08:09 pm
There can be no doubt that the established churches are wealthy, but much of that wealth is in land, buildings, art etc, not in bank balances. What is the monetary value of the Vatican ?I don't think anyone could put a figure on it.

The local Catholic Cathedral is being refurbished at the cost of $12 million. Ten million of that came from the sale of a large piece of land across the street from me. It is being transformed into a city park. Without the sale of the land, the rebuilding of the Cathedral could not have gone ahead. So, while the Church is very wealthy it is not in ready cash.

My wife, a Catholic, is on her local church committee, and they are always trying to get enough money to maintain the parish, in even the barest essentials. Now with the price of petrol, and the present cost of living, it is becoming very difficult. +++ Trevor

kiwi lady
April 25, 2006 - 09:09 pm
Trevor imagine what it costs to run the Vatican! Its like running Buckingham Palace. Does a pastor need to live like a king? Jesus did not live like a king.

Justin
April 25, 2006 - 10:35 pm
Peters Pence and the tithe, as well as exemption from secular taxation helped the Vatican achieve great wealth.It has been said that once a piece of gold enters the portals of Vatican city it is never to be seen again. As so many others have pointed out Vatican wealth is largely lodged in land today.

We speak of Vatican wealth as though it is all housed in the Vatican but ownership of church assets is probably distributed throughout the various dioceses in the world just as Merijo points out. That ownership right makes each diocese a stand alone enterprise and thus,in the US, subject to suit for damages. As a result, some diocese, have been sued and forced to the wall. A few have resorted to bankrupcy.

Individual parishes often struggle to make ends meet and that's probably good public relations. The face to the faithful is a threadbare one. Parishes are forever running bingo games, bazaars, and car raffles to make enough money for flowers on the altar or for a new church roof. The faithful have always been responsible for funding its own shelters.

The church as a whole, as an entity, must be losing financial ground today. Its growth is occurring in impoverished areas of Africa. Its established areas in the rest of the world are declining in membership and in available clergy as well as in wealth. The assets of many dioceses are strained by legal debt and liability for irresponsible actions.

robert b. iadeluca
April 26, 2006 - 04:01 am
"About the year 1000 a sect appeared in Toulouse and Orleans which denied the reality of miracles, the regenerative virtue of baptism, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the efficacy of prayers to the saints.

"They were ignored for a time, then condemned, and thirteen of their number were burned at the stake in 1023.

"Similar heresies developed and led to uprisings at Cambrai and Liege, Goslar, Soissons, Cologne, etc.

"Berthold of Regensburg reckoned 150 heretical sects in the thirteenth century. Some were harmless groups who gathered to read the Bible to one another in the vernacular without a priest and to put their own interpretation upon its disputed passages. Several, like the Humililati in Italy, the Beguines and Beghards in the Low Countries, were orthodox in everything except their embarrassing insistence that priests shold live in poverty.

"The Franciscan movement arose as such a sect and narrowly escaped being classed as heretical."

Some of the people are beginning to think and question.

Robby

MeriJo
April 26, 2006 - 01:39 pm
KiwiLady:

I don't know just how expensive it may be to run the Vatican, but its library and art galleries belong to the faithful and are available to the public for use. Scholars go there for particular reference. There are several colleges in the Vatican which are sponsored in some way by church members.

It is a very small acreage and maintained accordingly. I do believe that employees are paid, but I imagine as is the way of Catholics that there is much volunteer help.

It would sadden Catholics and much of the world if the care of the Vatican was diminished in any way. I have been there in those galleries and they hold many valuable pieces for the edification of the public.

Your concern for helping the poor is appreciated, but that has been a priority in the church since its inception.

MeriJo
April 26, 2006 - 01:44 pm
I doubt very much that Francis of Assisi began his order as one who defied the teachings of the Church. That he did define the order as being a mendicant order is true. The monks vowed poverty and one group included the poverty of going along only in sandals and not foot covering such as socks, the Discalced Franciscans. ("Calce" are socks in Italian).

robert b. iadeluca
April 26, 2006 - 02:43 pm
Any other comments about Durant's remarks in Post 459?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
April 26, 2006 - 03:30 pm
"By the middle of the twelfth century the towns of Western Europe were honeycombed with heretical sects.

"Said a bishop in 1190:-'The cities are filled with these false prophets.' Milan alone had seventeen new religions.

"The leading heretics there were the Patarines -- named apparently from Pataria, a poor quarter of the town. The movement seems to have begun as a protest against the rich.

"It was turned to anticlericalism, denounced the simony, wealth, marriage, and concubinage of the clergy, and proposed, in the words of one leader that 'the wealth of the clergy be impounded, their property put up at auction. If they resist, let their houses be given up to pillage and let them and their bastards be hounded out of the city.'

"Similar anticlerical parties rose in Viterbo, Orvieto, Verone, Ferrara, Parma, Piacenza, Remini....

"At times they dominated the popular assemblies, captured city governments, and taxed the clergy to pay for divic enterprises.

"Innocent III instructed his legate in Lombardy to exact an oath from all municipal officials that they would not appoint or admit heretics to office.

"In 1237 a Milanese mob, 'blaspheming and reviling,' polluted several churches with 'unmentionable filth.'"

Once again we have the unceasing "class war" or have I mentioned that before?

Robby

Justin
April 26, 2006 - 06:00 pm
It's nice to see that not all were sheep. Unfortunately, many of those who were not sheep paid for their doubts and diversions in a faggot pile. Stretching was also popular as a method for returning lost sheep to the Good Shepherd.

Peter Waldo thought priests should serve as the Apostles served but the way of the apostles was not the way of the Vatican. These fellows were good enough to adorn the roof top of St. Peter's basilica but were not the right sort for imitation.Jesus had the same problem. Communism was frowned on in those days too. However, the decalced Franciscans, made communism work but they had a close call with the Inquisition.

Justin
April 26, 2006 - 07:24 pm
I suppose the heretics of today are the hundreds of sects and cults called Protestant. Members of the these groups read the Bible on their own and without the aid of priestly advice to guide them to approved passages. These poor misguided souls select from the thousands of passages available, those they prefer to follow. Who knows what evil lurks in scriptural pages? One can easily fall prey to heresy.

kiwi lady
April 26, 2006 - 08:24 pm
There are churches who have no buildings but meet in homes in groups of twenty to fifty. They hire a school hall or similar every now and again to have a service. They help and support one another. Because the groups are so small they know each other just like family. That how I believe it should be and is how the Christian church began until man corrupted it and built their kingdoms. I wish there was one of these house churches near me. I am a believer but not a believer in kingdoms on earth.

Mallylee
April 27, 2006 - 01:39 am
Carol, you may like to read the website of the Sea of Faith in New Zealand. The British Sea of Faith and the New Zealand Sea of Faith are the biggest contingents of the nationalities represented, although there are some Australians, perhaps fewer Canadians, and Americans, and South Africans.

Certainly there are small local groups which meet wherever there is a suitable venue such as a private house.Or perhaps the Quakers' house, or a university chaplaincy.I have been a member for about 20 years. The Auckland local group would be the one nearest you

robert b. iadeluca
April 27, 2006 - 04:00 am
"The most powerful of the heretical sects was variously named Cathari, from the Greek for 'pure,' Bulgari, from their Balkan provenance (whence the abusive term bugger), and Albigenses, from the French town of Albi, where they were especially numerous.

"Montpellier, Narbonne, and Marseille were the first French centers of the heresy, perhaps through contact with Moslems and Jews and through frequentation by merchants from heretical centers in Bosnia, Bulgaria, and Italy.

"Merchants spread the movement to Toulouse, Orleans, Soissons, Artas, and Reims but Languedoc and Provence remained its strongholds. There French medieval civilization had reached its height. The great religions mingled in urbane amity, women were imperiously beautiful, morals were loose, troubadours spread gay ideas and, as in Frederick's Italy, the Renaissance was ready to begin.

"Southern France was at that time (1200) composed of practically independent principalities, tenuously bound in theoretical allegiance to the king of France. In this region the counts of Toulouse were the greatest lords, possessing territories more extensive than those directly owned by the king.

"The doctrines and practices of the Cathari were in part a return to primitive Christian beliefs and ways, partly a vague memory of the Arian heresy that had prevailed in southern France under the Visigoths, partly a product of Manichean and other Oriental ideas. They had a black robed clergy of priests and bishops called perfecti, who at their ordination vowed to leave parents, mate, and children, to devote themselves 'to God and the gospel, never to touch a woman, never to kill animals, never to eat meat, eggs, or dairy food, nor anything but fish and vegetables.

"The 'believers' (credentes) were followers who promised to take these vows later. They were allowed meanwhile to eat meat and marry but they were required to renounce the Catholic Church, to advance toward the 'perfect' life and to greet any of the perfecti with a triple and reverent genuflection."

Much to discuss here!

Robby

Bubble
April 27, 2006 - 04:52 am
re # 446

Here too, many Jews congregate and pray together in a hall, a shelter, a room of the house which serves as synagogue for a few hours a day. They do not need a special building for that. Yes, it was the way in the beginning, long ago. Simple service, no rich decor.

MeriJo
April 27, 2006 - 07:01 am
The Cathari allowed marriage, but if a child was born of the marriage, the mother had to smother it to death, and starve herself to death afterward, and the father had to kill himself. The Church became alarmed at this heresy that was becoming widespread in France, because at that rate the human population would diminish drastically, and it was a demoralizing and inhuman way to live. This belief stemmed from the theory of dualism, that the body was evil and the soul, alone, was good.

Their priests were called, "The Good Men" and would appear unexpectedly at the home of supposed followers to check on the way they were living.

Scrawler
April 27, 2006 - 09:12 am
#470 was an interesting post, but I don't see how this heritic belief came from the idea of the dual nature in man. If there were no children born would the parents have to kill themselves? Was having a child considered the evil in man?

Why do you suppose these heritic beliefs came into being if the masses believed in the Catholic Church? What was in the Roman Catholic Church that turned them in another direction?

Justin
April 27, 2006 - 02:35 pm
Durant tells us Cathar clergy at ordination vowed to leave parents, mate, and children to devote themselves to God and the Gospels. That practice has a familar ring. Jesus directed his followers to do the same. St Francis followed a similar practice. Catholic priests appear to do that as well. I suppose some males find the obligation to provide for parents, wife, and children a little too much for them and so take the first socially acceptable boat out of the responsibility.

Did the church under Innocent lll, as Merijo suggests, attack the Cathars because their suicidal way of life would diminish the population drastically and that it was a demoralizing way to live or did it attack because as Durant suggests,"The Church might have allowed this sect to die of its own suicide had not the Cathari engaged in active criticism of the Church?" Innocent's own message to the Archbishop of Aouch says the Cathars "are trying to destroy the unity of the Catholic Church. We give you a strict command to destroy all these heresies. You may use the people and princes to supress them with the sword."

Mallylee
April 27, 2006 - 04:13 pm
Merijo#470

What is the source for the allegation that a Cathar mother should smother her baby? I have searched for a reference for this and have found only that the 'goodmen' (The perfecti or parfaits) should not marry or have children, althouigh they did of course, have mistresses like many Catholic priests did.

Heretics who were not goodmen could marry and have children, which they did and they often had large families, if there was plenty of land to support many children. The heretic belief in metempsychosis meant that soon after conception a bodiless soul would enter the foetus. The soul that was able to enter a human foetus was always a good soul: lesser souls would enter some other pregnant animal. I do not believe that it was a Cathar doctrine that newborns should die.

Certainly married women both Catholic and heretic expected to be beaten by their husbands. But there was a great love of children.

(My source : 'Montaillou')

3kings
April 27, 2006 - 05:07 pm
I read in today's paper, a strange story of how ritual and dogma in religion is regarded as of greater importance than than the philosophical aspects.

It seems that three Malaysian astronauts are soon to be rocketed into space. The question is when one is racing around the earth, which way is Mecca ? Also, it is important to pray each sunrise and sunset. An orbiting space ship experiences perhaps 40 sunrises and sunsets each 24 hours, making prayers take up a great deal of time.

Many of that faith suggest that believers should not, therefore take any part in manned space flight. ++ Trevor

Justin
April 27, 2006 - 07:12 pm
Durant reports a last rite practice among Cathars which approximates Merijo's assertion of mother's starving themselves to death. It is a form of purification given once when someone is near death. If one lives after purification one is sure to become impure again.An impure state can be avoided by dying immediately after purification. Cathar priests encourage the purified-prospective-decedent to starve one's self to death. They also offer to help one out by snuffing out one's life if the victim prefers that method of dispatching oneself.

MeriJo
April 28, 2006 - 07:31 pm
There is a novel - a quasi-historical story based on letters of a Cathari woman - by Charmaine Craig, titled "The Good Men". It is a very depressing story and sad - includes a lot of notes and references, so that the reader may judge how much of it rings true.

The dual nature refers to the physical nature of a human being as being intrinsically bad, evil. The spiritual nature would be intrinsically good, close to God.

I have no idea why people went in this direction for a heresy. It's hard to say from this distance - perhaps a word or a gesture planted a seed in one's mind and what grew was so strong as to gather momentum.

Justin
April 28, 2006 - 09:25 pm
Christianity also is concerned with a dual nature in man. The physical side is evil, hence, hell, purgatory,and confession and other adjustments for human sin including the original.The spiritual side of life is pure for one is in a state of grace.

The Craig story of child suffocation and starving sounds like the unfounded story of Jews eating Christian babies at Passover. Impressionable people will accept stories of this nature especially when they are given cause for fear and there is plenty of fear to go around in the Christian message. .

Mallylee
April 29, 2006 - 01:11 am
Merijo, it's possible that it's true that a particular Heretic woman did act as the book that you mention says.A Cathar is just as likely as a Catholic to be demented.Heretics were cruelly pursued by the Inquisition, and burning was common. A Heretic shepherd, Pierre Maury, did not dare to go to his native village to claim his paternal inheritance, in case the Inquisition caught him, so he lost the inheritance. This shepherd, incidentally, lived a nomadic life with sheep flocks, and owned only his money, perhaps his own sheep when he has some, and the clothes he wore;his life was much more like that recommended by Jesus than the lives of Catholic priests and bishops.He had no real estate property, although he loved his native village and his friends and relations, but he could not afford to marry a wife.(source: 'Montaillou',including the meticulous records of Bishop Fournier, an inquisitor)

True, heretics believed that the flesh was intrinsically evil, only the soul being of the good God. But although the goodmen were vegetarians, and non-sexual, the heretics who were not perfected were not expected to be ascetic, until the consolamentum which was accepted when they were about to die.

Bubble
April 29, 2006 - 01:47 am
It is beyong my understanding how "the flesh is intrinsically evil" when it has been created by " the good God". But there have been so many strange beliefs by different people in the worlds and times we visited. I suppose each tried to find something to believe in that would make their life happier or more acceptable.

I seek to be contented, be good and helpful around me when I can, never hurt anyone if it can be helped; that seems enough for me. I do that for myself, not for some deity. My creed. Bubble

robert b. iadeluca
April 29, 2006 - 04:23 am
"In 1223 Louis VIII of France offered to depose Raymond VII and to crush out all heresy in Raymond's territory if Honorius III would allow him to add the region to the royal domain.

"We do not know the Pope's reply. But a new crusade was begun and Louis was on the verge of victory when he died at Montpensier.

"Seizing the opportunity to make peace with Blanche of Castile, regent for Louis IX, Raymond offered the hand of his daughter Jeanne to Louis' brother Alphonse with the reversion of Raymond's lands to Jeanne and her husband at Raymond's death. Blanche, harassed by rebellious nobles, accepted and Pope Gregory IX approved on Raymond's pledge to suppress all heresy.

"A treaty of peace was signed at Paris in 1229 and the Albigensian wars came to an end after thirty years of strife and devastation.

"Orthodoxy triumphed, toleration ceased. The Council of Narbonne forbade the possession of any part of the Bible by laymen. Feudalism spread, municipal liberty declined, the gay age of the troubadours passed away in southern France.

"In 1271 Jeanne and Alphonse, who had inherited Raymond's possessions, died without issue and the spacious county of Toulouse fell to Louis IX and the French crown. Central France now had free commercial outlets on the Mediterranean and France had taken a great step toward unity.

"This, and the Inquisition, were the chief results of the Albigensian crusades."

Mallylee
April 29, 2006 - 01:00 pm
Bubble, I was referring to the Cathar belief system. The flesh, in this system was not created by the good God, but by a demiurge who was a lesser divinity.The good God created spirit, but not flesh, nor other natural things.

I think this was basically the Manichean heresy.The belief resembles the orthodox belief that spirit is better('higher') than body, but the heretical belief is more definitely dualistic than the orthodox idea of the comparative status of spirit and body.

Justin
April 29, 2006 - 02:58 pm
The Council of Narbonne forbade the possession of any part of the Bible by laymen. Laymen could not be trusted to read that document because in a hundred places they would find Bibical evidence to counter the preaching of the Vatican. Worse, they would find recommendation to commit Catholic sin. Today, laymen rarely read the Bible as a cohesive document. Snips are often retrieved here and there and quoted and expanded upon. I wonder if the Bible ever appeared on the Index.

robert b. iadeluca
April 30, 2006 - 04:30 pm
The Background of the Inquisitors

robert b. iadeluca
April 30, 2006 - 04:41 pm
The GREEN quotes in the Heading show you the direction in which we are going.

"The Old Testament laid down a simple code for dealing with heretics. They were to be carefully examined and if three reputable witnesses testified to their having 'gone and served other gods,' the heretics were to be led out from the city and 'stoned with stones until they die' (Deut. xvii, 23).

"'If there arise among you a phophet, or a dreamer of dreams saying, Let us go after other gods, that prophet or tht dreamer of dreams shall be put to death. If thy brother or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him. Neither shalt thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou conceal him but thou shalt surely kill him (Deut. xiii, 1-9). Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live (Exod, xxii, 18).'

"According to the gospel of St. John (xv.6), Jesus accepted this tradition. 'If anyone abide not in me he shall be cast forth as a branch and shall wither and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire, and be burneth.'

"Medieval Jewish communities retained the Biblical law of heresy in theory but rarely practiced it. Maimonides adopted it without reserve."

Let us go slowly in this section. What are your thoughts?

Robby

MeriJo
April 30, 2006 - 07:42 pm
My thoughts for what they are worth are that when any reference is made to the Bible word for word, that it would be wise to determine if by chance the historical aspect of the reference reflects the times in which it was written.

The Bible was written by several people and the writings were collected over the years. Gross misunderstandings occur when it is read literally. I am glad that when I was growing up we studied Bible History and not the Bible. I have read it now at times, but find it needing much explanation. I am also glad that when I was growing up I was never taught that I must believe everything in the Bible. Its statements are supportive of Christianity, but not the overall faith-filled document. Much of it applied to the Jewish people and customs, and when Christianity appeared to the way these customs could be applied to the practice of that incipient faith.

It is when people read too much into a phrase that bad interpretations occur.

Malllylee: Remember that in the 1100's when the Albigensian heresy developed that many people were learning about Christianity by word of mouth. The Bible did not get printed until Gutenberg put it together in 1542(date ?). The ordinary people although some were blessed with a high native intelligence did not have access to classes and courses in theology.

If you have ever noticed a group of people, whether young or old, talking, a subject can be dissolved within a few minutes into an erroneous concept. There is no use at those times to attempt to present the correct fact, because outside of a class or learning environment there is a different ambience among folks in a discourse. There is doubt that one adult who disagrees doesn't know the whole answer.

Heaven only knows what happened to the Albigensians.

The book, I read, is quite valid. The protagonist did live. She was a rare woman for the times in that she could read and write. Her letters do exist.

Justin: It is best for me to remember that sometimes recommendations from the medieval Popes regarding a medieval diversion of an article of faith led them to attempt to present correction in the idiom and custom of the times. Further, some Popes were saintly personalities and others were not. It is best to balance a perception with a story of a positive application of faith as was known at the time. For example, there were unusually good people around also, who later were canonized as Saints. Some discernment must surely have occurred by these good people as to what would be what our Lord meant.

Mallylee
May 1, 2006 - 12:47 am
Merijo , the facts of the Inquisition are in the Vatican library. All Bishop Fournier's records are there, and they are wonderfully detailed and a precious resource.Among other facts they show that the Inquisition was an above-board process of destroying the Cathar culture, which is what did in fact happen: the Roman Church won the day, anf France as a result became more united into its present political entity.

Although most people could not read or write, word of mouth, and pictures were effective to teach any doctrine. I would like to read the arguments against the Cathar heresy from scholars of the time.I do remember the objection of Irenaeus against gnosticism, that it's <undemocratic> for only some individuals to possess the mystical knowledge. This is true, although in practice gnostic cultures seemed to have been kindly and civilised.

My own church affiliation such as it is is 'heretical'. I am a Unitarian of the Humanist sort.Most Unitarians today subscribe to the Arian heresy which is that Jesus was not at all divine, but wholly mortal: ie it's not a Trinitarian religion.Historically, this is how the church came to be called 'Unitarian'.

Mallylee
May 1, 2006 - 01:04 am
If you have ever noticed a group of people, whether young or old, talking, a subject can be dissolved within a few minutes into an erroneous concept. There is no use at those times to attempt to present the correct fact, because outside of a class or learning environment there is a different ambience among folks in a discourse. There is doubt that one adult who disagrees doesn't know the whole answer. -(Merijo)

This is true, and coincidentally I met a minister's wife last Saturday who hosts meals in her house for people from different religious backgrounds.The conversations remained superficial and polite and never became the sort of conversations where people speak their minds about religious beliefs.It seems to be true that, generally 'outside of a class or learning environment ' this does not happen. I would add that it does happen, but there has to be an implicit consensus that this sort of conversation is appropriate to the social group.A dogmatic attitude would not improve such a conversation, as I think your last sentence infers?

I do believe that it is a valuable sort of conversation that can give the participants new insights and ideas.

robert b. iadeluca
May 1, 2006 - 03:21 am
"The laws of the Greeks made asebeia -- failure to worship the gods of the orthodox Hellenic pantheon -- a capital crime. It was by such a law that Socrates was put to death.

"In classic Rome where the gods were allied with the state in close harmony, heresy and blaspehmy were classed with treason and were punishable with death. Where no accuser cold be found to denounce an offender, the Roman judge summoned the suspect and made an inqisitio, or inquiry, into the case.

"From this procedure the medieval Inquisition took its form and name.

"The Eastern emperors, applying Roman law in the Byzantine world, inflicted the death penalty upon Manicheans and other heretics.

"During the Dark Ages in the West when Christinianity was seldom challenged by its own children, tolerance increased and Leo IX held that excommunication should be the only punishment for heresy.

"In the twelfth century, as heresy spread, some ecclesiastics argued that the excommuication of heretics by the Church should be followed with their banishment or imprisonment by the state.

"The revival of Roman law at Bologna in the twelfth century provided terms, methods, and stimulus for a religious inquisition. The canon law of heresy was copied word for word from the fifth law of the title De haereticis in the Justinian Code.

"Finally, in the thirteenth century, the Church rook over the law of its greater enemy, Frederick II, that heresy should be punished with death."

From death to a slap on the wrist to death. Life cycles?

Robby

MeriJo
May 1, 2006 - 03:24 pm
Malllylee:

Yes - re the Vatican

MeriJo
May 1, 2006 - 03:30 pm
Robby:

There has to be more of a background to those statements of Durant's.

It is true that heresy was punishable by death. Certain times ruled by certain leaders, both religious and secular.

I would only be guessing, but I think the nature of the heresy and its extent would be a decisive factor.

This is part of the human development through time, I think.

Justin
May 1, 2006 - 05:15 pm
Heresy and its punishment is not a "human development through time". It is one of the greatest faults of religion and particularly a fault of Roman Catholicism. There have been others who have committed this grievous sin but none that I can think of on such a grand scale.

Religions are the only social activity I know of that adopt an exclusivity posture and it is that posture that declares outsiders heretics. Punishment of heretics is an egregious criminal activity and should be recognized as such by society. There is no excuse for it and the saddest part of all is that it is all over a fiction that purports to be a source of good in the world. I realize they were following the advice of Jesus toward those who failed to follow his way but that's what comes of unsupervised Bible reading.

Mallylee
May 2, 2006 - 01:15 am
the Cathar heresy in Languedoc bound together ( as religions do) the population including the nobles, so that Languedoc area was not in actuality part of France. After the <ethnic cleansing> the region became part of France and was brought under the rule of the king.That was the nature of the heresy that counted: the Inquisition was politically motivated

Scrawler
May 2, 2006 - 08:59 am
I think there will always be some kind of "ethnic cleansing" until we as human being can get to the core of what makes some people heritics in the eyes of others. I believe religion has a lot to do with this belief, but I don't think that religion is the prime reason. I believe it goes much deeper than than. What makes people hate or for that matter love? Are some born with these emotions? Or are these emotions the result of our enviornment and upbringing?

robert b. iadeluca
May 2, 2006 - 02:35 pm
I would suggest, Scrawler, that the answer to that is in the Origin of Species discussion.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
May 2, 2006 - 04:31 pm
"It was a general assumption of Christians -- even of many heretics -- that the Church had been established by the Son of God.

"On this assumption any attack upon the Catholic faith was an offense against God Himself.

"The contumacious heretic could only be viewed as an agent of Satan, sent to undo the words of Christ and any man or government that tolerated heresy was serving Lucifer.

"Feeling herself an inseparable part of the moral and political government of Europe, the Church looked upon heresy precisely as the state looked upon treason. It was an attack upon the foundatons of social order.

"Said Innocent III:-'The civil law punishes traitors with confiscation of their property and death. All the more, then should we excommunicate and confiscate the property of those who are traitors to the faith of Jesus Christ. For it is an infinitely greater sin to offend the divine mnajesty than to attack the majesty of the soveriegn.'

"To ecclesiastical statesmen like Innocent the heretic seemed worse than a Moslem or a Jew. These lived either outside of Christendom or by an orderly and equally severe law within it.

"The alien enemy was a solder in open war. The heretic was a traitor within who undermined the unity of a Christendom engaged in a gigantic conflict with Islam.

"Furthermore, said the theologians, if every man may interpret the Bible according to his ow light (however dim), and make his own individual brand of Christianity, the religion that held up the frail moral code of Europe would soon be shattered into a hundred creeds and lose its efficacy as a social cement binding natively savage men into a society andf a civilization."

And so here we are -- more than a hundred creeds in existence.

Robby

3kings
May 2, 2006 - 06:35 pm
The moral code of Europe ? As far as I can see, there never has been such a thing. There is a moral code given expression to by Christ, but I have yet to identify any group that followed his teaching.

There have been individuals who have attempted to adhere to his instructions, but they have never had much support from their fellows.

If they have in anyway come to the attention of the Church or secular masters, they have been crushed with ridicule or simply eliminated by death. That is what happened to Christ, and is what happened to his occasional and now unremembered followers. ++ Trevor

Fifi le Beau
May 2, 2006 - 08:14 pm
Yes, a hundred creeds or more that the Protestants established. They also established the United States of America. It was those rebellious Protestants and free thinkers who left England to come to America and to eventually form a new country which had no 'State' religion.

We were fortunate that the writers of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were Protestants who had a sprinkling of deists, free thinkers, and atheists in their midst, because those Protestants allowed dissent within their ranks. The Catholics, Jews, and Muslims allowed no dissent, but they had no part in the making of our Constitution.

Now Europe is one of the most 'non religious' and the U.S. is one of the most religious, or so they say. Many of the established churches are losing followers, and the 'mega church' has taken its place. These mega churches are run by people who base their concepts on advertising and public relations according to an article in the New Yorker. I gave a link sometime ago in this discussion.

The circus without the bread.

Fifi

kiwi lady
May 2, 2006 - 08:42 pm
I have watched with interest the mega church, They are indeed like circuses. I know one where there are uniformed parking attendants/ Security guards with ear pieces connected to a communications centre. Where the Pastor wears diamond rings and drives a very expensive car. Not my idea of Christianity more like a big money making corporation.

Justin
May 2, 2006 - 10:34 pm
Robby: I was not aware of love-hate relationships found in Origin of Specie. Is that the case?

robert b. iadeluca
May 3, 2006 - 02:35 am
Justin, the best way I can answer your question is to suggest that you lurk for a bit in "Origin of Species."

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
May 3, 2006 - 02:59 am
"Whether because it shared these views without formulating them -- or because simple souls naturally fear the different or the strange -- or because men enjoy releasing in the anonymity of the crowd instincts normally suppressed by individual responsibility -- the people themselves, except in southern France and northern Italy, were the most enthusiastic persecutors.

"'The mob lynched heretics long before the Church began to persecute.'

"The orthodox population complained that the Church ws too lenient with heretics. Sometimes it 'snatched sectaries from the hands of protesting priests.'

"Wrote a priest of northern France to Innocent III:- 'In this country the piety of the people is so great that they are always ready to send to the stake not only avowed heretics but those merely suspected of heresy.'

"In 1114 the bishop of Soissons imprisoned some heretics. While he was away the populace, 'fearing that the clergy might be too lenient,' broke into the jail, dragged forth the heretics, and burned them at the stake.

"In 1144 at Liege the mob insisted on burning some heretics whom Bishop Adalbero still hoped to convert.

"When Pierre de Bruys said:-'The priests lie where they pretend to make the body of Christ (in the Eucharist), and burned a pile of croses on Good Friday, the people killed him there and then."

Should we be blaming the inner instincts of "simple souls" for the Inquisition rather than Church leaders?

Robby

Mallylee
May 3, 2006 - 04:04 am
We can't say why the mobs persecuted Heretics.

Perhaps there were agitators.

Perhaps many Heretics were too friendly to Jews.

Perhaps many Heretics were too successful in their trades, causing envy among poor Catholics.

Perhaps many Catholics were so afraid of the Inquisition that they indulged in holy violence in self defence.

All these are hypotheses and I know of no evidence to back up a single one of them

kiwi lady
May 3, 2006 - 06:54 pm
Isn't anyone who has ideas different from the church of the day named a heretic? Once the Methodists were regarded as heretics!

Malryn
May 3, 2006 - 10:16 pm

The Universalist-Unitarians still are.

Mal

Justin
May 4, 2006 - 12:11 am
All you heretics better not boast about it or I will turn you over to the thought police. Remember the message. "Kill them all. God knows his own."

robert b. iadeluca
May 4, 2006 - 03:29 am
Is a person who believes differently from a Universalist-Unitarian a heretic?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
May 4, 2006 - 03:33 am
Here is more information about HERESY than you really want to know (or do you?)

Robby

Mallylee
May 4, 2006 - 08:45 am
Unitarians have no creed, so it's not possible to be a heretic from Unitarianism

Fifi le Beau
May 4, 2006 - 09:22 am
There was no mention of 'heretic' in this mornings article by AP about the excommunication of four Chinese Bishops by the Pope, but it would seem to fit the description even though the writer chose not to use the word.

Heretic seems to have gone out of style in modern usage, and other more careful descriptions have taken its place.

VATICAN CITY - The Vatican on Thursday excommunicated two bishops ordained by China’s state-controlled church without the pope’s consent, escalating tensions as the two sides explore preliminary moves toward improving ties.

The Vatican also excommunicated the two bishops who ordained them, saying church law mandates excommunication for bishops involved in ordinations without Vatican approval.

Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls cited Article 1382 of the Roman Catholic Church’s canon law. That article states that “both the bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a ’latae sententiae excommunication,”’ which means they are automatically excommunicated.

Earlier, Navarro-Valls said Pope Benedict XVI was deeply saddened by news of the ordinations, which have occurred in recent weeks.

“It is a great wound to the unity of the church,” Navarro-Valls said in a statement, calling it a “grave violation of religious freedom.”

Chinese Foreign Ministry officials were not available to comment on the excommunications. But earlier, a duty officer referred to an April 30 statement issued after the Vatican criticized the first ordination.

“The criticism toward the Chinese side by the Vatican is groundless,” that statement said. “We hope the Vatican can respect the will of Chinese church and the vast numbers of priests as well as its church members so as to create good atmosphere for the improvement of Sino-Vatican ties.”

On Wednesday, the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association ordained Liu Xinhong as bishop at the city of Wuhu’s St. Joseph’s Church in the eastern province of Anhui.

It was the second ordination in three days without the consent of the Vatican, which traditionally appoints its own bishops. On Sunday, China’s official church ordained Ma Yinglin as a bishop in the southwestern province of Yunnan.

The Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association has said the new appointments were meant to fill shortages and were not intended to offend the Vatican.

The Vatican statement said officials had received information indicating that “bishops and priests have been subjected — by institutions not related to the church — to strong pressures and threats, in order for them to take part in the ordinations that, because they were not approved by the Vatican, are illegitimate and go against their conscience.”

“We are therefore faced with a grave violation of religious freedom,” Navarro-Valls said, adding the Vatican “had thought and hoped that such despicable events belonged to the past.”


The Vatican fears the rise of a large congregation not under their control, but carrying their banner.

The State fears the rise of religious fanatics like the young Chinese epileptic who claimed to be the 'Messiah' and led his followers on a march through China where millions died as the State put down the rebellion.

Fifi

Justin
May 4, 2006 - 11:35 am
The Investiture struggle returns. I guess the Chinese have not heard about the settlement between Innocent lll and the European powers.

robert b. iadeluca
May 5, 2006 - 04:33 am
The Inquisitors

robert b. iadeluca
May 5, 2006 - 04:45 am
"After 1217 Gregory and his successors sent out an increasing number of special inquisitores to pursue heresy.

"He favored for this task the members of the new mendicant orders, partly because the simplicity and devotion of their lives would counteract the scandals of ecclesiastical luxury and partly because he could not depend upn the bushops.

"However, no inquisitor was to condemn a heretic to serious punishment without episcopal consent.

"So many Dominicans were employed in this work that they were nicknamed domini canes -- the (hunting) 'dogs of the Lord'. Most of them were men of strict morals but few had the quality of mercy. They thought of themselvs not as judges impatially weighing evidence but as warriors pursuing the enemies of Christ.

"Some were careful and conscientious men like Bernard Gui. Some were sadists like 'Robert the Dominican,' a converted Patarine heretic who in one day in 1239 sent 180 prisoners to the stake, including a bishop who, in his judgment, had given heretics too much freedom.

"Gregory suspended Robert from office and imprisoned him for life."

Amazing how people converted from one belief (not necessarily religious) to another often becomes extremely strict in that new belief.

Robby

Adrbri
May 5, 2006 - 07:27 am
As an ex-heavy smoker - - - I know what you mean - - - NOW, other people's smoke makes ME ill !!!

Brian

Justin
May 5, 2006 - 02:51 pm
In this early period of the Inquisition some (not many)eclesiastics had a tinge of conscience about sadism. Later, in Spain, guys like Torguemada enjoyed the practice enormously. The mendicants were already masochistic when they were assigned the task of rooting out those who disagreed with the Catholicism of that period. It is troubling to think there are people in the world who can be so convinced of the rightness of their schemes in the face of so little evidence that they torture men,women,and children who appear to disagree with them. The Mendicants may be masochistic but they cannot all have been sadists and that's frightening part.

Justin
May 5, 2006 - 03:08 pm
There is a painting by Berruguete of "Saint" Dominic presiding over an "Auto de Fe" that worth looking at. The work is in the Prado and possibly available on the net. In the painting, Berruguete dipicts St Dominic seated under a canopy and on the seat of Honor. Below him the chief examiner sleeps through the burning of two living victims while others waiting their turn at the stake,parade their guilt in penitent costume. The whole horrible power of religion is on display in this painting.

Adrbri
May 5, 2006 - 03:41 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_inquisition

together with an article on the Inquisition. Frightening stuff !!

Brian

Justin
May 5, 2006 - 10:04 pm
Thanks,Brian. These are the kind of events that give one a good feeling about religion. They leave one with a warm glow.

Adrbri
May 6, 2006 - 05:35 pm
Like the warm glow that Joan of Arc must have experienced, after the Brits had set fire to her..

Brian

robert b. iadeluca
May 7, 2006 - 05:29 am
"The jurisdiction of the inquisitors extended only to Christians. Jews and Moslems were not summoned unless they were relapsed converts.

"The Dominicans made special efforts to convert Jews but only by peaceful means. When, in 1256, some Jews were accused of ritual murder, Dominican and Franciscan monks risked their own lives to save them from the mob.

"Inquisitorial procedure might begin with the summary arrest of all heretics, sometimes also of all suspects. Or the visiting inquisitors might summon the entire adult population of a locality for a preliminary examination.

"During an initial 'time of grace,' about thirty days, those who confessed heresy and repented were let off with brief imprisonment or some work of piety or charity. Heretics who did not now confess but were detected in this initial inquiry, or by the spies of the Inquisition, or elsewise, were cited before the inquisitorial court.

"Normally this court was composed of twelve men chosen by the local secular ruler from a list of nominees presented to him by the bishop and the inquisitors, two notaries and several 'servitors' were added. If the accused took this second chance to confess they received punishments varying with the degree of their adjudged offense. If they denied their guilt they were imprisoned.

"Accused persons might be tried in their absence or after their death. Two condemnatory witnesses were required. Confessed heretics were accepted as witnesses against oth3ers. Wives and children were allowed to testify against, but not for, husbands and fathers.

"All the accused in a locality were, on demand, allowed to see a combined list of all accusers, without any specification as to which had accused whom. It was feared that individual confrontations would lead to the killing of accusers by friends of the accused and 'in fact a number of witnesses were slain on simple suspicion.'

"Usually the accused man was asked to name his enemies and any evidence aginst him by such men was rejected. False accusers were severely punished.

"Before 1300 the accused was not allowed to have legal aid. After 1254 the inquisitors were reequired by papal decree to submit the evidence not only to the bishop but also to men of high repute in the locality and to decide in agreement with their votes. Sometimes a board of experts (periti) was called in to pass on the evidence.

"In general the inquisitors were instructed that it was better to let the guilty escape than to condemn the innocent and that they must have either clear proof or a confession."

Your comments, please?

Robby

Scrawler
May 7, 2006 - 08:56 am
Why do you think the Jews and Moslem where not considered heretics and only Christians were brought before the Inquistors? It seems to me that despite what Durant suggests that many inquistors had already made up their mind before they professed their opinions. Do you think that if the accused had land or money that it would have made a difference in the decision making?

Mallylee
May 7, 2006 - 03:18 pm
Certainly some people tried to bribe Inquisition officials to free relatives. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it did not. A village priest even tried to free friends from the Inquisition.

< Thus all over Occitania, mafias of priests,bayles,minor local noblemen, rich peasants and friends of friends, tried, sometimes successfully, to counter the Inquisition and the oppression of France and the Church> (Montaillou-Le Roy Ladurie)

Justin
May 7, 2006 - 10:40 pm
In this early period of the Inquisition, only Christians and relapsed converts were subject inquisitorial examination. However many Jews and Muslims were ostensibly converted to avoid the danger of persecution. These poor fellows, gals, and children were the main subject of the stake. It was suspected that Jews, particularly, relapsed, that they converted just for protection and did not have their hearts in the faith.

I don't know if others feel the disgust that I feel in dealing with this period. When is society going to learn that exclusity is the great sin and that those who advocate exclusivity are sinners who deserve to be ignored.

Mallylee
May 7, 2006 - 11:56 pm
However is exclusivity the only motive of the Pope and his henchmen?

Is the political power gained by religious unification perhaps their even greater motivation?

Justin
May 8, 2006 - 01:12 pm
Yes, I think religious unification and the acquisition of power, particularly in this medieval period, were (and perhaps are) papal objectives that caused the commission of crimes against humanity.

Exclusivity is expressed in the idea that "my god is the only true God". Therefore, convert or go to hell. I see that as the motive driving religious unification. Ostensibly they want to save all the people of the world from hell but individual papal rulers see the objective as an opprtunity for the acquisition of power.

robert b. iadeluca
May 8, 2006 - 05:41 pm
"The number of those sentenced to death by the official Inquisition was smaller than historians once believed.

"Bernard de Caaux, a zealous inquisitor, left behind him a long register of cases tried by him. Not one of these was 'relaxed.'

"In seventeen years as an inquisitor Bernard Gui condemned 930 heretics, forty five of them to death.

"At a sermo generalis in Toulouse in 1310 twenty persons were ordered to go on pilgrimage, sixty five were condemned to life imprisonment, eighteen to death.

"In an auto-da-fe of 1312 fifty one were sent on pilgrimage, eighty six received various terms of imprisonment, five were turned over to the secular arm.

"The worst tragedies of the Instuisition were concealed in the dungeons rather than brought to light at the stake."

Not as bad as we thought?

Robby

Justin
May 8, 2006 - 06:59 pm
Are you kidding? With one's hands tied behind, a rope running from the hands to an over head pulley made life interesting for those who failed to make the cut for the stake.

Then too, this is only the early Inquisition. They become more skillful with time.

3kings
May 8, 2006 - 07:20 pm
I don't think it is the numbers killed and tortured that offends me, so much as the act. That is repulsive. The foul slaughter of just one human by others, and in the name of an almighty God, is what makes the perpetrators so utterly evil.

That word 'evil', seldom figures in my vocabulary, but in instances such as this, whether in medieval France, or today's Middle East,I can think of no other word to convey my condemnation. ++ Trevor

Mallylee
May 9, 2006 - 01:46 am
the word'evil'interests me. To me, it's always used in either religious or philosophical connotation,,,,,,apart from its slang use.

So when Trevor condemns the Inquisition and some goings-on in today's ME it seems as if these instances are definitive of evil in a religious or philosophical sense. Very often Hitler and Nazism are evoked to define evil,Stalinism too.

Therefore, I want to try to analyse what is the attribute that these four have in common that makes them definitive of evil. I remember exclusivity,(Justin#522 #524) and I am inclined to think that this is the constant trait of evil, whatever other less constant traits various moral evils may possess.

Therefore, I think that the defining message of what are good versions of Christianity is universal compassion

robert b. iadeluca
May 9, 2006 - 03:07 am
Results

robert b. iadeluca
May 9, 2006 - 03:13 am
"The medieval Inquisition achieved its immediate purposes.

"It stamped out Catharism in France, reduced the Waldenses to a few scattered zealots, restored south Italy to orthodoxy, and postponed by three centuries the dismemberment of Western Christianity.

"France lost to Italy the cultural leadership of Europe. But the French monarchy, strengthened by the acquisition of Languedoc, grew powerful enough to subdue the papacy under Boniface VIII, and to imprison it under Clement V.

"In Spain, the Inquisition played a minor role before 1300.

"Raymond of Penafort, Dominican confessor to James I of Aragon, persuaded him to admit the Inquisition in 1232. Perhaps to check inquisitorial zeal a statute of 1233 made the state the chief beneficiary of confiscations for heresy.

"In later centuries, however, this would prove a heady stimulus to monarchs who found that inquisition and acquistion were near allied."

Might makes right?

Robby

Scrawler
May 9, 2006 - 09:31 am
Does Evil really exist? Or is Hatred the real cause of all that has happened in the world that is labeled Evil. I feel it is what a person does when he is consumed by the emotion hatred that results in what we would call Evil.

Justin
May 9, 2006 - 12:12 pm
Evil describes behavior beyond the limits of accepted conduct. Hatred is a cause- a motivator. Organizational exclusity is a cause-a motivator. But I don't think the Church or the Papacy "hates" anyone or anything. Its objectives are more impersonal and philosophical. It says, quite simply, "We are right and you are wrong and unless you accept our point of view we are going to harm you." That's where the evil lies in Catholicism and in religion in general.

mabel1015j
May 9, 2006 - 12:23 pm
From all my studies of history i have concluded that human beings have a need to be RIGHT and to fight for that RIGHT. Therefore, one of the basic behaviors of humans is to argue for their idea. Arguing takes the form of everything from verbal sparring to the inquisition/haloucaust/extermination kinds of behavior. Those extremes impacting large numbers of people get called "evil" altho' i believe there are individual behaviors that impact small numbers of people that are are also extreme and "evil."

We argue for everything from

"this is an idea i've been thinking about" to

this is my property/country/world,

this is my decision about how the world works,

this is my idea of what is moral,

this is my idea of god/afterlife/spirituality

this is my idea of how our gov't should be constructed/work

this is my idea of how our relationship should work,

this is my idea of how this family should work/live,

this is my idea of how an employer/employee should behave,

etc. ad nauseum.

I wish someone had taught me that most of life is a conflict, instead of my growing up believing that most of the time life situations will run smoothly - i would have had a lot less angst in my life if i had known this piece of human behavior when i was 25 instead of determining it at 55.......Durant is reenforcing this tho't for me, particularly in this volume.

I'm still enjoying reading your discussion from the beginning of volume I, altho it is frustrating that many of the links no longer work......jean

Justin
May 9, 2006 - 03:48 pm
Yes, it is common for one to believe one's ideas are right and to fight for one's viewpoint but not to declare one's view the only correct view and to follow that up with an effort to impose that idea on all. In the US, the Church advances the position that birth control and abortion are wrong. That's fine. Nothing evil in that. But when they make an effort to impose their position on all citizens or on non catholics as well as their own members, that's evil. These folks no longer employ an Inquisition to achieve their ends but they continue to force their view on others.

robert b. iadeluca
May 9, 2006 - 04:14 pm
Jean, you say:-"I wish someone had taught me that most of life is a conflict, instead of my growing up believing that most of the time life situations will run smoothly."

Participating in the group discussing "Origin of Species" helps us to understand why.

Robby

Éloïse De Pelteau
May 9, 2006 - 06:04 pm
Jean, you say:-"I wish someone had taught me that most of life is a conflict, instead of my growing up believing that most of the time life situations will run smoothly."

I am happy for you that you have had such a sheltered childhood Jean because life running smoothly did not happen to me until I was well advanced in years and to make that happen only some of the time was the most difficult thing to learn. In Origin of the Species, we are learning also that "Might is Right" and the two discussions seem to run parallel in their content. Sometimes you think you are reading one and in fact you are reading the other.

Adrbri
May 9, 2006 - 06:05 pm
In searching the word I came across this site : -
http://www.evilbible.com/
I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

I feel that EVIL is the antithesis to GOOD, and that should make it a little easier to define.
GOOD is something that is acceptable and in keeping with a moral code.

Brian

robert b. iadeluca
May 10, 2006 - 03:32 am
"In northern Italy heretics continued to exist in great number.

"The orthodox majority were too indifferent to join actively in the hunt. Independent dictators like Ezzelino at Vicenza and Pallavicino at Cremona and Milan clandestinely or openly protected heretics.

"In Florence the monk Ruggieri organized a military order of orthodox nobles to support the Inquisition. The Patarines fought bloody battles with them in the strets and were defeted. Thereafter Florentine heresy hid its head.

"In 1252 the inquisitor Fra Piero da Verona was assassinated by heretics at Milan. His canonizaton as Peter Martyr did more to check heresy in north Italy than all the rigors of the inquisitors.

"The papacy organized crusades against Ezzelino and Pallavicino. The one was overthrown in 1259, the other in 1268.

"The triumph of the Chuch in Italy was, on the surface, complete."

Believers win out over non-believers.

Robby

Rich7
May 10, 2006 - 08:14 am
This last Durant posting reads more like Mafia turf wars than disagreement on theological issues. Religious crusades within Italy ordered by the Pope, or just turf wars between violent gangs for control of the Italian peninsula?

Guess I shouldn't have watched "Godfather III" last night before going to bed.

Rich

mabel1015j
May 10, 2006 - 09:03 am
I grew up in a family where there was little conflict - not necessarily a good thing, since expression was supressed by my parents. But when there were difficult times, at least from the point of view of my immaturity, i tho't that was the unusual, that life was supposed to run smoothly. That's what i saw superficially looking at others around me and what i was learning every Sunday in church - that people and God were good and if i was good, good things would happen for me. I was very much aware of the "evil" things that were going on in the world, i just tho't they weren't supposed to be happening and in the "norm" conflict would be minimal.

You're right, Robby, i have learned reality from studying history.......jean

Scrawler
May 10, 2006 - 09:48 am
When you say "believers made it over non-believers" what beliefs are we talking about. I think each of us has our own beliefs and I also think that the sooner the world learns to respect others because of their beliefs even though those beliefs may be different than ours the sooner we come to Peace. In the late 60s when machines focused over the horizon and we feared that they would take over the world in the form of robots - maybe they have already - they've just maintained their human skin. I may not believe in your ideas but I'll fight for your Right to believe in them. And maybe in the end that's what the problem is - not everybody believes in the Rights of others.

Justin
May 10, 2006 - 11:25 am
At Last. The heretics of Italy fight back. They did not go to the stake as sheep go to slaughter.

Scrawler: I think you are absolutely right. People do not fully acknowledge the rights of others. That's exactly what this is all about. Christians trample the rights of others. Muslims trample the rights of others. My God is the only God (Allah) and your god is false. If you don't like that, too bad. You can visit the stake.

Fifi le Beau
May 10, 2006 - 02:40 pm
Robby, your statement.......

Believers win out over non-believers.

The heretics were not 'non-believers'. They were Christians also. The dictionary describes a heretic as 'a dissenter from established church dogma' especially a baptized member of the Roman Catholic church.

The heretics were Christians who had disagreements with Church dogma. So what we are reading is not necessarily Christian vs heretic, but Christian vs Christian. The Catholic church allowed no dissent and used many methods to keep total control over the people, including killing some of them as a warning to others.

Durant says.......

"The triumph of the Church in Italy was, on the surface, complete."

The Roman Catholic church in Italy won the skirmish, but eventually lost the war. Italy today is one of those non religious countries of Europe.

Fifi

Rich7
May 10, 2006 - 03:08 pm
(Something I posted a while ago, but I think bears reposting, today.)

Were you aware that the Vatican still maintains the Holy Office of the Inquisition? Only as recently as 1965 did they drop the word "Inquisition" from the name of that Vatican "department" and renamed it the more politically correct Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

http://www.cwnews.com/news/biosgloss/definition.cfm?glossID=32

(Kind of scary that the Inquisition lives on, even in this "modern" age.)

Rich

Justin
May 10, 2006 - 03:12 pm
Italy south of Rome was always a loser for the Vatican, so too were the Sicilies and to some extent the Milanese were never in the Vatican camp. The German King, you remember, took care to ensure that loss.

robert b. iadeluca
May 11, 2006 - 03:49 am
"In judging the Inquisition we must see it against the background of a time accustomed to brutality.

"Perhaps it can be better understood by our age, which has killed more people in war, and snuffed out more innocent lives without due process of law, than all the wars and persecutions between Caesar and Napoleon.

"Intolerance is the natural concomitant of strong faith.

"Tolerance grows only when faith loses certainty.

"Certainty is murderous.

"Plato sanctioned intolerance in his Laws. The Reformers sanctioned it in the sixteenth century. Some critics of the Inquisition defend its methods when practiced by modern states.

"The methods of the inquisitors, including torture, were adopted into the law codes of many governments.

"Perhaps our contemporary secret torture of suspects finds its model in the Inquisition even more than in Roman law. Compared with the persecution of heresy in Europe from 1227 to 1492, the persecution of Christians by Romans in the first three centuries after Christ was a mild and humane procedure.

"Making every allowance required of an historian and permitted to a Christian, we must rank the Inquisition, along with the wars and pesecutions of our time, as among the darkest blots on the record of mankind, revealing a ferocity unknown in any beast."

Durant brings our thinking up to the present time. And he wrote this in the early part of the 20th century so he knew nothing about the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the attack on the World Trade Towers, the Iraqi War, the Afghanistan War, the suicide bombers in Israel and Palestine, the suicide bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan, the genicide in Sudan, the bitter conflicts in various areas of Africa -- not to mention the suspected use of torture by existng governments.

Durant says that "certainty is murderous." My religious belief is the right one. My nation/tribe/family is right. My laws are the correct ones.

Using Durant's term we might ask ourselves if we, in the 21st century, are not living in a "time accustomed to brutality." Reading from the Heading of this discussion group, Voltaire asks:-"I want to know what were the steps by which man passed from barbarism to civilization."

In this discussion group we have been meeting and sharing thoughts for almost five years. We have discussed in detail Primitive Man, Sumeria, Babylonia, Israel, India, China, Japan, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, and now are examining Medieval times.

Are we on our way to "civilization?" Durant tells us that "tolerance grows only when faith loses certainty." Are we making the effort to see through the other person's eyes?" As the Native Americans used to put it: "Are we walking a moon in the other person's moccasins?"

Your thoughts please?

Robby

Malryn
May 11, 2006 - 04:39 am

As we have seen in reading Darwin's The Origin of Species it takes millennia for evolutionary changes to take place. The three major faiths are only a few thousand years old. It is my prediction that it will take that much time or longer for those faiths to lose certainty and tolerance to replace (or augment) them.

Mal

Éloïse De Pelteau
May 11, 2006 - 04:41 am
Television describes the ferocity of today’s man in a way that our own Durant would have been shocked by its brutality. What strikes me is the number of people in the world today of 6 billion people. When a dozen or three thousand people die in a conflict, the world’s population sees on television and is shocked, but it if we reached this number on earth it tells me that the world is less brutal and murderous than it was in Medieval times when war and intolerance sometimes decimated not a few thousands but 50% of a population.

In the name of territory or religion, man’s nature seems designed for conflict. Isn’t it what Darwin is telling us? That violence is a ‘natural’ trait and it is only through a conscious effort that humans can be peaceful and kind to each other? Peace is given to us only in small intervals between conflicts in personal or international relations. I would like to believe otherwise, but S of C has reinforced my belief in this.

Bubble
May 11, 2006 - 04:44 am
I remember the Bonze monks who wanted to attract attention to their plight: they were pouring kerosene on themselves and lighting it, giving their life in the process.

Nowadays, it has become a ritual to take with as many innocents as possible when attracting attention to the "true cause". The suicide bombers in Irak as well as in the Near Est, are not learned people of many years, but youth that has been fed many promises for the next world. I think we took a step backward in civilization.

Even in out treatment of the aged, the weak, everywhere, we are not showing much humanity. I am thinking of the treatment inflicted in Romanian orphenages, I am thinking of how UN soldiers trap young refugees girls in Africa, I am thinking on how the Church closes its eyes on unbearable behavior by its priests. There are all isolated examples maybe but they build the image of less integrity and lost ideals. We have become too materialistic and less concerned about the other person.

Mallylee
May 11, 2006 - 09:13 am
I think that we have advanced in scientific understanding of what causes one group to de-humanise another group

Sometimes it is fear of the other group.

Sometimes a person may have a chemical imbalance in their brain, or even a physical lesion, that stops them feeling sympathy for others.

Sometimes a whole society may be in thrall to a culture of cruelty, for instance when the slave trade was going strong between Africa and America, in that case Africans were de-humanised for money profit.

Or now, we often view other animals as commodities instead of sentient beings such as we are ; this is called 'speciesism'.

Scrawler
May 11, 2006 - 10:02 am
The song "Do You Know the Way to San Jose?" include the lyrics: "There's a lot of space in San Jose; there'll be a place where I can stay."

Until ten years ago I used to live in San Jose and when I left that "space" was fast disappearing or being re-routed to taller and more expensive buildings. Perhaps in the scheme of things it is not only our emotions that left unchecked can destroy our world, but the fact that soon there will be literally no place for us to live.

With so much intolerance what do you think it will take to save what we have from say a hurtling "asteroid" or "meteorite" from space bent on destroying the earth? This, I think is the only action, that would bring our world together. If we had a common danger.

mabel1015j
May 11, 2006 - 11:28 am

Justin
May 11, 2006 - 12:56 pm
I have often asked myself, "What would happen if there were no religion. What would replace it? The answer is clear and it is one that few like. "Uncertainty" would replace it. The next obvious question is, "Is that a bad thing?"

Uncertainty puts us all in the same pot- a melting pot. It breeds tolerance, and one can cope with it through probability.

3kings
May 11, 2006 - 06:41 pm
Is our age more brutal than preceding ones ? As I said in the post where I spoke of evil, it is not the number of victims that is a measure of brutality or evil.

The evil is as great whether the numbers be many or few. It was remarked that we have slaughtered more innocents in the last century, than we did in any other. But this is a measure of our killing prowess, not of our brutality.

I guess if I were frightened and cornered, and had the means, I too would kill, hoping that would extract me from danger. I guess that makes me a failed Christian, haven't advanced far from the ape, just as MAL suggests.

Evil, I think, occurs when one is in no immediate danger, but still exterminates one's fellows, to show that "my way is the right way!"++ Trevor

Justin
May 11, 2006 - 07:17 pm
Being a killer does not make one a failed Christian, Trevor. Christians have always been very good at killing. They wrap killing in piety and make the victim think it's the right thing to do. The Muslims do the same thing. Except, they have the goodness to give the victim 70 virgins in exchange for one's life. Muslims are also good killers.

By the way, I agree with you. Evil is evil, no matter the number of victims.

Justin
May 11, 2006 - 07:33 pm
Innocent lV introduced torture into the Inquisition. He ok'ed a little torture, not too much but torture is like being pregnant. One tends to stretch out the process. His boys extended the practice by playing games with the definition.

One can't ok a little torture without the practice getting out of hand. That's what worries me about the current administration in the US. If the US is not an island of fair play in this torture ridden world we are nothing. We are just another grubby, scared nation without a fair play mission in the world. The movies have had it wrong. Jimmie Cagney and Pat O'Brian failed to teach us that fair play is the best way.

robert b. iadeluca
May 12, 2006 - 05:26 am
Monks and Friars

1095-1300

robert b. iadeluca
May 12, 2006 - 05:28 am
The Monastic Life

robert b. iadeluca
May 12, 2006 - 05:36 am
"It may be that the Church was saved not by the tortures of the Inquisition but by the rise of new monastic orders that took out of the mouths of heretics the gospel of evangelical poverty and for a century gave to the older monastic orders, and to the secular clergy, a cleansing example of sincerity.

"The monasteries had multiplied during the Dark Ages, reaching a peak in the troubled nadir of the tenth century and then declining in number as secular order and prosperity grew.

"In France, about 1100, thee were 543. About 1250 there were 187. Possibly this loss in the number of abbeys was compensated by a rise in their average membership but very few monasteries had a hundred monks.

"It was still a custom in the thirteenth century for pious or burdened parents to commit children of seven years or older to monasteries as oblates -- 'offered up' to God.

"St. Thomas Aquinas began his monastic career so. The Benedictine order considered the vows taken for an oblate by his parents as irrevocable.

"St. Bernard and the new orders held that the oblate, on reaching maturity, might without reproach return to the world.

"Generally an adult monk required a papal dispensation if he wiwshed, without sin, to renounce his vows."

Your comments, please, about monks?

Robby

Justin
May 12, 2006 - 11:52 am
Seven year old oblates who were irrevocably entrusted to adult monks in a monastery must have made wonderfully compliant companions for the celibate,advocates of social isolation. Kids offered up to God.My God. Monks with the hots for little boys must have flocked to the monasteries. No wonder the orders were so popular.

Justin
May 12, 2006 - 03:03 pm
The Cistercians, the Cluniacs, the Augustinians, the Franciscans,the Dominicans,all held their orders in check through the rules of St Benedict or some variation of the rules of St Benedict. Some orders gave generously to the poor while others lived in luxury. Some orders, like the Franciscans, split over the issue of whether to copy the life of St Francis or to live a more conventual style of existance. I think in the long run the conventuals won out.

The Carthusian order was and is probably the most strict. These fellows keep single cells and truly work and pray all their silent days. It is hard to understand how anyone could think that Jesus lived as the monks lived. Self deprivation is self denial. It forces one to lust for the missing ingredients of monastic life.

Why is pleasure not offered up to God? What makes deprivation so worthy of the Christian God? Why does what St Francis did with his life so worthy of praise and so acceptable as a Christian ideal?

I wonder how much the difficulties of earning a living influenced the choice of a candidate for monastic life.

JoanK
May 12, 2006 - 03:13 pm
Certainly for women it did. If a woman didn't marry, or her parents couldn't afford a dowry, she was sent to a nunnery. Not as bad as it sounds. The alternatives for her were pretty grim.

robert b. iadeluca
May 13, 2006 - 06:27 am
"Before 1098 most Western monasteries followed, with variable fidelity, some form of the Benedictine rule.

"A year of novitiate was prescribed, during which the candidate might freely withdraw. One knight drew back, says the monk Caesarius of Heisterbach 'on the cowardly plea that he feared the vermin of the monastic garment, for our woolen clothing harbors much vermin.'

"Prayer occupied some four hours of the monk's day. Meals were brief, and usually vegetarian. The remainder of the day was given to labor, reading, teaching, hospital work, charity, and rest.

"Caesarius tells how his monastery, in the famine of 1197, gave as many as 1500 'doles' of food in a day and 'kept alive until harvest time all the poor who came to us.'

"In the same crisis a Cistercian abbey in Westphalia slaughtered all its flocks and herds and pawned its books and sacred vessels to feed the poor. Through their own labor and that of their serfs, the monks built abbeys, churches, and cathedrals, farmed great manors, subdued marshes and jungles to tillage, practiced a hundred handicrafts and brewed excellent wines and ales.

"Although the monastery seemed to take many good and able men from the world to bury them in a selfish sanctity, it trained thousands of them in mental and moral discipline and then returned them to the world to serve as councilors and administrators to bishops, popes, and kings."

Is this the positive side of religion?

Robby

Mallylee
May 13, 2006 - 07:24 am
There was a secular tradition for rich people sending their young boys to another family for education and training, as well as sending them to monasteries.I understand that it was only well-off people or nobles who sent their sons for such education, either in secular positions or in monasteries

The tradition is still going fairly strong, I believe , among the British upper classes who often send their boys to boarding schools from the age of 8('Prep schools') and thence to senior boarding schools ('Public schools'). This gives the boys a distinct advantage for entry to OxBridge and to sertain professions such as the army, and the diplomatic service. The general education too is good at these public schools.For many years public schools and OxBridge were affiliated to either the RC Church or to the C of E.

There is a special use for educating and training boys into the esoterica of the ruling establishment, if you want a specially trained ruling class, instead of relying wholly on democracy.The boys generally do financially well for themselves too.

Mallylee
May 13, 2006 - 07:29 am
Is this the positive side of religion?

I dont doubt it. Monks also ran hospitals for travelers between cities. I went to the site of one of these , called Soutra Aisle on the hills above Edinburgh, on an old route to England. There is still evidence in the soil, of blood-letting, as they also took care of people with infectious fevers.

http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/scotgaz/features/featurefirst8386.html

Justin
May 13, 2006 - 10:19 pm
Yes, there is a positive side to religion. We see it today in Catholic Charities however, very often,one must listen to a sermon before dining at a soup kitichen or be excluded from care because one must have an abortion to save the mother's life. It is help with strings attached.

One of the benefits of monastery life lies in the function performed by scribes in saving our eastern literary heritage.

One cannot ignore the work of people like Father Damian or the priests, ministers, and rabbi's who shared the war with us to bring solace to their faithful. There is a giving side to religion. It is not all taking.

Bubble
May 13, 2006 - 11:01 pm
Père Damian is the one who spent his life voluntaroly relegated on Molokai islands to help those quarantine there for life with leprosy? If yes, he was a hero praised in "my" convent and was prayed for in daily devotion. Each class library had a book of his biography. Bubble

Rich7
May 14, 2006 - 07:23 am
Father Damian, a Belgian, was a Mother Teresa-type religious person who sacrificed himself to help his fellow man. He worked for years with the lepers of the colony on the Hawaiian island of Molokai.

He eventually contracted the disease himself, and died on the island.

Molokai island is now one of the least developed of the Hawaiian islands, but is experiencing growing popularity just because of its natural pristine beauty.

Rich

robert b. iadeluca
May 14, 2006 - 09:41 am
"In the course of time the growing wealth of the communities overflowed into the monasteries. The generosity of the people financed the occasional luxury of the monks.

"The abbey of St. Riquier was not among the richest, yet it had 117 vassals, owned 1500 houses in the town where it was placed, and received from its tenants yearly 10,000 chickens, 10,000 capons, 75,000 eggs and a money rent individually reasonable, cumulatively great.

"Much richer were the monasteries of Monte Cassino, Cluny, Fulda, St. Gall, St. Denis. Abbots like Suger of St. Denis, Peter the Venerable of Cluny, or even Samson of Bury St. Edmund's were mighty lords controlling immense material wealth and social or political power.

"Suger, after feeding his monks and building a majestic cathedral, had enough resources lefto half-finance a crusade. It was probably of Suger that St. Bernard wrote:-'I lie if I hve not seen an abbot riding with a train of sixty horses and more.'

"But Suger was prime minister and had to clothe himself in pomp to impress the populace. He himself lived with austere simplicity in a humble cell, observing all the rules of his order so far as his public duties would allow.

"Peter the Venerable was a good man but he failed, despite repeated efforts, to check the progress of the Cluniac monastries -- once the leaders of reform -- toward a corporate wealth that enabled the monks, while owning nothing, to live in a degenerative idleness."

Comments, please?

Robby

Scrawler
May 14, 2006 - 03:57 pm
When we see examples of the good deeds or mis-deeds aren't these done by individuals? Do they do these deeds in the name of the Church or would they have been anyway even if there wasn't a Church? Aren't individuals to blame one way or the other rather than a vast organization? Earlier we talked about hatred and I can see individuals believing that they had to do something either in hatred or love, but what would it take to get a vast majority of people to act in such a way?

Justin
May 14, 2006 - 04:06 pm
Bernard of Clairvaux was a stingy old misanthrope who thought he could intimidate the great of intellectual Europe with his pious asceticism. He bullied just about everyone including Abelard whom he threartened with the stake for expressing views contrary to his own. It is no wonder he tried to bully Abbot Suger by telling him his altar at the great Abbey of St. Denis was too luxurious. Suger ignored him and made his Abbey the burial place of kings.He also handled a few coronations. Notre Dame du Reims, however, was the crowning place and the Abbey was the tomb. It was Suger who waved his relics in front of a great storm and saved the walls of his abbey from destruction.

Justin
May 14, 2006 - 04:15 pm
Scrawler: The punishment of heretics could not possibly occur without doctrine and organization. There must be something to disagree with or no heretics by definition.

3kings
May 14, 2006 - 06:02 pm
Scrawler I agree with you, that it is individuals who must take responsibility. We cannot blame our individual mistakes upon a doctrine or organisation.

Over the years, there have been many troubled and vicious souls who have been prominent members of the Church. And, at the same time there have been generous and enlightened folk who were also adherents of that organisation.

It is not an organisation that is good or bad, but the individual members. This is a world of free will, and in consequence a world of individual responsibility. ++ Trevor

Justin
May 14, 2006 - 10:05 pm
There is no disagreement from me about the responsibility of individuals. Sure individuals do these things but they do them in context and in this case the context is the Roman Church. An analogy can be drawn from sports if you like.Choose the sport and team you like. Be a fan. Would one be a fan if the team did not exist. Of course not. By the same token, heresy exists only because there is context to support or not support.

Mallylee
May 14, 2006 - 11:24 pm
However, the responsibility of individuals is effective only in proportion as the individuals have the ability to feel compassion and to reason.

Some cultures, for instance fundamentalist or fascist cultures inhibit compassion towards other people if the other people dont agree with the prevailing beliefs. The people who are bound by their stunted upbringing to fascist or fundamentalist cultures cannot be bound by the same compassion and reason as others who have been taught to recognise compassion and reason.

The best any of us can do, including me, to have insight into our own cultural context is to try to understand other cultures and what makes the people tick who are bound to them.

It seems to me from 'The Story of Civilisation'that there were historical and psychological causes for some monks' and priests' bad behaviour.

I think the cause was ignorance of others individuals' needs and of society's needs.

I endorse what Justin wrote about context

robert b. iadeluca
May 15, 2006 - 04:18 am
"Morals fall as riches rise and nature will out according to men's means.

"In any large group certain individuals will be found whose instincts are stronger than their vows.

"While the majority of monks remained reasonably loyal to their rule, a minority took an easier view toward the world and the flesh. In many cases the abbot had been appointed by some lord or king, usually from a rank accustomed to comfort. Such abbots were above monastic rules. They enjoyed hunting, hawking, tournaments, and politics and their example infected the monks.

"Giraldus Cambrensis points a merry picture of the abbot of Evesham:-'None was safe from his lust.' The neighborhood reckoned his offspring at eighteen. Finally he had to be deposed.

"Worldly abbots, fat and rich and powerful, became a target of public humor and literary diatribe. The most merciless and incredible satire in medieval literature is a description of an abbot by Walter Map.P>"Some cloisters were known for their fine food and wines. We should not grudge the monks a little good cheer and we can understand how weary they were of vegetables, how they longed for meat.

"We can sympathize with their occasional gossiping, quarreling, and sleeping at Mass."

Durant is not only adept in his literary ability but is also a philosopher. "Morals fall as riches rise. Nature will out according to men's means."

Robby

Mallylee
May 15, 2006 - 08:20 am
"Morals fall as riches rise and nature will out according to men's means.

And now, we see that austerity is good in its own right, not only for the trivial purpose of being good for the soul, but much more importantly, it's probably the only measure that will save the life of this planet

mabel1015j
May 15, 2006 - 09:36 am
Do you all agree w/ the statement as generally true? Are the poor more moralistic than the rich?.......jean

Scrawler
May 15, 2006 - 01:16 pm
I have been both poor and rich in my life time, but my morals have for the most part stayed the same.

Adrbri
May 15, 2006 - 01:34 pm
http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/camelneedle.htm

Brian

Justin
May 15, 2006 - 02:28 pm
The thoughts expressed on this topic are a fine example of what I enjoy aboutthis discusion. We cover the full rainbow of thought. Austerity is good for the planet. Jesus'prejudice against the rich. Rich or poor, I am the same.

Only the rich have the means to enjoy all the fruits of life. As for the poor, let them eat cake.

robert b. iadeluca
May 15, 2006 - 04:21 pm
The GREEN quotes above show where we are and where we are headed.

"To some monks virtue seemed a contest for their souls between woman and Christ.

"Their denunciation of woman was an effort to deaden themselves to her charms. Their pious dreams were sometimes softened with the dews of desire. And their saintly visions often borrowed the terms of human love.

"Ovid was a welcome friend in some monasteries and not least thumbed were his manuals of the amorous art.

"The sculpture of certain cathedrals, the carvings of their furniture, even the paintings in some missals, portrayed riotous monks and nuns -- pigs dressed as monks, monastic robes bulging over erect phalli, nuns sporting with devils.

"A relief on the Portal of the Judgment at Reims shows a devil dragging condemned men to hell. Among them is a mitered bishop.

"Medieval ecclesiastics -- perhaps seculars envying regulars -- allowed such caricatures to remain in place. Modern churchmen thought it better to have most of them removed.

"The Church herself was the severest critic of her sinning members. A noble succession of ecclesiastical reformers labored to bring monks and abbots back to the ideals of Christ."

Your reactions, please?

Robby

Justin
May 15, 2006 - 11:44 pm
Why self-flagellation is such a desirable thing I'll never understand. The monks vow chastity and the minute they do they begin to think about women.Then,the poor,deprived,monks say women are evil because they are constantly tempted by the women they have on their minds. The most ridiculous thing a person can do is deny nature and think one can do it successfully. This is an example of just one more religious evil perpetrated upon mankind.

Mallylee
May 16, 2006 - 02:50 am
There was a young monk from Madrid

Who was troubled a lot by his id

Superego said 'Mustn't! '

His ego said 'Dursn't!'

But, by golly, he jolly well did!

robert b. iadeluca
May 16, 2006 - 03:40 am
Very cute, Mallylee!

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
May 16, 2006 - 05:28 pm
St. Bernard

robert b. iadeluca
May 16, 2006 - 05:40 pm
"At the end of the eleventh century, simultaneously with the purification of the papacy and the fervor of the First Crusade, a movement of self-reform swept through Christendom, immensely improved the secular clergy, and founded new monastic orders dedicated to the full rigor of the Augustinian or Benedictine rule.

"At an unknown date before 1039 St. John Gualberras established the order of Vallombrosa in the 'shady valley' of that name in Italy and inqugurated in it the institution of lay brothers later developed by the mendicant orders.

"The Roman Synod of 1059 exhorted canons -- clergymen sharing the labors and revenues of a cathedral -- to live in community and hold all their property in common, like the apostles. Some were reluctant and remained 'secular canons.' Many responded, adopted a monastic rule that they ascribed to St. Augustine and formed semimonastic communities collectively known as Augustinian or Austin Canons.

"In 1084 St. Bruno of Cologne, having declined the archbishopric of Reims, founded the Carthusian order by establishing a monastery at a desolate spot named Chartreuse, in the Alps near Grenoble.

"Other pious men, sick of worldly strife and clerical lexity, formed similar Carthusian units in secluded places. Each monk worked, ate, and slept in his own separate cell, lived on bread and milk, wore gardments of horsehair, and practiced almost perpetual silence.

"Three times a week they came together for Mass, vespers, and midnight prayers. On Sundays and holydays they indulged themselves in converstion and a common meal.

"Of all the monastic orders this was the most austere, and has kept most faithfully through eight centuries to its original rule."

Comments, please?

Robby

Justin
May 16, 2006 - 09:36 pm
What do you suppose these poor fellows had to talk about when the weekly conversation bell rang?

There are a series of paintings, 22 to be exact, executd by Eustache, a nun, depicting the life of Bruno. Some of them are resident at the Louvre. They were done for the little cloister of Chartreuse in Paris.

Bubble
May 17, 2006 - 01:25 am
Justin, believe it or not, it wouldn't bother me at all not to talk during the whole week, as long as I could write if I have something to express. And I do enjoy silence very much.

Israel Abu Gosh, Jerusalem Monastère de la Résurrection The Olivetan Benedictines have a double monastery; the monasteries are within the same walled compound, and each has its own superior.

http://niralon.smugmug.com/gallery/117651/3

Click on the different pages to see both monasteries for nuns and for monks.

Mallylee
May 17, 2006 - 01:45 am
I wonder what was the theological justification for monasteries.

robert b. iadeluca
May 17, 2006 - 03:20 am
"Stephen Harding came presently to such admiration for Bernard's piety and energy that he sent him forth as abbot, with twelve other monks, to found a new Cistercian house.

"Bernard chose a heavily wooded spot, ninety miles from Citeaux, known as Clara vallis, Bright Valley, Clairvaux.

"There was no habitation there and no human life. The initial task of the fraternal band was to build with their own hands their first 'monastery' -- a wooden building containing under one roof a chapel, a refectory, and a dormitory loft reached by a ladder. The beds were bins strewn with leaves. The windows were not larger than a man's head. The floor was the earth.

"Diet was vegetarian except for an occasional fish. No white bread, no spices, little wine. These monks eager for heaven ate like philosophers courting lengevity. The monks prepared their own meals, each serving as cook in turn.

"By the rule that Bernard drew up, the monastery could not buy property. It could own only what was given it. He hoped that it would never have more land than could be worked by the monks' own hands and simple tools.

"In that quiet valley Bernard and his growing fellowship labored in silence and content, free from the 'storm of the world,' clearing the forest, planting and reaping, making their own furniture, and coming together at the canonical hours to sing, without an organ, the psalms and hymns of the day.

"The news of this Christian peace and self-containment spread. Before Bernard's death there were 700 monks at clairvaux. They must have been happy there for nearly all who were sent from that communistic enclave to serve as abbots, bishops, and councilors longed to return. Bernard himself, offered the highest dignities in the Church, and going to many lands at her bidding, always yearned to get back to his cell at Clairvaux, 'that my eyes may be closed by the hands of my children, and that my body may be laid at clairvaux side by side with the bodies of the poor."

Is this the peaceful life that everyone yearns for?

Robby

Mallylee
May 17, 2006 - 03:38 am
Not everyone yearns for peace and quiet and a rural retreat with hard manual work, although I quite fancy the life, giving to the community what I can , and taking from it what I need (Was that Lenin , or Marx?)

Some people yearn for competition and personal power.

Down the ages we have trod

Many paths in search of God

Seeking ever to define

The eternal and divine

(Unitarian hymn)

Justin
May 17, 2006 - 11:28 am
It may well have been both Marx and Lenin but it was also Jesus and his disciples, the apostles.

mabel1015j
May 17, 2006 - 02:22 pm
And, to paraphrase Justin, what do those poor little men work at? The first group eats bread and milk, so there's no gardening or cooking necessary. I have great suspicion that there was any cleaning going on. Were they allowed to read? write? Prayer, growing and grinding grain and caring for milk animals sounds like the extent of it. The Cistercians could at least have been gardening and cooking along w/ building there facility. .......... but there's something very odd about a group of men wanting to live together in silence and little activity.

The monastaries and convents where there was learning, copying manuscripts, making wine,etc, having a real community, sounds inviting, these sound very odd. Can't have been good for the psyche.......jean

Mallylee
May 18, 2006 - 12:48 am
Justin#593 that's the impression I have too, that Jesus and his disciples were socialists, and it is one of the Christian messages that appeals to me.

I know little about the Bible, and would appreciate if I could be told where, in the Gospels are passages that illustrate the socialist tendencies of Jesus and co.

Thanks, I have actually Googled this now, and came up with this excellent short article by a Republican turned Quaker

http://www.davidchandler.com/writings/BiblicalLiberal.htm

robert b. iadeluca
May 18, 2006 - 04:02 am
"The burst of monastic reform climaxed by Bernard died down as the twelfth century advanced.

"The younger orders kept their arduous rules with reasonable fidelity but not many men could be found in that dynamic period to bear so strict a regimen.

"In time the Cistercians -- even in Bernard's Clairvaux -- became rich through hopeful gifts. Endowments for the 'pittances' enabled the monks to add meat to their diet and plenty of wine. They delegated all manual labor to lay brothers.

"Four years after Bernard's death they bought a supply of Saracen slaves. They developed a large and profitable trade in the products of their socialistic industry and aroused guild animosity through their exemption from transportation toils.

"The decline of faith as the Crusades failed reduced the number of novices and disturbed the morale of all the monastic oders. But the old ideal of living like the apostles in a propertyless communism did not die. The conviction that the true Christian must shun wealth and power and be a man of unflinching peace lingered in thousands of souls.

"At the opening of the thirteenth century a man appeared, in the Umbrian hills of Italy, who brought these old ideals to vigor again by such a life of simplicity, purity, piety, and love tha men wondered had Christ been born again."

Monks buying slaves. Makes one to think.

Robby

Justin
May 18, 2006 - 11:53 am
Slaves? So much for communism and the apostle's way.

robert b. iadeluca
May 18, 2006 - 04:39 pm
I am pausing while the rest of you get a chance to comment on recent postings.

Robby

Justin
May 18, 2006 - 06:44 pm
Cistercian monks were committed by vows to celibacy, silence and illiteracy.On top of that they lived in virtual isolation in personal cells under the rule of the Benedictines.Think of it. Nothing in the brain but what one came with. Complete denial of one's sexual urges and manual labor coupled with disturbed sleep for four note sing-a-longs must have been an appealing way to live for 60,000 men thought it was an ok thing to do. These guys were and maybe are masochists.

What makes a person think life in a Cistercian monastery would be beneficial? There is every indication in the gospels that Jesus and his apostles experienced normal sex lives. They were a little irresponsible in that they left families to flounder while they traipsed after Jesus. But they did not abuse the body, restrict their diet beyond the usual Jewish diet rules, or disturb their sleep to sing in the middle of the night. They were clearly not hard workers for they left the plow and the fishing net to take up with Jesus.

Is there a rational explanation for behavior of the Cistercian kind?

Bubble
May 19, 2006 - 12:32 am
It is hard to understand how the body, created by God, could have these innate urges that had to be denied at all cost. Why would an intellect be created if it was to be denied? And the same for sexual pulsions. These extremes just don't make sense.

For the contemplative orders that are not allowed to talk, the tongue being the source of all good and all bad, I seem to remember that they were allowed to pray and sing together as an harmonious choir. At least that would a commendable outlet.

It certainly is very different from anything experienced in Jesus's time.

Justin
May 19, 2006 - 11:43 am
Bubble: "Pulsion" is a new word for me. It's a wonderful word for expressing the pressures that sexual urges put upon one.

I certainly agree that the rules of the monks seem to be against nature and against the Judeo-Christian concept of a God who created these wonderful human attributes. Is there any rational explanation for this religious behavior?

kiwi lady
May 19, 2006 - 03:57 pm
Eloise- in recent times 250,000 people were wiped out in East Timor by Indonesian Military in what was effectively genocide. The world did not care in the main. 3000 is miniscule compared to that tragedy. It took many years for the world to do something about East Timor. Brown lives worth less than white? East Timor is mainly Christian - Roman Catholic in fact.

robert b. iadeluca
May 20, 2006 - 03:02 am
St. Francis

robert b. iadeluca
May 20, 2006 - 03:13 am
"Giovanni de Bernadone was born in 1182 in Assisi, son of Ser Pietro de Bernadone, a wealthy merchant who did much business with Provence.

"There Pietro had fallen in love with a French girl, Pica, and he had brought her back to Assisi as his wife.

"When he returned from another trip to Provence and found that a son had been born to him, he changed the child's name to Francesco, Francis, apparently as a tribute to Pica. The boy grew up in one of the loveliest regions of Italy and never lost his affection for the Umbrian landscape and sky.

"He learned Italian and French from his paents and Latin from the parish priest. He had no further formal schooling but soon entered his father's business.

"He disappointed Ser Pietero by showing more facility in spending money than in making it. He was the richest youth in town and the most generous. Friends flocked about him, ate and drank with him, and sang with him the songs of the troubadours. Francis wore, now and then, a parti-colored minstrel's suit.

"He was a good-looking boy with black eyes and hair and kindly face and a melodious voice. His early biographers protest that he had no relations with the other sex and, indeed, knew only two women by sight but this surely does Francis some injustice.

Possibly in those formative years, he heard from his father about the Albigensian and Waldensian heretics of southern France and their new-old gospel of evangelical poverty."

Any comments about St. Francis' youth?

Robby

Bubble
May 20, 2006 - 05:09 am
It seems he was a normal child and teeager, blessed with well-to-do parents. Many of the saints are known to have had a happy youth, some more dissipated than others, and then "saw the light". Maybe it still happens to some these days?

Mallylee
May 20, 2006 - 07:49 am
I think that affections acquired in childhood are the basis of lasting affiliations and heart-felt interests in adulthood. There is that Jesuit saying, isn't it 'give me a child until he is seven-----'?

mabel1015j
May 20, 2006 - 12:12 pm
I'm beginning to read Boorstin's The Discovers. He starts by talking about how the divisions of time came about: months, days, hours, etc. and how/why the names were applied.

The mechanical "clock" (from Middle Dutch meaning "bell") "came not from farmers or shephards, nor from merchants or craftsmen, but from religious persons anxious to perform promptly and regularly their duties to God. Monks needed to know the times for their appointed prayers. In Europe the first mechanical clocks were desigend not to SHOW the time, but to SOUND it. The first true clocks were alarms. ....probably the earlier (clocks) were the monastic alarms, or chamber clocks...or awakening clocks.{horologia excitatoria - for you Latin studiers}...for the cell of the guardian of the clock {custos horologli} These rang a small bell to alert a monk to summon the others to prayer. He would then go up to strike the large bell, usually set high in a tower, so that all could hear. About the same time much larger turret clocks began to be made and placed in the towers, where they would ring the large bell automatically.

"These monastic clocks announced the canonical hours....in the sixth century after Saint Benedict, the canonical hours were standardized at seven. ..first light (matins), sunrise, mid-morning, at noon, at midafternoon, at sunset (vespers) and at nightfall. The number of strokes of the bell varied from 4 at sunrise to 1 at noon and back to 4 again at nightfall. The presice hour, by our modern calculation, for each of these prayers depended in any given place on the latitude and the season. Despite the complexity of the problem, monastic clocks were adjusted to vary the time btween bells according to the seasons."

Very intersting book, i recommend it even tho i'm only 50 pgs into it. His books are always interesting.....jean

monasqc
May 21, 2006 - 08:39 am
is in Egypt, on Mount Sinai. It is in this area that the prophet Moses lived as a shepherd for 40 years, and it is within these mountains that God appeared to him in the form of a burning bush that wasn't consumed by flames.

The monastery was built on the site of the burning bush. It has received continual protection for over 1,500 years from the prophet Mohamed, the crusaders and their followers. Since then, it is kept by the Orthodox priests which make their living from the goods they produce themselves and sell to the seekers of muslims and Christians faith alike, who come to pray and worship.

Bubble
May 21, 2006 - 09:09 am
Ste Catherine Monastery is named this because the remains of Ste Catherine of Alessandria are kept in the moanstery.

"Ste. CATHERINE OF ALEXANDRIA, according to legend, was the daughter of the Alexandrian king Kosta and was extraordinarily educated and well read. From the beginning she refused all suitors. However, she met with an old hermit, who convinced her to be baptised. When she was called by the Emperor Maximilian (311-313 A.D.) to the celebratory consecration of a pagan temple, she came to the defence of Christianity and was called to recant before the Emperor. He called 50 of the best philosophers, but Catherine proved able to answer all questions and in the end all 50 philosophers themselves were baptised according to legend. This angered the Emperor so much that he had all of them burned and Catherine tortured and starved. In spite of this, however, she always regained her health and finally the Emperor had her beheaded. Today her remains are placed in the Monastery of Ste. Catherine on Mount Sinai. This place played a significant role in the period of the Crusades and in the Middle Ages her veneration spread. Catherine is most often depicted with a crown on her head, with a wheel or a sword. Since the 13th century this saint belonged among the most revered saints immediately after The Virgin Mary. The painting by Lucas Granach the Elder (1506) is famous. Several crafts considered her their patron, but she was also considered the patroness of the Paris University, teachers, speakers, lawyers, as well as tanners and shoemakers. "

Ste Catherine>

Moses received the Commandements in Sinai. It is a very desertic place...

http://www.sinai4you.com/santa/

monasqc
May 21, 2006 - 09:19 am
The frescos in the monastery are from medieval times and very beautiful. Unfortunatly, I am not able to give you a link.

Françoise

Adrbri
May 21, 2006 - 10:16 am
Some of the icons and mosaics form the Monastery can be seen here : -

http://www.geographia.com/egypt/sinai/monasteryart.htm

Brian

robert b. iadeluca
May 22, 2006 - 03:46 am
Let us continue on with St. Francis.

"In 1202 he fought the Assisian army against Perugia, was made prisoner, and spent a year in meditative captivity.

"In 1204 he joined as a volunteer the army of Pope Innocent III. At Spoleto, lying in bed with a fever, he thought he heard a voice asking him:-'Why do you desert the Lord for the servant, the Prince for his vassal?' He asked:-'Lord, what do you wish me to do?' The voice answered:-'Go back to your home. There it shall be told you what you are to do.'

"He left the army and returned to Assisi. Now he showed ever less interest in his father's business, ever more in religion.

"Near Assisi was a poor chapel of St. Damian. Praying there in February, 1207, Francis thought he heard Christ speak to him from the altar, accepting his life and soul as an oblation. From that moment he felt himself dedicated to a new life. He gave the chapel priest all the money he had with him and went home.

"One day he met a leper and turned away in revulsion. Rebuking hmself for unfaithfulness to Christ, he went back, emptied his purse into the leper's hand, and kissed his hand. This act, he tells us, marked an era in his spiritual life.

"Thereafter he frequently visited the dwelling of the lepers and brought them alms."

Is this being religious in its purest best form?

Robby

Mallylee
May 22, 2006 - 07:40 am
I'll say!

Bubble
May 22, 2006 - 07:43 am
I can understand helping the lepers, holding them, and that would be most commendable. Kissing them? of what use would that be? show off?

Scrawler
May 22, 2006 - 11:39 am
Isn't St. Francis associated with being about to understand the wants and needs of birds and animals? My memory is fading, but it seems to me that I have seen pictures where St. Francis is surrounded by birds and animals.

Its interesting that when people who become religious claim to hear voices or see visions, but normal every day people when they make these claims are considered "nuts." So what's the difference?

Malryn
May 22, 2006 - 02:56 pm

St Frncis of Assisi, frescoes

3kings
May 22, 2006 - 03:27 pm
Bubble :- "Kissing them ? What use would that be ?"

It is an act of bonding, a demonstration of love. One finds it most prevalent between parents and their children, particularly when children are young, as I'm sure you will have noticed. Also between lovers, as a demonstration of their feelings for one another.

It also occurs between non lovers, as a sign deep regard at moments of great emotional stress.

I'm surprised that you question what use such activity can have. ++ Trevor

robert b. iadeluca
May 22, 2006 - 05:44 pm
"Shortly after this experience he spent several days in or near the chapel, apparently eating little.

"When he appeared again in Assisi he was so thin, haggard, and pale and his clothes so tattered, his mind so bewildered, that the urchins in the public square cried out Pazzo! Pazzo! -- 'A madman! A madman!'

"There his father found him, called him a half-wit, dragged him home, and locked him in a closet. Freed by his mother, Francis hurried back to the chapel. The angry father overtook him, upbraided him for making his family a public jest, reproached him for making so little return on the money spent in his rearing, and bade him leave the town.

"Francis had sold his personal belongings to support the chapel. He handed the proceeds to his father who accepted them. But he would not recognize the authority of his father to command one who now belonged to Christ.

"Summoned before the tribunal of the bishop in the Piazza Santa Maria Maggiore, he presented himself humbly while a crowd looked on in a scene made memorable by Giotto's brush. The bishop took him at his word and bade him give up all his property.

"Francis retired to a room in the episcopal palace and soon reappeared stark naked. He laid his bundled clothing and a few remaining coins before the bishop and said:-'Until this time I have called Pietro Bernadone my father but now I desire to serve God. That is why I return to him this money as well as my clothing and all that I have had from him. For henceforth I desire to say nothing else than 'Our Father, who art in heaven.'

"Bernadone carried off the clothing while the bishop covered the shivering Francis with his mantle. Francis returned to St. Damian's, made himself a hermit's robe, begged his food from door to door and with his hands began to rebuild the crumbling chapel.

"Several of the townspeople came to aid him and they sang together as they worked."

When I was active with a local psychiatric institute, I used to evaluate people as to their being psychotic or not and make recommendations to the magistrate. If they brought someone like Francis before me, should I have diagnosed him as psychotic? Or not? If he tells me that he heard a word from God, who am I to say this is not so?

Robby

Mallylee
May 22, 2006 - 11:26 pm
it's a lovely story , and the bishop was good too.

This was a culture in which people believed in hearing supernatural voices , so that was okay then. Now, I'd feel okay with someone who hears voices but not everyine would, perhaps especially employers, so if I knew the person well enough I'd tell them not to tell people about the voices unless they really trusted them to be helpful, especially if the person was getting on okay in other areas.

What would you have done Robby?

robert b. iadeluca
May 23, 2006 - 03:21 am
Mallylee:-I have had patients who have said God "spoke to them." Many people say that. We can't diagnose them all as schizophrenic.

Robby

Mallylee
May 23, 2006 - 11:42 am
Robby , do you mean that St Francis may have been talking figuratively?

robert b. iadeluca
May 23, 2006 - 04:38 pm
I'll ask him the next time I see him.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
May 23, 2006 - 04:47 pm
"Having been advised that he needed papal permission to establish a religious order, Francis and his twelve disciples went to Rome in 1210 and laid their request and their rule before Innocent III.

"The great Pope gently counseled them to defer formal organization of a new order until time should test the practicability of the rule. He said:-'My dear children, your life appears to me too severe. I see indeed that your fervor is great but I ought to consider those who will come after you, lest your mode of life be beyond their strength.'

"Francis persisted and the Pope finally yielded -- incarnate strength to incarnate faith.

"The friars took the tonsure, submitt3ed themselves to the hierarchy and received from the Benedictines of Mr. Subasio, near Assisi, the chapel of St. Mary of the Angels, so small -- some ten feet long -- that it came to be called Portiuncula -- 'little portion.'

The friars built themselves huts around the chapel and these huts formed the first monastery of the First Order of St. Francis."

Big oaks from little acorns grow.

Robby

Justin
May 23, 2006 - 05:58 pm
A film is available depicting the life of Saint Francis. I think, it is called Brother Sun, Sister Moon. Many years have passed since I first saw it but the scene in the Piazza is quite memorable.

When I lived in the city I saw many people who talked with unseen companions. It is common though it always appears strange. I am sure many of those who walk along the streets conversing are doing so with someone they call God. It's ok. I wouldn't want to put them in the looney bin. A fella needs a friend sometimes. I remember Jimmie Stewart had such a friend.

Francis' actions were not limited to unseen voices. Stripping naked in the public square and denying his wealth may have been expressions of rebellion but acquiring the stigmata signals derangment to me. He hurt himself in a way that was displayable. The "holy wounds" were not suicidal they were an expression of Francis' relation to Jesus and their maintenance was masochistic. Are masochists psychotic?

Justin
May 23, 2006 - 06:07 pm
Innocent111 was right. Shortly after the death of Francis the friars who followed him quarreled and then launched a less strict Order of St. Francis. It is that Order that exists today.

Bubble
May 24, 2006 - 01:19 am
Many lonely children have an invisible companion with whom to play. They also talk to them and share their everyday conflicts, frustrations or joy.

It is said that some saints had a childlike view or belief in life. They had the same innocent trust to others.

robert b. iadeluca
May 24, 2006 - 02:01 am
There is probably someone here with more detailed knowledge of the Bible than I have. Didn't Jesus say something to the effect that one should think like a child?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
May 24, 2006 - 02:42 am
"Encouraged by his Italian success, and knowing little of Islam, Francis resolved to go to Syria and convert the Moslems, even the sultan.

"In 1212 he sailed from an Italian port but a storm cast his ship upon the Dalmatian coast and he was forced to return to Italy. Legend, however, tells how 'St. Francis converted the soldan of Babylon.'

"In the same year, says a story probably also mythical, he went to Spain to convert the Moors. On arrival he fell so ill that his disciples had to bring him back to Assisi.

"Another questionable narrative takes him to Egypt. He passed unharmed, we are told, into the Moslem army that was resisting the Crusades at Damietta. He offered to go through fire if the sultan would promise to lead his troops into the Christian faith in case Francis emerged unscathed. The sultan refused but had the saint escorted safely to the Christian camp.

"Horrified by the fury with which the soldiers of Christ massacred the Moslem population at the capture of Damierra, Francis returned to Italy a sick and saddened man.

"To his chilling malaria, it is said, he added in Egypt an eye infection that would in later years almost destroy his sight."

Your comments, please, about Francis and Islam?

Robby

Bubble
May 24, 2006 - 02:56 am
I think this is it? "Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven" Matthew Chapt 18 verse 4

Francis and Islam situation sounds very actual. The clash between the religions is still going on.

Scrawler
May 24, 2006 - 11:02 am
Do you think there is some sort of symbolism between the "horrors of the Christian soldiers massacuring the Moslem population" and the fact that he became physically ill with a "chilling malaria" and "an eye infection?"

Bubble
May 24, 2006 - 11:57 am
I very often had bouts of chilling malaria, like every one who lived long enough in Africa and eyes infections are quite common there, but I never saw any soldiers slaying Moslem populations. There cannot be any correlation lol

Justin
May 24, 2006 - 03:19 pm
Robby: You are quite right. Jesus did say that one should think as a child but the comment was not a generalized one. Both Mark and Luke quote Him as saying,"Whoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein." The phrases are virtually the same in both gospels. It is one of those markers that enable Biblical scholars to fix the order of the books. Mark's work came first and such markers indicate that Matthew and Luke followed and probably had Mark's work available to them. John is something else.

Paul, on the other hand, writing in Corinthians says, and I paraphrase, When I was a child, I thought as a child, When I became a man, I put aside childish things.

Justin
May 24, 2006 - 03:45 pm
Malaria is a common problem in hot,moist, tropical areas. Many Marines and Sailors contracted the disease in the Pacific theatre of War. I did not get it but I was yellow with atabrine during most of my time in that theater. The chills are quite severe so I can understand as you must also Bubble, the reluctance of Francis" diciples to carry on. Reference to such things contribute to the credibility of the story. We at least know that he went. Also, reference to the zeal applied by the crusaders to the destruction of Damietta contributes to credibility.

robert b. iadeluca
May 24, 2006 - 06:45 pm
"During these long absences of the saint, his followers multiplied faster than was good for his rule.

"His fame brought recruits who took the vows without due reflection.

"Some came to regret their haste. Many complained that the rule was too severe.

"Francis made reluctant concessions. Doubtless, too, the expansion of the order, which had divided itself into several houses scattered through Umbria, made such demands upon him for administrative skill and tact as his mystic absorption could hardly meet.

"Once, we are told, when one monk spoke evil of another, Francis commanded him to eat a lump of ass's dung so that his tongue would not relish evil any more. The monk obeyed but his fellows were more shocked by the punishment than by the offense.

"In 1220 Francis resigned his leadership, bade his followers elect another minister-general and thereafter counted himself a simple monk. A year later, however, disturbed by futher relaxation of the original rule, he drew up a new rule -- his famous 'Testament' -- aiming to restore full observance of the vow of poverty and forbidding the monks to move from their huts at the Portiuncula to the more salubrious quarters built for them by the townspeople.

"He submitted this rule to Honorius III who turnd it over to a committee of prelates for revision. When it came from their hands it made a dozen obeisances to Francis and as many relaxations of the rule.

"The predictions of Innocent III had been verified."

One someone has obtained power, it is so hard to release it.

Robby

Justin
May 24, 2006 - 11:15 pm
Now Francis is not only a mystic but an administrator and organizer, the very role he fled as his father's son and heir.

Mallylee
May 25, 2006 - 12:56 am
I vaguely remember reading somewhere that Francis was unpopular with a pope because of Francis's beliefs which verged on gnostic. I wonder if this is still to come in the book

robert b. iadeluca
May 25, 2006 - 03:27 am
He died October 3, 1226 in the forty-fifth year of his age, singing a psalm. Two years later the Church named him a saint.

"Two other leaders dominated that dynamic age. Innocent III and Frederick II. Innocent raised the Church to its greatest height from which in a century it fell. Frederick raised the Empire to its greatest height from which in a decade it fell.

"Francis exaggerated the virtues of poverty and ignorance but he reinvigorated Christianity by bringing back into it the spirit of Christ. Today only scholars know of the Pope and the Emperor but the simple saint reaches into the hearts of millions of men.

"The order that he had founded numbered at his death some 5000 members and had spread into Hungary, Germany, England, France, and Spain.

"It proved the bulwark of the Church in winning northern Italy from hereesy back to Catholicism.

"Its gospel of poverty and illiteracy could be accepted by only a small minority. Europe insisted on traversing the exciting parabola of wealth, science, philosophy, and doubt. Meanwhile even the modified rule that Francis had so unwillingly accepted was further relaxed. Men could not be expected to stay long and in needed number on the heights of the almost delirious asceticism that had shortned Francis life.

"With a milder rule the Friars Minor grew by 1280 to 200,000 monks in 8000 monasteries. They became great prachers and by their example led the secular clergy to raise up the custom or preaching of Siens and St. Anthony of Padua, scientists like Roger Bacon, philosohers like Duns Scotus, teachers like Alexander of Hales.

"Some became agents of the Inquisition. Some rose to be bishops and archbishops, popes. Many undertook dangerous missionary enterprises in distant and alien lands.

"Gifts poured in from the pious. Some leaders, like Brother Elias, learned to like luxury. And though Francis had forbidden rich churches, Elias raised to his memory the imposing basilica that still crowns the hill of Assisi.

"The paintings of Cimabue and Giotto there were the first products of an immense and enduring influence of St. Francis, his history and his legend, on Italian art."

What makes a great man?

Robby

mabel1015j
May 25, 2006 - 09:35 am
is never given up, it must be demanded and almost always fought for in some way by the out-of-power group.

Is there a connection between the words "gnostic" and "agnostic"? ....jean

Bubble
May 25, 2006 - 10:03 am
The general meaning is

agnostic: denying or doubting the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

gnostic: pertaining to knowledge.

Greek gnostikós (sing.) pertaining to knowledge. The "a" makes it an opposite of the meaning.

Justin
May 25, 2006 - 01:37 pm
I can't add anything to that definition , Bubble. You nailed it.

Justin
May 25, 2006 - 01:47 pm
The works of Cimabue and Giotto at Assisi have been badly used over the centuries. They have been neglected, rarely cleaned, and not protected. These are priceless treasures of the art world. They were damaged in the recent earthquake and lord knows the condition they are in today. The Italians are so blase about their treasures. I am sure these works can be found in some data base and displayed for us. Mal, are still out there?

Justin
May 25, 2006 - 02:08 pm
It is interesting why a humble, ignorant, poverty-ridden, mystic remains in the public consciousness when great evil doers such as Kaiser, Hitler, and Torquenada disappear. Equally,or perhaps more so, successful people also disappear from public awareness over time. Jesus is such a figure as is St. Francis. The one emulating the other, they produced a legacy of immediate recognition in all the generations that followed them. One actually is recalled and seen as a God today.

Adrbri
May 25, 2006 - 04:11 pm
The works of these two great painters are well exhibited here

http://www.wga.hu/index1.html

This site is a terrific database for almost everything pertaining to Art.

Brian

robert b. iadeluca
May 25, 2006 - 05:32 pm
St. Dominic

robert b. iadeluca
May 25, 2006 - 05:38 pm
Continuing to follow the GREEN quotes in the Heading --

"It is unjust to Dominic that his name should suggest the Inquisition.

"He was not its founder, nor was he responsible for its terrors. His own activity was to convert by example and preaching.

"He was of sterner stuff than Francis but revered him as the saintlier saint. Francis loved him in return.

"Essentially their work was the same. Each organized a great order of men devoted not to self-salvation in solitude but to missionary work among Christians and infidels. Each took from the heretics their most persuasive weapons -- the praise of poverty and the practice of preaching.

"Together they saved the Church."

Robby

mabel1015j
May 25, 2006 - 08:54 pm

Bubble
May 25, 2006 - 11:04 pm
Giotto in Assissi

http://gallery.euroweb.hu/tours/giotto/index1.html

Cimabue

http://www.christusrex.org/www2/art/Cimabue.htm

Justin
May 25, 2006 - 11:26 pm
Thank you Bubble. The scenes in the upper church are entirly those of Giotto. They date from about 1300. If one looks at the body of Jesus in the Lamentation it is possible to see the damage to the fresco caused by neglect. It is criminal. Giotto. for the first time in many centuries introduced volume to the body and realism and narrative to the images he depicted. It is for this reason he is called the father of the renaisance. He is the leader, first of his breed to produce real figures depicted in natural poses and showing reaction to an event. You will find tears and othr forms of grief in the dormition and the lamentation. Everyone knows of Michelangelo Buonarotti but few know of his greater successor,Giotto,who preceded by a few centuries.

Justin
May 25, 2006 - 11:40 pm
Many of the Frescos in the lower church have been cleaned bringing the colors to life. In the Magdelene series one can see in the Lazarus scene figures covering noses to avoid the stench of the dead.

Justin
May 25, 2006 - 11:47 pm
If you click on the Cimabue link in Bubble. You will see that he is painting in the style of Giotto's predecessors. The figures are more stylizd and conventional.It will be apparent that Giotto has made a real and substantial break from his teacher.

Justin
May 25, 2006 - 11:54 pm
I don't want to leave St Francis without noting the final sentence from Durant.

Durant says," A century after the death of Francis his most loyal followers were burned at the stake by the Inquisition."

If I were to add a comment to that sentence I would be committing a mortal sin.

Mallylee
May 26, 2006 - 01:39 am
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/inquisition1.html

Bubble
May 26, 2006 - 02:02 am
Mallylee - There are still communities of Beguins In Belgium; I have visited the beguinage in Gant and in Brugges where many women produce beautiful handmade lace using the old bobbin methods.

robert b. iadeluca
May 26, 2006 - 03:24 am
"Domingo de Guzman was born at Calaruega in Castile (1170).

"Brought up by an uncle priest, he was one of thousands who in those days took Christianity to heart. When famine struck Palencia, he is said to have sold all his goods, even his precious books, to feed the poor.

"He became an Augustinian canon regular in the cathedral of Osma and in 1201 accompanied his bishop on a mission to Toulouse, then a center of the Albigensian heresy. Their very host was an Albigensian. It may be a legend that Dominic converted him overnight.

"Inspired by the advice of the bishop and the example of some heretics, Dominic adopted the life of voluntary poverty, went about barefoot, and strove peaceably to bring the people back to the Church.

"At Montpellier he met three papal legates -- Arnold, Raoul, and Peter of Castelnau. He was shocked by their rich dress and luxury and attributed to this their confessed failure to make headway against the heretics. He rebuked them with the boldness of a Hebrew prophet:-'It is not by the display of power and pomp, nor by cavalcades of retainers and richly houseled palfreys, not by gorgeous apparel, that the heretics win proselytes. It is by zealous preaching, by apostolic humility, by austerity by holiness.'

"The shamed legatges, we are told, dismissed their equipage and shed their shoes."

Robby

Mallylee
May 26, 2006 - 12:15 pm
Well Bubble, that is interesting. I wonder if the Beguins in Belgium are an uninterruprted tradition, or a revival.Brussels lace is famous, of course.

Mallylee
May 26, 2006 - 12:18 pm
This is austerity for the good of one's soul, or is it austerity as a matter of sensitivity to the poverty of others?

Just the same, the 'richly houseled palfreys ' must have been a sight to behold!

Bubble
May 26, 2006 - 12:20 pm
Here are more details about the beguinage in Belgium. I did see some beguines there.

http://www.enjoyyourliving.com/belgium/68.htm

Justin
May 26, 2006 - 02:45 pm
As I recall the "Beguines" do not take religious vows but devote themselves to works of charity. Traditional lace making has been a source of revenue for that group. I have some doilies and other small pieces picked up in Bruges, that we treasure.

Interestingly, the lyric "Begin the Beguine" refers to a dance that involved hooding in some way.

Bubble
May 27, 2006 - 02:38 am
Maybe some of them dance like dervishes? lol

Mallylee
May 27, 2006 - 10:00 am
Bubble#657 very interesting. It's great the way these discussions reveal facts, people and ideas that I had never before heard of

kiwi lady
May 27, 2006 - 06:31 pm
You say does God speak to people.

Here is an experience I once had. I had been out of work for a while and had just got a new job ( I had been caring for my husband after surgery and had to leave my old job) I got a very nice commission cheque and was driving to the bank to deposit it. I heard a voice say to me "Go to the Salvation Army and give them $150.00". Boy I did not want to give them that money! However the voice went on again in the same vein. I realised I had just passed the Salvation Army offices. I then decided I better do as the voice said. I went in handed the check to the Major. He said "Thank you so much. We did not have the rent for our building this week and this will just do it!" So that is my experience. They had been praying for the amount needed for the rent. I rest my case!

kiwi lady
May 27, 2006 - 06:33 pm
What makes a great man ( or woman) "the ability to admit ones errors of judgement and to admit them publicly" That to me is the epitome of a great man or woman.

Justin
May 27, 2006 - 10:46 pm
Kiwi; Nice to see you in here again.

kiwi lady
May 27, 2006 - 11:45 pm
Thanks Justin. I seem to have such a busy life these days. I have not even really been posting in the Political discussions much lately.

Carolyn

Justin
May 28, 2006 - 10:20 pm
Durant appears to white wash St Dominic. Maybe he did get a bum rap but the art images of that day which are like the newspapers of today depict Dominic at the top of the chain of inquisitors who directed auto da fe's. Durant seems to be saying,"yes, but he really was a good guy who saved someone from the stake.

My response is that it is more reasonable to believe the guy he "saved" saw what was in store for him and recanted.Dominic had nothing to do with it.

It is not difficult to imagine these people hanging from a pully line tied to one's wrists with the hands behind one's back and raised a little off the floor while being asked to describe the doctrine of transubstantiation. My Word. Preserve me from such assessments.

Justin
May 28, 2006 - 10:33 pm
I accept that the Mendicant orders probably saved the "Church" from destroying itself by providing contrast to the sumptiousness of eclesiastical office.

Of course, there were some lively nunneries and monasteries but the severity of the rules and the availablility of convent assets probably contributed to those problems just as the rules today contribute to violations in the clergy.

However, I suspect that the great mass of nuns and monks joined the convent for spititual reasons and in the main obeyed the rules.

robert b. iadeluca
May 29, 2006 - 05:14 am
"For ten years Dominic remained in Languedoc preaching zealously.

"The only mention of him in connection with physical persecution tells how, at a burning of heretics, he saved one from the flames. Some of his order proudly called him, after his death, Persecutor haereticorum -- not necessarily the persecutor but the pursuer of heretics.

"He gathered about him a group of fellow preachers and their effectivenss was such that Pope Honorious III recognized the Friars Preachers as a new order and approved the rule drawn up for it by Dominic.

"Making his headquarters at Rome, Dominic gathered recruits, taught them, inspired them with his almost fanatical zeal and sent them out through Europe as far east as Kiev and into foreign lands to convert Christendom and heathendom to Christianity.

"At the first general chapter of the Dominicaus at Bologna in 1120, Dominic persuaded his followers to adopt by unanimous vote the rule of absolute poverty.

"There, a year later, he died.

Any final comments about Dominicus?

Robby

Justin
May 29, 2006 - 01:00 pm
Several orders of Nuns have taken up the rule of Dominic. Many of these orders have become teaching orders. One such order, aptly called Dominicans, are largely responsible for teaching me that math and language are essential ingredients of a productive life. One old gal,who spit when she talked and leaped over desks with ruler in hand to convince me I had better learn the multiplication table,died recently. Hundreds of former students were at the funeral.

robert b. iadeluca
May 29, 2006 - 04:28 pm
The Nuns

robert b. iadeluca
May 29, 2006 - 04:38 pm
:As early as the time of St. Paul it had been the custom in Christian communities for widows and other lonely or devout women to give some or all of their days and their property to charitable work.

"In the fourth century some women, emulating monks, left the world and lived the life of religious in solitude or in communities under vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.

"About 530 St. Benedict's twin sister Scholastica established a nunnery near Monte Casssino under his guidance and rule. From that time Benedictine convents spread through Europe and Benedictine nuns became almost as numerous as Benedictine monks.

"The Cistercian Order opened its first convent in 1125 , its most famous one, Port Royal, in 1204.

"By 1300 there were 700 Christian nunneries in Europe. In these older orders most of the nuns came from the upper classes and nunneries were too often the repository of women for whom their male relations had no room or taste.

"In 458 the Emperor Majorian had to forbid parents to rid themselves of supernumerary daughters by compelling them to enter a convent. Entry into Benedictine nunneries usually required a dowry, although the Church prohibited any but voluntry offerings. Hence a prioress, like Chancer's, could be a woman of proud breeding and large responsibilities, administering a spacious domain as the source of her convent's revenues.

"In those days a nun was usually called not Sister but Madame."

Any comments about nuns?

Robby

Bubble
May 30, 2006 - 12:16 am
No wonder that they prefered to call themselves Sister or Mother in later days > Mother Theresa.

Wasn't Port Royal where one dispatched queens and those women in disfavor at the king's court? They had such a place in UK, I can't remember the name just now. Henry VIII sent his wife there when she did not want to accept the divorce.

Galileo's daughters were put quite young in a convent, Anne de Boleyn's sister was too I think as well as Catherine of Aragon.

Mallylee
May 30, 2006 - 01:05 am
It's strangely prejudiced of Durant to write that Majorian 'HAD 'to forbid parents to rid themselves of supernumerary daughters.

I want to understand why putting 'supernumerary' women into convents was beneficial, which it must have been, as otherwise it would not have been a practice so widespread or persistent

Mallylee
May 30, 2006 - 01:07 am
Bubble, 'nunnery' was slang for brothel at one time. e.g..Hamlet to Ophelia 'get thee to a nunnery'

robert b. iadeluca
May 30, 2006 - 02:47 am
"St. Francis revolutionized conventual as well as monastic institutions.

"When Santa Clara came to him in 1212 and expressed her wish to found for women such an order as he had founded for men, he overlooked canonical regulations and, although himself only a deacon, received her vows, accepted her into the Franciscan Order, and commissioned her to organize the Poor Clares.

"Innocent III, with his usual ability to forgive infractions of the letter by the spirit, confirmed the commission. Santa Clara gathered about her some pious women who lived in communal poverty, wove and spun, nursed the sick, and distributed charity.

"Legends formed around her almost as fondly as around Francis himself."

I wonder over the years how many institutions have come into existence although they might have been technically illegal.

Robby

Mallylee
May 30, 2006 - 03:11 am
Innocent III seems the type of person who gets things done, who can see the whole rather than the details

Scrawler
May 30, 2006 - 01:54 pm
I too remember the teaching nuns - they put the fear of God into me - literally. I doubt there was a single boy that didn't graduate without welts on his hands by been smacked with the ruler. The girls faired better, but not by much.

robert b. iadeluca
May 30, 2006 - 05:48 pm
"Let us hope that these hard rules were sometimes infringed.

"If we look back upon the nineteen centuries of Christianity, with all teir heroes, kings, and saints, we shall find it difficult to list many men who came so close to Christian perfection as the nuns. Their lives of quiet devotion and cheerful ministration have made many generations blessed.

"When all the sins of history are weighed in the balance, the virtues of these women will tip the scale against them, and redeem our race."

Any final comments about nuns?

Robby

Justin
May 30, 2006 - 10:07 pm
The role of the nun is not a role I admire nor is it one I would wish for my daughters. It is among all roles in life a self centered one. The powers of the body are denied while one revels in same sex relationships.The role is contradictory and must be difficult for intelligent women to fully accept.

Convent leaders must worry about that. I had an aunt who was a Sister of Charity. When ever she came at holidays to visit her brothers or sisters, she came with a buddy nun to watch over her. She never travelled alone.

Mallylee
May 31, 2006 - 12:59 am
I only ever met met two teaching nuns, personally, and several teaching nuns when I visited a convent school in my work in the 1970's. I am sure that none of these ladies would hit a child, especially since the convent was a fee-paying school for girls.

I think that hitting children was common in many schools, if not most schools until approximately the second half of last century.

Social services are better for clients when they are staffed by people with vocations, rather than by money-makers. I am sure that nuns have been indispensible for social welfare in the past

Bubble
May 31, 2006 - 01:37 am
Justin, My school was founded and directed by the Belgian Sisters of Charity! Small world, or they spread wide around the globe.

robert b. iadeluca
May 31, 2006 - 03:12 am
The Mystics

robert b. iadeluca
May 31, 2006 - 03:25 am
"Many such women could be saints because they felt divinity closer to them than hands and feet.

"The medieval imagination was so stimulatd by all the forces of word, picture, statue, ceremony, even by the color and quantity of light, that supersensory visions came readily, and the believing soul felt itself breaking through the bounds of nature to the supernatural.

"The human mind itself in all the mystery of its power, seemed a supernatural and unearthly thing surely akin to -- a blurred image and infinitesimal fraction of -- the mind behind and in the matter of the world.

"So the top of the mind might touch the foot of the throne of God. In the ambitious humility of the mystic the hope burned that a soul unburdened of sin and uplifted with prayer might rise on the wings of grace to the Beatific Vision and a divine companionship.

"That vision could never be attained through sensation, reason, science, or philosophy which were bound to time, the many, and the earth and could never reach to the core and power and oneness of the universe.

"The problem of the mystic was to cleanse the soul as an internal organ of spiritual perception -- to wash away from it all stain of selfish individuality and illusory multiplicity -- to widen its reach and love to the uttermost inclusion -- and then to see, with clear and disembodied sight, the cosmic, eternal, and divine -- and thereby to return as from a long exile, to union with the God from Whom birth had meant a penal severance.

"Had not Christ promised that the pure in heart would see God?"

I am constantly impressed by Durant's use of language.

Robby

Bubble
May 31, 2006 - 03:32 am
""The problem of the mystic was to cleanse the soul as an internal organ of spiritual perception -- to wash away from it all stain of selfish individuality and illusory multiplicity -- to widen its reach and love to the uttermost inclusion -- and then to see, with clear and disembodied sight, the cosmic, eternal, and divine "

This reminds me so much of the Tibetan llamas teaching. Similar approach.

Mallylee
May 31, 2006 - 02:53 pm
Even today, the dim spaces of a medieval cathedral, together with the glowing colours of windows induce a mood of reverance and awe for an atheist as well as for a believer.

It is said to be very difficult for someone today, to get inside the thought processes of a medieval person. I feel that Durants perhaps managed here to give a flavour of it

robert b. iadeluca
May 31, 2006 - 03:46 pm
"Mystics, therefore, appeared in every age, every religion, and every land.

"Greek Christianity abounded in them despite the Hellenic legacy of reason.

"St. Augustine was a mystic fountain fo the West. His Confessions constituted a return of the soul from created things to God. Seldom had any mortal so long conversed with the Deity.

"St. Anselm the statesman, St. Bernard the organizer, upheld the mystical approach against the rationalism of Roscelin and Abelard.

"When William of Champeaux was driven from Paris by the logic of Abelard, he founded in a suburb the Augustinian abbey of St. Victor as a school of theology. And his successors there, Hugh and Richard, ignoring the perilous adventure of young philosophy, based a religion not on argument but on the mystical experience of the divine presence.

"Hugh saw supernatural sacramental symbols in every phase of creation, rejected logic and learning, preferred the 'heart' to the 'head' a la Pascal, and described with learned logic the mystical rise of the soul to God."

Robby

Justin
May 31, 2006 - 04:19 pm
Yes. When Durant say's " the top of the mind might touch the foot of the throne" his expression is a joy to read. This sense that the idea of god is beyond reason, beyond human capacity, but with effort of the right sort, it is possible to get beyond those limits and perhaps touch the hem of his garment, is a dilemna.

Religion is full of such conflicting elements and adherants are able to get past them with little difficulty. Here in this medieval environment we have an image of a God who has lived as a human with a very touchable garment and at the same time the God is so far above humanity that human reason cannot touch it. That is the dilemna.

Mallylee
June 1, 2006 - 02:52 am
The incarnated god is a most serviceable idea. I am willing to learn from good news reporting, and from novels. No reason I should not learn from the Christian myth, and every reason I should, since I was reared in it. The thing is to be selective, and see what story is true and what is only a money spinner or a bid for power.

PostEnlightenment the geni wont go back in the bottle as long as civilisation lasts. The imaginative idea of incarnated good god still crops up in different guises, not just in church.Trinitarianisn was good for us for a time.

robert b. iadeluca
June 1, 2006 - 04:24 am
"The passion of Italy kindled mysticism into a gospel of revolution.

"Joachim of Flora -- Giovanni dei Gioacchini de Fiori -- a noble of Calabria, developed a longing to see Palestine.

"Impressed on the way by the misery of the people, he dismissed his retinue and continud as a humble pilgrim. Legend tells how he passed an entire Lent in an old well on Mt. Tabor, how on Easter Sunday a great splendor appeared to him and filled him with such divine light that he understood at once all the Scriptures, all the future and the past.

"Returning to Calabria, he became a Cistercian monk and priest, thirsted for austerity, and retired to a hermitage. Disciples gathered and he formed them into a new Order of Flora whose rule of poverty and prayer was approved by Celstine III.

"In 1200 he sent to Innocent III a series of works which he had written, he said, under divine inspiration but which, nevertheless, he submitted for papal censorship.

"Two years later he died."

Interesting how he found it necessary for the Pope to approve God's word.

Robby

Mallylee
June 1, 2006 - 12:26 pm
Maybe the enlightenment experienced by Gautama under the bo tree, and the ecstasy experienced by Joachim in the old well, have the same physiological basis

Justin
June 1, 2006 - 01:12 pm
Yes, it is interesting that he submitted a divinely inspired work to the Pope for censorship. A reason jumps to mind. If a new cult arose based upon his divinely inspired works, they might well be declared heretics, had he not done so. The submission was a good strategy. .

Mallylee
June 2, 2006 - 12:36 am
Credible explanation Justin

robert b. iadeluca
June 4, 2006 - 05:33 am
"Usually the Church bore patiently with the mystics in her fold.

"She did not tolerate serious doctrinal deviations from the official line or the anarchic individualism of some religious sects but she admitted the claim of the mystics to a direct approach to God and listened with good humor to saintly denunciations of her human faults.

"Many clergymen, even high dignitaries, sympathized with the critics, recognized the shortcomings of the Church, and wished that they too could lay down the contaminating tools and tasks of world politics and enjoy the security and peace of monaasteries fed by the piety of the people and protected by the power of the church.

"Perhaps it was such patient ecclesiastics who kept Christianity steady amid the delirious revelations that periodically threatened the medieval mind.

"As we read the mystics of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries it dawns upon us that orthodoxy was often a barrier to contagious superstitions and that in one aspect the Church was belief -- as the state was force -- organized from chaos into order to keep men sane."

Durant here describes the Church as belief organized from chaos into order. He states in the Heading above that "Civilization begins where chaos and insecurity ends."

Is he calling the Church a civilizing force? Do you agree?

Robby

Éloïse De Pelteau
June 4, 2006 - 06:23 am
Often we hear that being civilized means being peaceful, nonviolent when in actual fact history has shown us that it was war and violence that brought civilization forward. Wars, as natural disasters do, increase creativity and induce people to find new or better ways to improve their lot on earth and they look to 'force' for order and safety while they are in the process of bringing civilization forward. The church demonstrated this force with pomp and ceremony.

Each one of us has a different definition of the word "civilization". To me civilization doesn't mean peace, it only means power obtained through astute manipulation of those less apt at making what gives power, money. The Catholic church became powerful by becoming rich and teachings of Christ became more blurred as the church was rising to the top of the heap. Humans are only humans and we haven't changed since the beginning of time.

We are not more civilized, we are only more intelligent at achieving power because competition, as the world's population increases, is the key for rising above whom we consider lesser individuals than we are. For some education is the all that ends all, for others it is power, or money if you will, for others the only thing worth having is faith in God. When I look around me and talk to people, I see no other goals than those.

Scrawler
June 4, 2006 - 09:49 am
To me it is the search for "knowlege" that is all-important and I believe the more we know the more "civilized" we become.

As far as the church goes, I think in any crisis we need a controlling force and I believe in war and natural disasters that force could be for some the church. But I also believe that the church would inisist that after the crisis was over that we "convert" to their way of thinking.

Rich7
June 4, 2006 - 10:28 am
Eloise, You said that each of us has his own definition of civilization. I agree. Strange, isn't it, that the title of this discussion is The Story of Civilization, yet we perhaps don't all agree on what exactly civilization is.

Durant took a shot at it when he wrote, "Civilization begins where chaos and insecurity ends." I can't totally agree with that opinion because some of civilization's greatest advances in medicine, physics, chemistry, and engineering took place during, and often because of, the greatest example of chaos and insecurity:- war.

Rich

Mallylee
June 4, 2006 - 11:11 am
Yes, I do agree in a general way, that any form of government is better than anarchy . Even the cruel dictatorship of Saddam was better than the lawlessness in Iraq since Saddam was conquered.

However, also in a general way, if the government, dictator or whatever form the government takes is itself lawless, such as Mugabe's rule, there will be chaos that is worse than anarchy,because a reign of terror will tend to stifle the creative instinct that leads men to make laws to promote proper reciprocity.

I dont know nearly enough about the Church to evaluate its promotion of the fear that stifles co-operation on the one hand, or the love that promotes enlightened government on the other hand. There is no possible way to put it to experiment, either.

Rich7
June 4, 2006 - 12:15 pm
It would be an interesting exercise to imagine a conversation between Will Durant and Charles Darwin. The subject- civilization and what makes it proceed forward. Durant might take the position that the best environment for civilization is the absence of chaos and insecurity. Darwin might hold that an environment made up of some chaos and insecurity are essential for the advancement of civilization.

Rich

robert b. iadeluca
June 4, 2006 - 12:27 pm
Some people are participating in both SofC and Darwin. They undoubtedly are bouncing their minds back and forth.

Robby

Justin
June 4, 2006 - 07:17 pm
Durant has providied us with a working definition of Civilization. I have not found reason to challenge that definition yet. He says there are four elements in the definition- provision for economic well being, political organization, moral traditions, and the pursuit of knowledge and the arts. These are activities that require some security from chaos.

It is clear, at least to me, that the "church" has shown the way to political organization,they provided order in th midst of chaos, acted as patron of the arts to disseminate their message and provided education ( such as it was) to numberless clergy and nobility, and no one can deny they provided a moral tradition.I think the church was a great civilizing force in a primitive society.

Mallylee
June 4, 2006 - 11:13 pm
Rich , are chaos and insecurity always and inevitably to be reckoned with?

robert b. iadeluca
June 5, 2006 - 04:36 am
The Tragic Pope

robert b. iadeluca
June 5, 2006 - 04:48 am
"When Gregory X came to the papacy in 1271, the Church was again at the summit of her power.

"He was a Christian as well as a pope - a man of peace and amity, seeking justice rather than victory.

"Hoping to regain Palestine by one united effort, he persuaded Venice, Genoa, and Bologna to end their wars. He secured the election of Rudolf of Hapsburg as Emperor, but soothed with courtesy and kindness the defeated candidates.

"He reconciled Guelf and Ghibelline in factious Florence and Siens, saying to his Guelf supporters:-'Your enemies are Ghibellines but they are also men, citizens, and Christians.'

"He summoned the prelates of the Church to the Council of Lyons; 1570 leading churchmen came, every great state sent a representative. The Greek emperor sent the heads of the Greek Church to reaffirm its submission to the Roman See. Latin and Greek churchmen sang together a Te Deum of joy.

"Bishops were invited to list the abuses that needed reform in the Church. They responded with starling candor. Legislation was passed to mitigate these evils.

"All Europe was magnificnetly united for a mighty effort against the Saracens. But on the way back to Rome, Gregory died.

"His successors were too busy with Italian politics to carry out his plans."

The plot thickens.

Robby

Rich7
June 5, 2006 - 07:09 am
Mallylee, To answer your question, I have the following quote by Dr. Robert Jastrow, PhD physicist at Columbia University, and founding director of NASA's Goddard Space Institute.

"But to the human observer, looking back at the history of life from the perspective of many eons, a meaning becomes evident. He sees that through the struggle against the force of adversity, each generation molds the shape of its descendents. Adversity and struggle lie at the root of evolutionary progress. Without adversity there is no pressure; without pressure there is no change.

These circumstances, so painful to the individual, create the great currents that carry life forward from the simple to the complex. Finally, man stands on the earth, more perfect than any other. Intelligent, self-aware, he alone amoung all creatures has the curiosity to ask: How did I come into being? What forces have created me? And, guided by his scientific knowledge, he comes to the realization that he was created by all who came before him, through their struggle against adversity."

Darwin would have been proud.

Rich

Mallylee
June 5, 2006 - 09:13 am
Rich, I like the Darwinian, struggle for existence bit. Not so sure about mankind being the most perfect beings, unless the criteria for 'most perfect' are self awareness and intelligence.

For sure mankind is not the most perfect beings if the criterion is being able to hover on the wing and see a rabbit far below

Rich7
June 5, 2006 - 12:33 pm
Mallylee,

You can't do that?



Rich

Rich7
June 5, 2006 - 01:23 pm
I can spot a blueberry muffin at twenty paces. Does that count?

Rich

Justin
June 5, 2006 - 01:45 pm
Man can hover on the wing and watch all the earth from great distances in space. We are not much when it comes to concern for our neighbor's welfare but we have more powers than any other animal.We are not perfect but as Rich says, " he can spot a blueberry muffin at twenty paces."

Adrbri
June 5, 2006 - 04:37 pm
I agree that there needs to be some stress in life. Below is a quote from "The Third Man".
The irrepressible Harry Lime's philosophy is aptly summarized here : -

"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance.
In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. So long Holly."

Brian.

Mallylee
June 5, 2006 - 11:57 pm
Since I became an old bat I realise that the ability to find my way by radar is the top perfection

robert b. iadeluca
June 6, 2006 - 03:10 am
Any reactions to Durant's remarks in Post 702?

Robby

Mallylee
June 6, 2006 - 10:34 am
The existence of a common enemy, the Saracens, was the main instrument in getting the warring Christians to gang up together. I bet that the Pope did not do this cynically, but believed sincerely that Christians were of more importance than Saracens to God

mabel1015j
June 6, 2006 - 11:14 am
"(Gregory) was a Christian as well as a pope"?

Why did he make a point of saying that? If it has no special significance, it would seem to be apparent and need not be stated.

Is he making a comment about other popes?

G.B. Shaw said something to the effect that Christianity may be a great religion, but it's never been tried! Is Durant making a similar comment?......jean

Justin
June 6, 2006 - 03:36 pm
The death of Gregory was a break for us as well as for the Saracens. It's a good thing it happened that way for we, today, might well be paying for that agression. I am not at all sure that the Islamic community has forgiven us for the crusades of prior years.

hats
June 7, 2006 - 03:15 am
Mabel,

That comment stopped me dead in my tracks too. "(Gregory) was a Christian as well as a pope"? Now I am remembering all popes did not act like Christians. Some popes became greedy and participated in other inhumane activities. On another note, wasn't there a question about how the Catholic church reacted to the Holocaust? Didn't the last pope, his name has slipped my mind, apologize to the Jewish population for the behavior of the church during the period of Hitler's rampage? My idea is that all popes are popes. Not all popes are Christians.

hats
June 7, 2006 - 03:15 am
Is it too late to ask the definition of a "mystic?"

robert b. iadeluca
June 7, 2006 - 03:27 am
How about THIS?

robert b. iadeluca
June 7, 2006 - 03:38 am
"Nevertheless when Boniface VIII was chosen pope in 1294 the papacy was still the strongest government in Europe, the best organized, the best administered, the richest in revenue.

"It was the misfortune of the Church that at this juncture, nearing the end of a virile and progressive century, the mightiest throne in Christendom should have fallen to a man whose love of the Church, and sincerity of purpose, were equaled by his imperfect morals, his personal pride, and his tactless will to power.

"He was not without charm -- he loved learning and rivaled Innocent III in legal training and wide culture. He founded the University of Rome and restored and extended the Vatican Lirary. He gave commissions to Giotto and Arnolfo di Cambio and helped finance the amazing facade of Orvieto Cathedral. "He had prepared his own elevation by persuading the saintly but incompetent Celestine V to resign after a pontificate of five months -- an unprecedented act that surrounded Boniface with ill will from the start.

"To scotch all plans for a restoration, he ordered the eighty-year-old Celestine to be kept in detention in Rome. Celestine escaped, was captured, escaped again, wandered for weeks through Apulia, reached the Adriatic, attempted a crossing to Dalmatia, was wrecked, was cast ashore in Italy, and was brought before Boniface.

"Hde was condemned by the Pope to imprisonment in a narrow cell at Ferentino. "There, ten months later, he died.

A pope forcing a former pope to resign, then later imprisoning him. Amazing!

Robby

Bubble
June 7, 2006 - 04:16 am
Reality surpassing fiction.

hats
June 7, 2006 - 04:48 am
"by his imperfect morals, his personal pride, and his tactless will to power."

Bubble said it all. "Reality surpassing fiction."

tooki
June 7, 2006 - 07:36 am
feeling like the character out of the James Thurber cartoon who rushes into a cocktail party threateningly shouting, “I come from haunts of coot and fern.”

Regarding Post 702, my view is that Durant is being doubly sarcastic. Perhaps he is suggesting that espousing the Christian values of peace and amity could lead to supporting the warrior values of justice and victory. He certainly enjoys clutching us in the grips of ambiguity. More interesting, perhaps, is his comment, “... the church was again at the summit of her power.” Maybe you folks covered this while I was off in the haunts of coot and fern, but why is the Church she or her? And how many times has her power waxed and waned? Could we plot a graft?

And, hoping it’s not too late, here is William James, brother of famed American novelist Henry, on what mysticism is.

Mysticism Defined by William James America's great psychologist, William James provided a description of the mystical experience in his famous collection of lectures published in 1902 as The Varieties of Religious Experience. :

1. Ineffability - The handiest of the marks by which I classify a state of mind as mystical is negative. The subject of it immediately says that it defies expression, that no adequate report of its contents can be given in words.

2. Noetic Quality - Although so similar to states of feeling, mystical states seem to those who experience them to be also states of knowledge. They are states of insight into depths of truth unplumbed by the discurssive intellect. They are illuminations, revelations, full of significance and importance, all inarticulate though they remain; and as a rule they carry with them a curious sense of authority for aftertime.

3. Transiency - Mystical states cannot be sustained for long.

4. Passivity - Although the oncoming of mystical states may be facilitated by preliminary voluntary operations, as by fixing the attention, or going through certain bodily performances, or in other ways which manuals of mysticism prescribe; yet when the characteristic sort of consciousness once has set in, the mystic feels as if his own will were in abeyance, and indeed sometimes as if he were grasped and held by a superior power. Source: James, William. The Varieties of Religious Experience.

Mallylee
June 7, 2006 - 10:02 am
Great account of mysticism, Tooki, from William James.

I would like to add that the fact that a mystical state can be deliberately engendered by some technique, and although each mystical state correlates with a brain state, these two facts don't in themselves invalidate the mystical state.

For the best illustration of James the mystic feels as if his own will were in abeyance, and indeed sometimes as if he were grasped and held by a superior power

try googling < teresa bernini> and see how sexual ecstasy is an analogy for religious ecstasy

Mallylee
June 7, 2006 - 10:06 am
Maybe the church is 'she' because of being the bride of Christ

Fifi le Beau
June 7, 2006 - 12:36 pm
Pope Gregory X was called the 'Tragic Pope' by Durant. He sought justice for Christians and united them, but then decided to use that unity to invade Palestine. He died and the Christians went back to their dis-united ways.

Pope Celestine V was called saintly but incompetent by Durant. He proved his incompetence by willingly giving up the office of Pope and then spent the rest of his life trying to reclaim it. His courtiers may have influenced his decision, since their own power derived from closeness to him.

Boniface V111 seemed competent but also a conniver and schemer.

With the discussion turning to the Popes, and having just read two long articles about the current Pope Benedict, one in which he played a small but interesting part. With the current 24 hour a day news cycle and thousands of reporters around the world snooping in every corner, even the Vatican is not immune to scrutiny. If Celestine had lived in this century the headline might have read, "Pope on the run" or "Former Pope collared".

The current Pope Benedict made the newspapers and magazines with his designer sunglasses, and lipstick red Prada shoes. The pictures of those red, red shoes against the whiteness of the cassock peaked an interest in what this man was saying about himself. Not having a clue, I opened the June Vanity Fair and read an article on the society pages about Gloria von Thurn und Taxis or Princess TNT as she is known in the press.

Gloria's journey from being married off to her bisexual cousin when he was 53 and she was 20, so that he could produce an heir, to having dinner with the Pope and his handsome new secretary, Don Georg Ganswein at Casa Santa Marta in the Vatican, along with her own girlfriend Alessandra Borghese, was a long one from decadence to "Wow", just the four of us," for Gloria.

She was one of the first lay people to be received by Pope Benedict XV1 after his election. "For her, this was the ultimate triumph" said a titled insider. "In a way, the Vatican is the last old-fashioned court, with an absolute ruler on top and a circle of courtiers around him. It's fascinating for snobs like us to be part of this, and to watch someone like Gloria who has been everywhere and done everything, crack it."

Gloria had known Cardinal Ratzinger since her husbands castle was in Regensburg and the Cardinal owned a house there he shared with his brother. He had lunch at the castle when he would come for visits.

Johannes von Thurn und Taxis, Gloria's husband, had a connection to Rome also. His family made its fortune in the 12th century by securing the Postal monopoly of the Holy Roman Empire. Johannes died after two unsuccessful heart transplants, leaving Gloria a widow. She soon took up with Alessandra Borghese and moved to Rome. These two women are the subject of much gossip in Rome, and their inside status in the Vatican is a puzzlement to many.

Especially those who remember the wild party days when Gloria was on television barking like a dog, getting arrested at the Munich airport with hashish, staying out all night with rock star Prince, or throwing a 60th birthday party for her husband Johannes that included a cake decorated with 60 marzipan phalluses.

She had money, but no power. She became involved with the 'Institute of Christ the King' and Alessandra became involved with Opus Dei. "Their friend Monsignor Schmitz encouraged them to 'create a salon' to restore the relationship between the Vatican hierarchy and the old Roman aristocracy, whose titles went back to the Papal States, and whose privileges had been curtailed by Pope Paul V1 in the 1960's".

The leap from the last Pope and his association with Mother Theresa, and the current Pope and his association with Gloria von Thurn und Taxis is a big one, but probably not that different from the hapless Celestine and his successor Boniface.

Fifi

hats
June 7, 2006 - 01:08 pm
Tooki and Mallylee

I have read your replies about "mysticism." Thanks.

hats
June 7, 2006 - 01:30 pm
Sadly, people pay more attention to the little red shoes worn by Pope Benedict. His shoes attract more attention than his words. Is this because he isn't a good public speaker or are people not ready to substitute him for the last pope? The last pope was so very popular.

robert b. iadeluca
June 7, 2006 - 04:56 pm
"The temper of the new Pope was sharpened by a succession of diplomatic defeats and costly victories.

"He tried to dissuade Frederick of Aragon from accepting the throne of Sicily. When Frederick persisted Boniface excommunicated him and laid an interdict upon the island. Neither King nor people paid any heed to these censures and in the end Boniface reocgnized Frederick.

"To prepare for a crusade he ordered Venice and Genoa to sign a truce. They continued their war for three years more and rejected his intervention in making peace.

"Failing to secure a favorable order in Florence, he placed the city under interdict and invited Charles of Valois to enter and pacify Italy. Charles accomplished nothing but won the hatred of the Florentines for himself and the Pope.

"Seeking peace in his own Papal States, Boniface had attempted to settle a quarrel among the members of the powerful Colonna family. Pietro and Jacopo Colonna. both cardinals, repudiated his suggestion. He deposed and excommunicated them.

"Whereupon the rebellious nobles affixed to the doors of Roman churches and laid upon the altar of St. Peter's a manifesto appealing from the Pope to a general council.

"Boniface repeated the excommunication, extended it to five other rebels, ordered their property confiscated, invaded the Colonna domain with papal troops, captured its fortresses, razed Palestrina to the ground and had salt strewn over its ruins.

"The rebels surrendered, were forgiven, revolted again, were again beaten by the warrior Pope, fled from the Papal States, and planned revenge."

A few decades ago there was an expression which said:-"What if they declared a war and nobody came?

Robby

Bubble
June 8, 2006 - 03:28 am
I received this mail today:

"This man (below, wearing a fabulous vintage chiffon-lined Dior gold lame' gown over a silk Vera Wang empire waist tulle cocktail dress, accessorized with a 3-foot beaded peaked House of Whoville hat, and the ruby slippers Judy Garland wore in the "Wizard of Oz") is worried that The Da Vinci Code might make the Roman Catholic Church look foolish..."

hats
June 8, 2006 - 04:29 am
Shouldn't he have less fear and more faith? He is the head of the church. Surely, he can hold his people together. It's only a fictionalized story.

Bubble
June 8, 2006 - 05:06 am
yes, it is strange to fear so much about fiction. It seems that in their eyes it would be better for people to still be illiterate.

hats
June 8, 2006 - 05:23 am
Literate people usually ask questions and aren't as naive. Some churches would prefer you read only their literature and no literature written outside the organization.

Bubble
June 8, 2006 - 05:29 am
Orthodox Jews are like that too: publishing their own paper and allowing no outside television (no modesty, corruptive they say) nor radio. I prefer to form my own opinion even if I might be wrong sometimes.

Éloïse De Pelteau
June 8, 2006 - 05:33 am
Bubble, me too.

hats
June 8, 2006 - 05:50 am
Bubble and Eloise, me three!

tooki
June 8, 2006 - 09:34 am
Bubble, that'a wonderful. Does anyone recall the 1950's movie,"The Red Shoes," whose plot centers around being unable to stop dancing while wearing the red shoes? Perhaps the gift of the red shoes is part of becoming Pope.

In this link we can see Boniface's gold helmet, but,alas, we are unable to see his red shoes.

It is the last line in this famous proclamation that,in the view of some historians, laid the groundwork for the Reformation. The Reformers wanted no one between themselves and God.

mabel1015j
June 8, 2006 - 10:47 am
Thanks today to Bubbles and Hats. I'm LOL......jean

Mallylee
June 8, 2006 - 11:54 pm
Hats and Bubble, keep up with the lighter side Please.

robert b. iadeluca
June 9, 2006 - 04:26 am
"Among these Italian tribulations Boniface was suddenly confronted by a major crisis in France.

"Philip IV resolved to unify his realm, had seized the English province of Gascony, Edward I had declared war.

"Now, to finance their struggle both kings decided to tax the property and personnel of the Church. The popes had permitted such taxation for crusades but never for a purely secular war.

"The French clergy had recognized their duty of contributing to the defense of the state that protected their possessions but they feared that if the power of the state to tax were unchecked, it would be a power to destroy. Philip had alrady reduced the role of the clergy in Frnace. He had removed them from the manorial and royal courts and from their old posts in the administration of the government and in the council of the king.

"Disturbed by this trend, the Cistercian Order refused to send Philip the fifth of their revenues which he had asked for the war with England and its head addressed an appeal to the Pope.

"Boniface had to move carefully for France had long been the chief support of the papacy in the struggle with Germany and the Empire. But he felt that the economic basis of the power and freedom of the Church would soon be lost if she could be short of her revenues by state taxation of Church property without papal consent.

"In February, 1296, he issued one of the most famous bulls in ecclesiastical history. Its first words, Clericis laicos, gave it a name. Its first sentence made an unwise admission, and its tone recalled the papal bolts of Gregory VII:-

'Antiquity reports that laymen are exceedingly hostile to the clergy. And our experience certainly shows this to be true at present. With the counsel of our brethren, and by our apostolic authority, we decree that if any clergy shall pay to laymen any part of their income or possessions without the permission of the pope, they shall incur excommunication. And we also decree that all persons of whatever power or rank who shall demand or receive such taxes, or shall seize or cause to be seized, the property of churches or of the clery shall incur excommunication.'"

It's the economy, stupid!

Robby

Mallylee
June 9, 2006 - 09:44 am
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's. The Church represented Caesar in this instance, and so did the King of France represent Caesar. the question that puzzles me is

'who represented God?'

Rich7
June 9, 2006 - 10:12 am
At that time the Church saw themselves as representing both Caesar and God.

May that never happen again.

Rich

Rich7
June 9, 2006 - 06:40 pm
Just looked at my second sentence in the last posting. Sort of sounds like a little prayer doesn't it?

Like the painter Paul Gauguin once said, "I'm still an atheist, thank God."

Rich

Mallylee
June 9, 2006 - 11:53 pm
Atheists have as much right to pray as anyone else. We dont have to buy the whole farm. Your country and mine are free countries

robert b. iadeluca
June 10, 2006 - 04:53 am
"Philip called two assemblies (March and June, 1303.) which drew up a formal indictment of Boniface as a tyrant, sorcerer, murderer, embezzler, adulterer, sodomite, simoniac, idolator, and infidel and demanded his deposition by a general council of the Church.

"The King commissioned William of Nogaret, his chief legist, to go to Rome and notify the Pope of the King's appeal to a general council.

"Boniface, then in the papal palace at Anagni, declared that only the pope could call a general council and prepared a decree excommunicating Philip and laying an interdict upon France. Before he could issue it William of Nogaret, and Sciarra Colonna, heading a band of 2000 mercenaries, burst into the palace, presented Philip's message of notification, and demanded the Pope's resignation.

"Boniface refused. A tradition 'of considerable trustworthiness' says that Sciarra struck the Pontiff in the face and would have killed him had not Nogaret intervened. Boniface was seventy-five years old, physically weak, but still defiant. For three days he was kept a prisoner in his palace while the mercenaries plundered it.

"Then the people of Anangni, reinforced by 400 horsemen from the Orsini clan scatterd the mercenaries and freed the Pope. Apparently his jailers had given him no food in the three days for standing in the market place he begged;-'If there be any good woman who would give me an alms of wine and bread, I would bestow upon her God's blessing and mine.' The Orsini led him to Rome and the Vatican.

"There he fell into a violent fever and in a few days he died.

Your comments, please?

Robby

Mallylee
June 10, 2006 - 07:17 am
I dont understand how Pope Boniface did not have an army of his own for his protection, and for the protection of the papacy. Did he not have spies at the court of the Kng of France?

I would have thought that the papacy would be rich enough to pay a large number of mercenaries

robert b. iadeluca
June 10, 2006 - 07:38 am
Does the current Pope have spies and mercenaries?

Robby

Bubble
June 10, 2006 - 08:10 am
It would not be surprising; anyone with a degree of power over others would also have some kind of spying system and a defensive program. If it exists in politics, in governments, why not in the Church?

Justin
June 10, 2006 - 12:19 pm
Phillip charged Pope Boniface as a tyrant,sorcerer,murderer, embezzler,adulterer,sodomite, simoniac,idolator, and infidel.We impeached a sitting president for lying to us about a little sex on the side. It appears we grow more intolerant as civilization advances.

Rich7
June 10, 2006 - 12:46 pm
He didn't just lie to us (which is bad enough). He lied under oath to a grand jury.

Justin, you're equating intolerance with law enforcement. I guess it's intolerance when your lawbreaker gets caught,and justice when the other side's lawbreaker is caught.

Rich

robert b. iadeluca
June 10, 2006 - 12:49 pm
Careful, folks. Please stick to what was going on in the Church and Empires in the 13th century.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
June 10, 2006 - 05:46 pm
"His successor, Benedict XI excommunicated Nogaret, Sciarra Colonna and thirteen others whom he had seen breaking into the palace at Anagni.

"A month later Benedict died at Perugia, apparently poisoned by Italian Ghibellines.

"Philip agreed to support Bertrand de Bot, Archbishop of Bordeaux, for the papacy if he would adopt a conciliatory policy, absolve those who had been excommunicated for the attack upon Boniface, allow an annual income tax of ten per cent to be levied upon the French clergy for five years, restore the Colonnas to their offices and property, and condemn the memory of Boniface.

"We do not know how far Bertrand consented. He was chosen Pope and took the name of Clement V. The cardinals warned him that his life would be unsafe in Rome and after some hesitation and perhaps a pointed suggestion from Philip, Clement removed the papal seat to Avignon on the east bank of the Rhone just outside the southeastern boundary of France.

"So began the sixty eight years of the 'Babylonian Captivity' of the popes.

The papacy had freed itself from Germany and surrendered to France."

The papacy on the run.

Robby

Justin
June 10, 2006 - 06:26 pm
Rich: The thought I had in mind was that today we impeach for trivial charges while in the period of Boniface we impeached for real High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Justin
June 10, 2006 - 06:33 pm
The German princes forced several Popes to run while Philip of France successfuly changed the Papal residence for sixty-five years.

3kings
June 10, 2006 - 08:40 pm
It has always surprised me how apparently fearful of excommunication folk were in those days.

They broke the laws of Christian living with deplorable regularity, so they must have looked upon teachings of Christ with a large measure of contempt.

This being so, why were so many fearful of excommunication ? Odd, don't you think ? Is this just another example of the illogical attitudes often found among some believers? +++ Trevor

tooki
June 10, 2006 - 09:02 pm
There are numerous references in Google and in the Cathaloic Advent Encyclopedia to the Army of the papacy. What is lacking is a chronological history, i.e., development, personnel, uses, etc. I think that in many of these "historical incidents," such as poor, bereft, and seemingly abandoned Boniface begging in the market place, evidence is lacking about what actually happened. We're still in the 1300 hundreds when literacy is low and there were no "chronologicalists." (Except Catholics.) Come on! It took 2000 mercenaries 3 days to plunder the palace? And when this band of mercenaries "burst into the palace," they knew where the Pope was because of spys. Well, Durant has always promised stories, and if this is his story I hope he sticks to it.

Justin
June 10, 2006 - 11:25 pm
Believers today, as in 1300,accept the idea of punishment in hell for lapses and just as strongly believe in the power of confession and penance to absolve them of guilt. Jesus died for our sins. Those concepts are rock solid. None of us are perfect. We are all prone to sin and absolution gets us off the hook.

Excomunication cuts the sinner off from the absolving benefits of cofession and penance. Thus dooming one to hell if death occurs. That's the reason excomunication is such a powerful weapon. Used sparingly, it can control unruly rulers.

Justin
June 10, 2006 - 11:40 pm
Reference is often made to the "laws" of Christianity. I suppose those laws are the Mosaic laws-the ten commandments. Four of those laws are social and six are religious laws. They are Hebraic in origin and Christian by adoption.

Mallylee
June 11, 2006 - 01:52 am
I wonder if it was only the power that comes from the threat of Hell after death that was the whole of the power of the Church, plus of course the belief in the power of confession to one of the Church's priests, to absolve one of sins.It must have been mentally and emotionally agonising to know one was about to die, unshriven.(as Justin,#754)

I wonder if the Church was like a club where only members are given the best breaks, and protected from the law of the land.

robert b. iadeluca
June 11, 2006 - 03:04 am
Retrospect

robert b. iadeluca
June 11, 2006 - 03:16 am
"The testimony against Boniface, true or false, reveals the undercurrent of skepticism that was preparing to end the Age of Faith.

"Likewise the blow -- physical or political given Boniface VIII at Anagni marks in one sense the beginning of 'modern times.'

"It was the victory of nationalism aagainst super-nationanlism, of the state against the Church, of the power of the sword over the magic of the word. The papacy had been weakened by its struggle against the Hohenstaufens and by the failure of the Crusades.

"France and England had been strengthened by the collapse of the Empire and France had been enriched by acquiring Languedoc with the help of the Church.

"Perhaps the popular support given to Philip IV against Boniface vIII reflected public resentment of the excesses of the Inquisition and the Albigensian Crusade. Some of Nogaret's ancestors, it was said, had been burnd by the inquisitors.

"Boniface had not realized, in undertaking so many conflicts, that the weapons of the papacy had been blunted by overuse. Industry and commerce had generated a class less pious than the peasantry. Life and thought were becoming secularized, the laity was coming into its own.

"For seventy years now the state would absorb the Church."

The title of the volume we are now examining is The Age of Faith. In the past year or so we have been together sharing what was going on in the era of the Church. Now things are about to change.

As Durant puts it, we are entering "modern times." The power of the Church will still be there, but less so. Is this change comparable to the differences between "secular Europe" and "religious America?"

Robby

Éloïse De Pelteau
June 11, 2006 - 04:32 am
What a significant parallel this is Robby. "As Durant puts it, we are entering "modern times." The power of the Church will still be there, but less so. Is this change comparable to the differences between "secular Europe" and "religious America?"

It really brings out what makes Europe and America different even today. Secularism preceded "Modern Times". To my view what defines people is their individual spirituality. It permeates everything we do, what we think, how we act, how we interact, right to how we feel about our country and even more so how we get along.

International Diplomacy is then no more than understanding the religion of the enemy, without that understanding, peace talks is no more than a tea party for the benefit of the media because the populace, deep inside, makes no compromise. You can't silence God's inner voice transmitted by prophets to those unable or unwilling to find a better way to fill a void that needs filling at all cost. Those who claim they don't need a God to be happy choose just as demanding and unrelenting a master as Him, whether it is seeking higher knowledge or recognition in scientific, academic or artistic achievement.

We need to reach for a higher goal to have a purpose in life, or else what is the use of being alive?

Bubble
June 11, 2006 - 06:20 am
The end of the Age of Faith marks the beginning of Modern Times and secularism.

America is turning more toward religion lately. Is that a step forward or backward?

Life is all around us. Does it all have a purpose? Life just is, IMO.

Rich7
June 11, 2006 - 07:40 am
Eloise,

I couldn't help but notice how your last statement-

"We need to reach for a higher goal to have a purpose in life, or else what is the use of being alive?"

paraphrased the Robert Browning line-

"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for."

Great minds think alike.

Rich

Mallylee
June 11, 2006 - 08:22 am
Eloise and Rich , I like that. I am glad to be acquainted with the Browning quote.

Bubble,I believe that each individual makes their own purpose(s). Naturally, some individuals have more liberty to do so than others have. Indiviuals who are indoctrinated with a religious creed are less free than independent thinkers. all other considerations being equal.

I know one English teacher who has to un-doctrinate her pupils before thay can understand the breadth of English lit

robert b. iadeluca
June 11, 2006 - 08:26 am
The Browning quote which I feel close to is --

"Grow old along with me;
The best is yet to be;
The last of life for which the first is made."

Robby

Mallylee
June 11, 2006 - 08:30 am
Give me back, give me back

The wild freshness of morning

Its tears and its joys are worth evening's best light

(Moore, possibly slightly mis-quoted but not mangled I hope)

robert b. iadeluca
June 11, 2006 - 08:55 am
That's too sad for me, Mallylee. I prefer "the best is yet to be."

Robby

Rich7
June 11, 2006 - 09:53 am
Excuse me, but could we get back to Durant?

(I always wanted to do that.)

tooki
June 11, 2006 - 11:13 am
Not until I share these lines from Yeats' "The Tower."

What shall I do with this absurdity

O heart, O troubled heart - this caricature,

Decrepit age that has been tied to me

As to a dog's tail?

Bubble
June 11, 2006 - 11:59 am
Not long ago we talked about St Benedict. I found a grea tsite on him.

St Benedict

It is part of this:

http://www.efn.org/~acd/medievalpage.html#Religion

This is on the Beguines:

http://www.spiritualitytoday.org/spir2day/91431peters.html

Bubble
June 11, 2006 - 12:26 pm
Mallylee, Tooki and Robby, my quotation would be:

"If my decomposing carcass helps nourish the roots of a juniper tree or the wings of a vulture - that is immortality enough for me." -Edward Abbey, naturalist and author (1927-1989)

robert b. iadeluca
June 11, 2006 - 01:26 pm
I was feeling wonderful until you folks moved in.

Robby

Éloïse De Pelteau
June 11, 2006 - 01:47 pm
Please forgive us Robby, we don't deserve your dedicated leadership, the excuse is that Spring is here and we feel a wee bit naughty and anxious for Summer break.

tooki
June 11, 2006 - 03:15 pm
I admire Edward Abbey so much that I went on a search for more of his pithy, wisdomful, and quotable comments. There's lots, but I settled for this.

I believe this is the route back to where we got lost.

Rich7
June 11, 2006 - 04:05 pm
Interesting segue, Tooki. Quotes from famous people on religion. My favorite from the selection is:

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. Steven Weinberg (1933 - ), quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999

Are these successions of Popes that Durant is showing us examples of good people doing evil things under the aegis of religion, or just plain old evil people doing evil things?

Rich

Adrbri
June 11, 2006 - 09:17 pm
In a speech by Steven Weinberg on whether the world was "designed" by a deity, he said the following : -

This is much too big a question to be settled here. On one side, I could point out endless examples of the harm done by religious enthusiasm, through a long history of pogroms, crusades, and jihads. In our own century it was a Muslim zealot who killed Sadat, a Jewish zealot who killed Rabin, and a Hindu zealot who killed Gandhi. No one would say that Hitler was a Christian zealot, but it is hard to imagine Nazism taking the form it did without the foundation provided by centuries of Christian anti-Semitism. On the other side, many admirers of religion would set countless examples of the good done by religion. For instance, in his recent book Imagined Worlds, the distinguished physicist Freeman Dyson has emphasized the role of religious belief in the suppression of slavery.

This philosophy is in keeping with his much-quoted saying about "good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things", and the need for religion to enable "good people to do bad things.

The more I read in this discussion group ( and elsewhere ) the more I tend to feel that a simplistic view of good and bad in life might be preferable to embracing a religion with dictatorial tendencies.

Brian

Justin
June 11, 2006 - 10:23 pm
Southern religious ministers had no trouble finding justification for their peculiar institution in the bible and today, ministers, north and south, find the admonitions they seek against those they choose to exclude with similar ease. The evil is contained in the document. Humans simply implement the evil they find in their message from "God."

Justin
June 11, 2006 - 10:28 pm
Abe Lincoln's quote is my favorite. "When I do good,I feel good; When I do bad,I feel bad,and that is my religion.

robert b. iadeluca
June 12, 2006 - 03:52 am
"Looking back over the panorama of Latin Christianity, we are impressed, above all, by the relative unanimity of religious faith among diverse peoples, and the overspreading hierarchy and power of the Roman Church, giving to Western Europe -- non-Slavic, non-Byzantine Europe -- a unity of mind and morals such as it has never known again.

"Nowhere else in history has an organization wielded so profound an influence over so many men for so long a time. The authority of the Roman republic and Empire over its immense realm endured from Pompey to Alaric, 480 years. That of the Mongol Empire or the British Empire some 200 years.

"But the Roman Catholic Church was the dominant force in Europe from the death of Charlemagne to the death of Boniface - 489 years. Her organization and administration do not appear to have been as competent as that of the Roman Empire, nor was her personnel as capable or cultured as the men who governed the provinces and cities for the Caesars.

"But the Church inherited a barbarous bedlam and had to find a laborious way back to order and education. Even so her clergy were the best instructed men of the age and it was they who provided the only education available in Western Europe during the five centuries of her supremacy. Her courts offered the justest justice of their time. Her papal Curia, sometimes venal, sometimes incorruptible, constituted in some degree a world court for the arbitration of international disputes and the limittion of war.

"Although that court was always too Italian, the Italians were the best trained minds of those centuries and any man could rise to membership in that court from any rank and nation in Latin Christendom."

Have we, in this discussion, been looking at the Roman Catholic glass as half empty? Durant asks us to see it as half-full.

Robby

telegrl
June 12, 2006 - 08:41 am
I read "The Age of Faith" many years ago....have forgotten too much..but it seems that I learned that every culture has some form of religion/faith, that espouses values to live by and taboo's that are to be avoided. Terrible things have been done in the name of religion.

The volume is beautifully written and covers so much information and gives us a sense of why we are the we way we are. haaaa

robert b. iadeluca
June 12, 2006 - 01:04 pm
Good to have you with us, Telegrl!!

Some participants here read it in the past but many of us find we get more out of it to read -- or re-read -- while sharing thoughts with others.

Robby

Justin
June 12, 2006 - 01:26 pm
Welcome to the discussion, Telegrl. Take the book off the shelf and turn to page 817. Re-read it and tell us what you thnk? The death of Boniface is not the end of the struggle but the beginning of a long slow slide to the enlightenment.

Mallylee
June 12, 2006 - 01:47 pm
Robby#779 I do find that reading and discussing Origin of Species with others is far better than reading on my own. I never read The Story of Civilisation before, and I am sure that my reading gains much from others' comments , and my own reaction to others' comments

tooki
June 12, 2006 - 04:57 pm
it’s spilled all over the face of Europe. In a previous post concerning the misadventures of Boniface VIII, I ranted about papal armies, spies, and mercenaries (along with the rest of you.)

I’ve found an account that organizes the few facts that are known about Boniface’s ignominious fall from grandeur, power, and aggression and the European emerging monarchies claim to absolutism. It is from “Medieval History,” by Norman Cantor (1930-2004):

“Boniface was driven to the wall by the French government; he had left only the ultimate weapon in the spiritual armory of the papacy. He repaired to his family’s palace at Anagni to prepare a bull of excommunication and deposition against the king of France. But he had not anticipated the physical violence which the royal government was prepared to bring against him. Nogaret had been dispatched on a secret mission to Italy to capture the pope and bring him back to France for trial. With the support of personal enemies of Boniface and his family among the Italian nobility, and the secret connivance of some cardinal, Nogaret took the pope prisoner at Abagni and started northward. It is difficult to see how Nogaret could have hoped to get Boniface back to France, but in any case the people of Abagni and the pope’s aristocratic relatives freed Boniface and escorted him back to Rome, where he die a broken man almost immediately. ...Dante perceived that the events at Anaagni were a momentous turning point in the history of civilization. All Europe waited anxiously for the next act of this fantastic tragedy.”

robert b. iadeluca
June 12, 2006 - 05:51 pm
"Where the Church was not threatened she resonded with considerable tolerance for diverse, even heretical, views.

"We shall find an unexpected freedom of thought among the philosophers of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, even among professors at universities chartered and supervised by the Church.

"All that she asked was that such discussions should be confined and intelligible only to the educated and should not take the form of revolutionary appeals to the people to abandon their creed or the Church.

"Says her most industrious recent critic: 'The Church as it embraced the whole population, embraced also every type of mind, from the most superstitious to the most agnostic. Many of these unorthodox elements worked far more freely under the cloak of outward conformity, than is generally supposed.'

"All in all, the picture that we form of the medieval Latin Church is that of a complex organizationn doing its best despite the human frailties of its adherents and its leaders to establish moral and social order and to spread an uplifting and consoling faith amid the wreckage of an old civilization and the passions of an adolescent society.

"The sixty century Church found Europe a flotsam of migratory barbarians, a babel of tongues and creeds, a chaos of unwritten and incalcuable laws. She gave it a moral code buttressed with superntural sanctions strong enough to check the unsocial impulses of violent men.

"She offered it monastic retreats for men, women, and classic manuscripts. She governed it with episcopal courts, educated it with schools and universities and tamed the kings of the earth to moral responsibility and the tasks of peace. She brightened the lives of her children with poetry, drama, and song, and inspired them to raise the noblest works of art in history.

"Unable to establish a utopia of equality among unequally able men, she organized charity and hospitality and in some measure protected the weak from the strong.

"She was, beyond question, the greatest civilizing force in medieval European history."

If there had not been the Church as a civilizing force to "check the passions of an adolescent society," then what other force might there have been?

Robby

Justin
June 12, 2006 - 06:06 pm
I think the downfall of the Church bagan with Urban 11 when he launched the first crusade. That was the beginning of the search for secular objectives. His agents took Palastine and Jerusalem. He and his successors challenged the power of the kings of Europe. Innocent 111 and his successors, blood thirsty and sadistic, tortured and suppressed thousands of innocent people including women and children.

A revolt was inevitable. Ferdinand of Germany showed the way and Phillip of France brought down the structure that dominated Europe for centuries. What is left, today, is only a shell of the former power structure but make no mistake, what is left is still very potent.

kiwi lady
June 12, 2006 - 09:40 pm
I have heard the Catholic church refer to those monks or nuns who had visions and made prophecies as mystics.

mabel1015j
June 13, 2006 - 12:23 am
Altho it didn't last as long, the Roman Empire did a pretty good job of civilizing its territory. The Byzantine Empire made some pretty good progress in many of those areas we call civilization. Was the Islam rule any more violent, warlike, etc than Chritianity? There were some major scientific, mathmatic, astronomical, artistic, accomplishments in the Islam world.

So ......did the Catholic Church give us anything that any other powerful enity wouldn't have? All of those powers were administered by human beings - regardles of how Durant writes it, the Church WAS human beings, not a lone-standing structure. And human beings are human beings whereever and whenever they are.

So Robby, my answer is that there may have been a king or emporer who could have pulled together another empire, but the one thing he wouldn't have is the spiritual pull and continuance that a religious idea has to bind people together and to sustain that community for a long time, it's hard to picture a person being able to do that w/out the spiritual/emotional tie to bind it together........jean

Mallylee
June 13, 2006 - 12:40 am
Tooki's post with the bit from Cantor Boniface’s ignominious fall from grandeur, power, and aggression and the European emerging monarchies claim to absolutism

is a helpful overview of the development of absolute monarchies. I now get a smidgin of an idea that monarchies before the fall of Boniface were different from after the fall of Boniface.

Would Tooki please provide a link or something about how the monarchies were previously?

For instance, were the monarchs over-ruled by barons? Or by priests, or both?

Mallylee
June 13, 2006 - 12:50 am
"All that she asked was that such discussions should be confined and intelligible only to the educated and should not take the form of revolutionary appeals to the people to abandon their creed or the Church.

That's paternalism taken to what seems now to be excess. Democracy was unheard of then. The above could be a description of Islamic states now. And of China.

Mallylee
June 13, 2006 - 12:55 am
She gave it a moral code buttressed with superntural sanctions strong enough to check the unsocial impulses of violent men.

Robby, I cannot imagine any other sort of government that would have been as civilising as an authoritarian religion with supernatural sanctions. Also although I am an unbeliever, I support Christianity because of the possibility of humanism that is given by the doctrine of the Incarnation.

robert b. iadeluca
June 13, 2006 - 03:28 am
The Morals and Manners of Christendom

robert b. iadeluca
June 13, 2006 - 03:44 am
Please note the new GREEN quotes above. This section should prove to be exceedingly interesting and provocative.

"Man in the jungle or hunting stags had to be greedy -- to seek food eagerly and gorge himself zealously -- because, when food came, he could not be sure when it would come again.

"He had to be sexually sensitive, often promiscuous, because a high death rate compelled a high birth rate. Every woman had to be made a mother whenever possible, and the function of the male was to be always in heat. He had to be pugnacious, ever ready to fight for food or more.

"Vices were once virtues, indispensable to survival.

"But when man found that the best means of survival for individual as well as species, was social organization, he expanded the hunting pack into a system of social order in which the instincts once so useful in the hunting stage had to be checked at every turn to make society possible.

"Ethically every civilization is a balance and tension between the jungle instinct of men and the inhibition of a moral code. The instincts without the inhibitions would end civilization. The inhibitions without the instincts would end life.

"The problem of morality is to adjust inhibitions to protect civilization without enfeebling life."

Just instincts=no civilization. Just inhibitions=no life. Your thoughts please?

Robby

hats
June 13, 2006 - 04:34 am
Inhibitions? This is about subjects civilized societies are afraid to address in the belief that discussion causes people to take action. Really, inhibition causes pressure in society, causes people to hate and despise their society. In the end inhibitions will become forgotten. People always choose survival over pleasing Christiandom or any other "dom."

Mallylee
June 13, 2006 - 05:11 am
I agree that 'instincts' have to be suppressed for civilisation to be possible. However. I doubt if mankind was ever, at any period in history or pre-history devoid of the ability to co-operate with others, and even to co-operate with dogs, a species that has always been opportunistic, as one of its defining characteristics.

Even hunting has to be a social activity. Durant really should quote some serious social psychology and archaeology before he assumes that there ever was such a being as an adult human who was unable to co-operate with others. As for women always having to be pregnant(or nursing one assumes). this is still generally the case when adults have to depend on child labour, especially when there is a high death rate.

hats
June 13, 2006 - 05:15 am
Hunting and gathering societies were social activities. However, often other clans or groups fought against one another to survive. So, was it a "social activity?"

Mallylee
June 13, 2006 - 05:19 am
Warfare is very much a social activity.One of the main abilities of every civilisation has been to protect the people against foreigners, and even to be aggressors in order to further the interests of their own civilisation.

I am using the word and concept 'civilised' as a description, not as moral praise

Justin
June 13, 2006 - 12:51 pm
Mallylee: When you say you support Christianity because of the possibility of humanism in the doctrine of the incarnation, what do you mean? You have lost me.

Justin
June 13, 2006 - 01:08 pm
One reason the church was a greater civilizing force than civil governments, is it's universality. It was dominant and ubiquitus in Europe and parts of Africa as well as Asia and to the extent it controlled anti-social behavior,it contributed to civilization. The Church provided a moral tradition (such as it was). Through its organizing powers I think, it served to bring people together, at least on Sundays, thus diminishing chaos. The Church fostered the arts if not the pursuit of knowledge and it resisted the power of commercial enterprise. The net effect on civilization,I think, was mixed although positive.

robert b. iadeluca
June 13, 2006 - 04:53 pm
"In the task of moderating human violence, promiscuity, and greed, certain instincts, chiefly social, took the lead and provided a biological basis for civilization.

"Parental love, in beast and man, created the natural social order of the family with its educative discipline and mutual aid.

"Parental authority, half a pain of love and half a joy of tyranny, transmitted a life-saving code of social conduct to the individualistic child.

"The organized force wielded by chieftain, baron, city, or state circumscribed and largely circumvented the unorganized force of individuals.

"Love of approval bent the ego to the will of the group. Custom and imitation guided the adolescent, now and then, into ways sanctioned by the trial-and-error experience of the race. Law frightened instinct with the specter of punishment.

"Conscience tamed youth with the detritus of an endless stream of prohibitions."

Is this how civilization comes about?

Robby

Justin
June 13, 2006 - 09:24 pm
I wonder if a tendency toward civilization is built -in to humans. Parental control, family attachments, a need for approval, have been with us since Sumeria and probably preceded Sumeria.Internecine warfare may have been minimized as a result but family against family and tribe against tribe etc continu to be viable.

Mallylee
June 14, 2006 - 12:39 am
Justin, I mean that Christ(i DONT mean the historical Jesus!) can be interpreted as (and sometimes is interpreted as) the sporadical goodness of suffering, lonely, fatherless humanity. I wish I could write better about this, but I am new to it and still working it out.

I agree with your #797

Mallylee
June 14, 2006 - 12:46 am
Justin, I understand that all primates are social, and this ability of primates is not variable between species. In addition to this social ability, humans are noted for cerebral development , so Yes, I'd guess that humankind has it built in to the species to live in civilised groups

robert b. iadeluca
June 14, 2006 - 03:23 am
"The Church believed that these natural or secular sources of morality could not suffice to control the impulses that preserve life in the jungle but destroy order in a society.

"Those impulses are too strong to be deterred by any human authority that cannot be everywhere at once with awesome police.

"A moral code bitterly uncongenial to the flesh must bear the seal of a supernatural origin. If it is to be obeyed, it must carry a divine sanction and prestige that will be respected by the soul in the absence of any force and in the most secret moments and coverts of life.

"Even parental authority, so vital to moral and social order, breaks down in the contest with primitive instincts unless it is buttressed by religious belief inculcated in the child. To serve and save a society, a religion must oppose to insistent instict no disputable man-made directives, but the undebatable, categorical imperatives of God Himself.

And those divine commandments (so sinful or savage is man) must be supported not only by praise and honor bestowed for obeying them, not only by disgrace and penalties imposed for violating them, but also by the hope of heaven for unrequited virtue and the fear of hell for unpunished sin.

"The commandments must come not from Moses but from God."

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
June 14, 2006 - 03:27 am
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

- - - Voltaire

Éloïse De Pelteau
June 14, 2006 - 06:22 am
If not from Moses, then who should they come from? If each individual made their own moral code, would there be order in society?

And Voltaire was an avowed atheist.

When reading Durant, we can observe his Jesuit education so well. I guess he is now summerizing the Age of Faith volume.

Mallylee
June 14, 2006 - 06:25 am
Durant apparently has no idea about the stages of moral development until the final mature moral sense arrives. Durant stops at an immature stage, that of rewards and punishments.

While this is useful as a stop-gap when the common people need to be controlled in an emergency, it's no way for the RC Church to be thinking today, in advanced Western civilisations, when every child gets an education in social development and civics

Mallylee
June 14, 2006 - 06:35 am
Eloise, if each individual made their own moral code there would not be order in society and all the social community would break down.Something like this is happening in Iraq ; not quite individuals are disconnected, but the separate credal groups are alienated from each other, unable to reason as individuals.

This is what tends to happen when a medieval religion such as RC or Islam represses the individual moral development of children, and indoctrinates them with an ethical code that is tangled up with an outworn belief system.

Individuals who are not morally autonomous are unable to function without an unshakable moral creed. When the society structure breaks down, as it has in Iraq, the various unshakable creeds attract warring individuals, each of whom believes that his party's creed is the right one.

Only morally autonomous and sympathetic individuals can function morally without having a creed imposed on them. One of the aims of Western education is to lead children to reason morally for themselves.

mabel1015j
June 14, 2006 - 10:06 am
to have order in the group - and has developed them. Many communities pre-Moses and post- Moses had very similar rules of law. The first written ones, that we know about, were Hammurabi's Code of Laws. But every literate civilization since then has had almost identical basic rules......... jean

Scrawler
June 14, 2006 - 10:18 am
I think it is the environment in which we live that forces into social groups not only for our protection and protection of our young from predators, but also the forces of nature.

robert b. iadeluca
June 14, 2006 - 04:52 pm
"The biological theory of primitive instincts unfitting man for civilization was symbolized in Christian theology by the doctrine of original sin.

"Like the Hindu conception of karma, this was an attempt to explain apparently unmerited suffering. The good endured evil here becaue of some ancestral sin.

"In Christian theory the whole human race had been tainted by the sin of Adam and Eve. Said Gratian's Decretum, unofficially accepted by the Church as her teaching:- 'Every human being who is conceived by the coition of a man with a woman is born with original sin, subject to impiety and death, and therefore a child of wrath.' and only divine grace and the atoning death of Christ could save him from wickedness and damnation (only the gentle example of the martyred Christ could redeem man from violence, lust, and greed and save him and his society from destruction).

"The preaching of this doctrine, combined with natural catastrophes that seemed unintelligible except as punishments for sin, gave many medieval Christians a sense of inborn impurity, depravity, and guilt, which colored much of their literature before 1200,

"Thereafter that sense of sin and fear of hell diminished until the Reformation, to reappear with fresh terror among the Puritans."

Robby

Justin
June 14, 2006 - 05:20 pm
Religious authority would like us to accept the idea that secular law is not enough to control disparate interests in society. Secular law was sufficient in ancient Greece and in ancient Rome to make society function as a controled unit. The Golden rule, and the admonitions against killing, stealing, and coveting another's wife, are secular rules that reduce chaos and allow us to advance. I fail to understand how belief in a God who punishes those who do not adhere to his special rules can make society any less chaotic.

Justin
June 14, 2006 - 09:47 pm
"Only the gentle example of the martyred Christ could redeem man from violence and lust...."

This is double speak... the martyred Christ is anything but gentle.He is a victim. He is a tortured figure, wracked by pain and punctures.

Also, why would anyone want to redeem man from lust. It is the central ingredient in human creation.

Bubble
June 14, 2006 - 10:49 pm
"Every human being who is conceived by the coition of a man with a woman is born with original sin, subject to..."

It almost makes it sound as if coition is sin. Many believed it as well. It is the mode chosen by God for reproduction, how can it be sinful.

Justin I agree with your post #810. I could not say it better.

Mallylee
June 15, 2006 - 12:09 am
I thought that the previous page from Durant was prudish opinions of the authors, but this page #809 now seems like an account of 'Christian theory'.Apologies to Durants.

I think that the 'sin' emphasis on important emotional drives such as sex and aggression is what is wrong with Christian doctrine. I think that these crude emotions are OK when tempered with reason and sympathy for others, but reason and sympathy have to be nurtured to flourish properly. This particular Christian doctrine often has to be untaught so that the guilt can be got rid of before the person can learn mature reason and sympathy.. An example of what i mean is simple sexual prudishness ; the sexual drive cannot be understood in oneself, in others, or academically unless it is felt and viewed as a natural given.Prudishness, a sort of rationalised taboo, veils the reality of emotions.

Guilt is crude form of control. I suppose that at the time when Christian doctrine was a serious form of social control, i.e. medieval Europe,there was no other mechanism, such as education for everybody, or a universal pagan moral system, for social control.

Supernatural-based religions have this amazing staying power! I dont think the fascination that the supernatural theories have, is entirely inculcated by the magisteria, I think it's an intrinsic attraction, perhaps the one that Freud suggested, that people are attracted to a fatherly power.

I saw a TV documentary programme about three young lay women in emotional trouble, who went to live the life of Poor Clare nuns for 40 days, to try to sort themselves out. These nuns came over as such good people, and the routines of the convent as so sensible, that I had to think again about their belief in God

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2006/06_june/01/convent.shtml

hats
June 15, 2006 - 01:50 am
"The preaching of this doctrine, combined with natural catastrophes that seemed unintelligible except as punishments for sin, gave many medieval Christians a sense of inborn impurity, depravity, and guilt, which colored much of their literature before 1200,"

"Thereafter that sense of sin and fear of hell diminished until the Reformation, to reappear with fresh terror among the Puritans."

All the way back to 1200 people have tried to make catastrophic suffering equal with sin. If the plague entered your home, members of your family died, than you were evil, maybe an adulterer, you didn't provide for your family on and on and on...When people feel that catastrophes happen because of what they would define as "sin," peculiar and nonsensical and dangerous situations occur.

The Salem Witch Trials began when a horrible event happened between two Puritan families facing hard times.

Salem Trials

Arthur Miller wrote a play titled "The Crucible.

hats
June 15, 2006 - 01:58 am
The Crucible

robert b. iadeluca
June 15, 2006 - 03:15 am
Premarital Morality

robert b. iadeluca
June 15, 2006 - 03:20 am
"How far did medieval morality reflect or justify medieval ethical theory? Let us first look at the picture, with no thesis to prove.

"The first moral incident of the Christian life ws baptism. The child was solemnly inducted into the community and the Church and was vicariously subjected to their laws. Every child received a 'Christian name' -- that is, usually the name of some Christian saint.

"Surnames (i.e. addded names) were of motley origin and could go back through generations to kinship, occupation, place, a feature of body or character, even a bit of church ritual -- Cicely Wilkinsdoughter, James Smith, Margaret Ferrywoman, Matthew Paris, Agnes Redhead, John Merriman, Robert Litany, Robert Benedicite or Benedict."

Any comments about names?

Robby

Bubble
June 15, 2006 - 03:41 am
In Jewish homes, the names for the firstborn daughters and sons would be the names of their grandparents on both sides, even if they were still alive. Thus the chain of genealogy could be followed, the same as many careers were continued from father to son. On my mother side, all the firstborn sons (almost all since the Inquisition in 1500) have been Benoit, Benjamin or hebraic Yom Tov on every second generation. The family name Castel was in all probability from the village in Spain called Castello or El Castillo.

robert b. iadeluca
June 15, 2006 - 04:15 am
I am told (with no verification) that my ancestors came from the town of Lucca in Italy and that"IA" is a title of nobility of some sort. So an ancestor of mine might have been, for example, the Count of Lucca. The name DeLuca means "coming from Lucca."

Robby

Bubble
June 15, 2006 - 04:21 am
IA is not only nobility but HIGH nobility. "Grand Lord from Lucca".

I curtsy deep and low in front of your august highness

Bubble

tooki
June 15, 2006 - 07:03 am
In Post 798 and some following posts it seems to me the conversation becomes elusive, allusive, and defuse. The conversation seems unclear because the words carry such a load of meaning. Words and phrases like "social instinct,""biological basis for civilization," and “biological theory of primitive instincts,” and so on are freighted with ambiguities. (Let’s not get into current evolutionary psychology and its sometimes wild claims.)

I feel like the folks living in Hell, Michigan, a real town in rural Michigan.

“Here I am, living in Hell, taking my kids to church and trying to teach them the right things – and the town where we live is having a 666 party.”

And, while I’m here I’ll fess up that one of my married names (before I decided my unmarried, “maiden” name was good enough for me) was Lilje. More on my husband’s royal background later.

Bubble
June 15, 2006 - 07:08 am
Bishop Johannes Lilje?

Mallylee
June 15, 2006 - 08:23 am
#798

I believe that civilisation has a biological basis. What other basis could there be?

One may say for instance 'civilisation has a geographical basis', but a geographical basis is one among many components of environment that shapes the genome, through natural selection.

It's unimaginable that civilisation does not have a material basis, unless it's to be believed that it comes from some 'higher source'. Preserve us from such superstition!

Bubble
June 15, 2006 - 08:45 am
It comes from our inner thirst for a better life, easier, safer, better organised?

Scrawler
June 15, 2006 - 09:37 am
We have been having natural disasters since the begining of time, the church was just smart enough to put their own spin on the tales that come from going through these disasters. Incidently, Justin said it best in his post.

Rich7
June 15, 2006 - 10:39 am
I don't believe that there has ever been a culture that didn't have it own religion (superstition). Primitive tribes in South America and Pacific Islands that have had little to no contact with other civilizations ALL have some faith in supernatural powers.

Maybe it's a way for the simple mind to explain natural phenomena, and to feel like they have some control. ("The volcano is getting ready to erupt again; we had better chuck another virgin in to appease the fire god.")

And Scrawler you are right. Justin always says it best.

Rich

tooki
June 15, 2006 - 11:13 am
Bubble

There is a Bishop Lilje in my husband's list of relatives compiled by the beloved Aunt Mary. Almost all elder sons were committed (given?) to the church. Except my husband who rebelled (I'm being satirical here) and became a philosopher. There was a time when to be a philosopher meant to be a cleric. Some folks think this is still the case, a view that will drive my husband to his bottle of Jack Daniels and that good ol' time atheist Bertrand Russell.

Justin
June 15, 2006 - 10:46 pm
Scrawler, you and Rich are too nice to me. Thank you.

I am not certain, but I think Buddists do not blame it all on a suprnatural power. They are Godless.

robert b. iadeluca
June 16, 2006 - 02:33 am
"Gregory, the Great, like Rousseau, urged mothers to nurse their own infants. Most poor women did, most upper class women did not.

"Children were loved as now but were beaten more. They were numerous despite high infantile and adolescent mortality.

"They disciplined one another by their number and became civilized by attrition. They learned a hundred arts of the country or the city from relatives and playmates and grew rapidly in knowledge and wickedness.

"Said Thomas of Calano in the thirteenth century:-'Boys are taught evil as soon as they can babble and as they grow up they become stadily worse until they are Christians only in name' -- but moralists are bad historians.

"Boys reached the age of work at twelve and legal maturity at sixteen."

Comments about children?

Robby

Rich7
June 16, 2006 - 07:13 am
From a list of frequently asked questions about Buddhism. (The Jen Chen Buddhism Center.)

4. What is the meaning of the word "Buddha"?

It means "Awakened One".

5. What are Buddha’s teachings?

Buddha teaches one to be free from all illusions and to view things as they truly are. He teaches one to avoid all evils, do all that are good, and to purify one’s mind.

6. Do Buddhists believe in God?

If the meaning of God is one who is the creator of all things, then Buddhism neither share this belief nor teach this concept.

As usual, Justin is right. Buddhists do not believe in a Creator.

(Now, if I could just get him to be more politically conservative, then Justin will have reached "true enlightenment.")

Rich

hats
June 16, 2006 - 07:23 am
"Children were loved as now but were beaten more. They were numerous despite high infantile and adolescent mortality."

It would seem parents could feel their children were safe after leaving babyhood. Why the high mortality rate during adolescence?

When Robby changes and goes to another subject, does it mean something wrong has been said? I guess this question is for you Robby. I am new in this discussion.

Rich7
June 16, 2006 - 07:25 am
Thought I'd add this Q&A (From the same source.) I found it interesting.

10. Why do Buddhists worship the image of Buddha?

Buddhists do not worship Buddha. The image of the Buddha is to enable Buddhists to pay their respects to the great teacher, Buddha. Since the Buddha has great compassion, wisdom and a pure mind, the image of Buddha also serves to remind Buddhists to remember, learn and emulate these virtuous qualities.

Rich

hats
June 16, 2006 - 07:29 am
Rich7, Is Buddha the same as Siddhartha?

Bubble
June 16, 2006 - 07:32 am
Sid·dhart·ha (si därÆtÃ, -thÃ), n.  
 	an epithet of Buddha meaning “he who has attained his goal.”

hats
June 16, 2006 - 07:33 am
Bubble, thank you.

Rich7
June 16, 2006 - 07:59 am
I don't know if this belongs in the "Civilization" discussion or the "Darwin" discussion, but here's a quote from physicist Steven Hawking made a few days ago at a conference in Hong Kong.

"It is important for the human race to spread out into space for the survival of the species," the AP quotes Hawking. "Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers we have not yet thought of."

When you think of it, man's tenure on this earth is just a microsecond compared with the period of time that dinosaurs roamed. The dinosaurs (despite all their eons of existence) were wiped out in a matter of months after a huge asteroid slammed into the Yucatan Peninsula and turned the entire planet into a deep freeze. (My words, not Hawking's.)

I wonder what Durant would say about Hawking's quote. I wonder what Darwin would say.

Rich

hats
June 16, 2006 - 08:14 am
Earth is the only planet we have to inhabit. We haven't conquered space yet. It's too soon to think of space as a potential community.

Justin
June 16, 2006 - 10:48 am
Rich: I am conservative on fiscal matters and liberal on social issues.Neither party quite fits my agenda.

Justin
June 16, 2006 - 11:01 am
This morning the newspapers reported changes in the language of the Mass by US Bishops. The Nicene creed was changed in the opening words from "We believe" to "I believe." The prayer before Communion was changed from,"Lord, I am not worthy to receive you" to "Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof."

These and other changes made in language may seem trivial but they are an example of the way changes are made in this 2000 year old unchanging liturgy. A few years from now the old way will be forgotten and the new way will be cast in concrete with a long history to protect it.

mabel1015j
June 16, 2006 - 12:12 pm
Does that mean the "bad/uncivilized" people died leaving the "good/civilized?"

What is Durant's point in selection #829?

Thanks for the info on Buddhism, it interests me, but i've never had enough motivation to really study about it. Might make a good discussion on SN?

One Sunday our minister was preaching a sermon about the importance of sefl-esteem and self-confidence. Then we moved on to the communion service - a sacrament i don't participate in - and had the traditional singing of Amazing Grace - "that saved a wretch like me." At the sermon-reaction discussion following the service a woman pointed out the conflict between the sermon and how much of Christianity preaches to us about how unworthy we are. The minister tho't for a moment and then agreed, "well, i guess we won't be singing that song as much." In the "democractic" American Baptist Church, it doesn't take years and conclaves to make rational changes - or even irrational changes

If God has made us, how can we be unworthy of his coming into our house and why do i need to say it every Sunday?......it's all very irrational to me.........jean

robert b. iadeluca
June 16, 2006 - 02:36 pm
Hats:-Nothing "wrong" is ever said here. What we give are points of view and opinions. An opinion can't be wrong. We follow the ground rules of addressing issues, not personalities, and accepting without comment another's personal religious belief which s/he is allowed to give just once.

As for changing the subject, you will note that your discussion leader almost (note that "almost") never changes the subject. As the minds of all the participants swirl around from recipes to house decorations to gardening to the weather to computer problems, your DL keeps his eye and his left hand firmly on the nearby volume of "The Age of Faith," sticking obstinately and disgustingly to the subject that Durant hands us. Your DL does not change the subject. He "returns" to the subject. In a dream Durant gave me these instructions.

Jean:- We discussed Buddhism in detail in the first volume, "Our Oriental Heritage."

Robby

hats
June 16, 2006 - 02:39 pm
Robby, thank you for your answer.

robert b. iadeluca
June 16, 2006 - 04:54 pm
"Christian ethics followed, with adolescents, a policy of silence about sex.

"Financial maturity -- the ability to support a family -- came later than biological maturity -- the ability to reproduce.

"Sexual education might aggravate the pains of continence in this interval and the Church required premarital continence as an aid to conjugal fidelity, social order, and public health.

"Nevertheless, by the age of sixteen the medieval youth had probably sampled a variety of sexual experiences. Pederasty, which Christianity had effectively attacked in late antiquity, reappeared with the Crusades, the influx of Oriental ideas, and the unisexual isolation of monks and nuns.

"In 1177 Henry, Abbot of Clairvaux, wrote of France that 'ancient Sodom is springing up from her ashes.'

"Philip the Fair charged that homosexual practices were popular among the Templars.

"The Penitnetials -- ecclesiastical manuals prescribing penances for sin -- mention the usual enormities, including bestiality. An astonishing variety of beasts received such attentions.

"Where amours of this sort were discovered they were punishable with the death of both participants. The records of the English parliament contain many cases of dogs, goats, cows, pigs, and geese being burned to death with their human paramours.

"Cases of incest were numerous."

Geese?

Robby

Fifi le Beau
June 16, 2006 - 08:08 pm
Geese? What about chickens?

In Azar Nafisi's book, "Reading Lolita in Tehran" a memoir she wrote after coming to America, she discusses the Ayatollah Khomeini's dissertation and answers to questions about sexuality.

The Ayatollah wrote that one way to curb a man of his sexual appetite is to have sex with animals. He then proceeds to discuss the problem that may arise from man having sex with a chicken. He asks the question of whether the man can then eat the chicken.

He solves the problem this way. Neither he nor his immediate family can eat the chicken. Neither can his next door neighbor. But it's OK for the neighbor who lives two doors away to eat the chicken.

The moral of this story, 'Beware of neighbors bearing gifts of chickens with their feathers ruffled.'

Another ayatollah had his own television show where he posed questions of great import, such as the following.....

If there is an earthquake and your aunt is sleeping downstairs and you fall on top of her and you have children, then what would happen?

Blame the earthquake of course....

Archie Roosevelt was an Arabist and worked in the middle east for years, a lot of it in Iran. He asked the local men what they did for sex, since they were not allowed to see women other than family members, and they replied, "We tie a goat to a tree or bush." AR was there during the 1940's and things haven't changed much since Durant was writing about the middle ages, and Azar Nafisi writing about the present.

Pederasty and sex with animals is still a common practice in the east in the 21st century. During the 1980's when Ronald Reagan was arming the war lords and Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan to fight the Russians, they needed some way to transport stinger missiles across the rough terrain, and the U.S. sent in a supply of mules from Tennessee. The American who accompanied the mules to the drop off point was amused when the Afghans began having sex with the mules before they were even harnessed up with packs for the trip over the mountains.

Robby, you can add mules and chickens to your menagerie.

Fifi

Justin
June 16, 2006 - 10:22 pm
Westerners, especially, Americans are so hung up about sex, it is pitiful. Sex between married men and women in the missionary position is ok. Everything else is taboo. We publish lists of pederasts who have been released from jail to warn mothers of a risk of child seduction. Christians exclude homosexuals from their religious clubs. Priests practice celibacy and are prone to pederasty. Our jails are openly a haven for same sex activities. Parents not only do not discuss sex with their children they do not wish others to do it for them. Is all this the result of Christian Doctrine?.

Bubble
June 17, 2006 - 12:52 am
Justin, you forgot one: sex outside and not behind closed doors!

In dark Africa, it was just another of life's normal activities and no African kid would pay any more attention to that couple under the boabab than to those bathing naked in the river, or the man getting coconuts from a tree.

It started to change after the missionaries arrived. People learned "the shame" of their customs. When I was a child, the missions had not reach all the villages yet.

Mallylee
June 17, 2006 - 12:56 am
Bestiality is rape

Bubble
June 17, 2006 - 01:21 am
Mallylee, for the western world indeed.

robert b. iadeluca
June 17, 2006 - 03:23 am
"Premarital and extramarital relations were apparently as widespread as at any time betweeen antiquity and the twentieth century.

"The promiscuous nature of man overflowed the dikes of secular ecclesiastical legislation. Some women felt that abdominal gaiety could be atoned for by hebdomadal piety. Rape was common dispite the severest penalties.

"Knights who served highborn dames or damoiselles for a kiss or a touch of the hand might console themselves with the lady's maids. Some ladies could not sleep with a good conscience until they had arranged this courtesy.

"The Knight of La Tour-Landry mourned the prevalence of fornication among aristocratic youth. If we were to believe him, some men of his class fornicated in church, nay, 'on the altar.' He tells of 'two queens which in Lent, on Holy Thursday took their foul delight and pleasance within the church during divine services.'

"William of Malmesbury described the Norman nobility as 'given over to gluttony and lechery' and exchanging concubines with one another lest fidelity should dull the edge of husbandry.

"Illegitimate children littered Christendom and gave a plot to a thousand tales.

"The heroes of several medieval sagas were bastards -- Cuchulain, Arthur, Gawain, Roland, William the Cconqueror, and many a knight in Froissart's Chronicles."

So, what's new?

Robby

hats
June 17, 2006 - 03:26 am
"The Knight of La Tour-Landry mourned the prevalence of fornication among aristocratic youth. If we were to believe him, some men of his class fornicated in church, nay, 'on the altar.' He tells of 'two queens which in Lent, on Holy Thursday took their foul delight and pleasance within the church during divine services.'

Inside the church, I would think lightening would strike me. That really is a no-no.

Pederasty, I am not familiar with this word.I think of pedophile. Is it a related term?

Oh, the poor geese. I love geese. I think of Mother Goose in her bonnet and shawl. That's just too sad about the geese being used in this way. I remember reading one of the William Faulkner novels. The guy fell in love with his cow. I think there were other shenanigans going on with the cow. I could never make it out. Faulkner's writing left it somewhat vague or foggy. I didn't get it. The professor tried to make it as clear as possible. My mind just went out for lunch.

Are these sexual sins more prevalent or less prevalent in our times? For example, I hear about incest, illegitemate children. I don't hear about "bestiality." Does that mean that particular behavior is no longer practiced?

robert b. iadeluca
June 17, 2006 - 03:53 am
Definition of PEDERASTY.

Robby

hats
June 17, 2006 - 04:08 am
Robby, you learn something new everyday.

robert b. iadeluca
June 17, 2006 - 04:38 am
Hats:-Aren't you glad you joined us here in Story of Civilization? Bring your friends.

Robby

Bubble
June 17, 2006 - 04:48 am
I would bring many participants if you were doing it in Hebrew. What is that for an idea?

hats
June 17, 2006 - 04:49 am
Robby, I love it! I will pass the word along.

robert b. iadeluca
June 17, 2006 - 04:50 am
Too late, Bubble. We have already discussed Ancient Israel.

Robby

mabel1015j
June 17, 2006 - 10:51 am
continence used as celibacy - never heard it used that way be for, altho' Encarta says its a 14th century usage; "abdominal gaiety could be atoned for by hebdomadal piety." .......O.K., .....if you say so Will. Would those phrases have been understood in the first half of the 20th century?

geese are notoriouly uncooperative, one would have to be very hard up to have sex w/ any animal, but VERY desperate to attempt to copoulate w/ a goose, it might have been hilarious to watch........ on second thought.................nevermind

Robby, I got distracted from reading the discussion of the first volume and haven't gotten back to it. Thanks for the reference on Buddhism, that will motivate me to return............jean

Bubble
June 17, 2006 - 11:34 am
The way Durant uses language is more than half the interest or pleasure for me. The content takes a new glow that attracts better than any of the history books I have read up to now. Those words were certainly much in use in Durant's time, when study of Latin was common. Abstinence, continence, self restrain, celibacy, there are so many ways of saying the same thing.

I discovered now the adjective I had never heard of: a celibatic life.

robert b. iadeluca
June 17, 2006 - 12:23 pm
Durant said:-"Some women felt that abdominal gaiety could be atoned for by hebdomadal piety."

See definition of HEBDOMADAL.

Robby

Bubble
June 17, 2006 - 12:33 pm
Robby, I can't believe this from your site...

"We found no French translation for 'hebdomadal' in our English to French Dictionary."

Hebdomadaire is such a common word in French, which explains why I had no problem.

robert b. iadeluca
June 17, 2006 - 01:26 pm
Maybe French people take two weeks to be pious.

Robby

Bubble
June 17, 2006 - 02:14 pm
ha ha ha ha that can't be bi-hebdominal then. I wonder what the proper term would be, I can't remember it...

robert b. iadeluca
June 17, 2006 - 02:24 pm
Maybe the French are just abdominal. Where are you, Eloise?

Robby

Éloïse De Pelteau
June 17, 2006 - 03:09 pm
hahahah, well here I am. I often heard from the word 'hebdomadaire' as Bubble said, but hebdomadal is pure Durantesque invention. For the past 4 years I have seen him invent words and his Jesuit education leaked over all of his Story of Civilization in a unique and musical rhetoric. Jesuits require their students to spend one whole studying rhetoric and they were excellent professors. My Jesuit brother taught history at Université Laurentienne in Sudbury for 30 years.

Justin
June 17, 2006 - 10:45 pm
A hebdomad is any group of seven. Hebdomadal is used to describe anything lasting seven days or apparing every seven days. I am not sure about the full root but "hebdo", a prefix, refers to seven. In Latin "hebdomas" is the seventh day of a disease. Hebdomadaire is French for weekly. The term has been applied to weekly newspapers and magazines.

Bubble
June 18, 2006 - 12:10 am
Eloise, don't be so hasty! Hebdomadal is a genuine English word and found in all the dictionaries. Hebdomadaire of course is only in French.

Eloise, would you remember the French word for every two weeks? (every two months, every two years, etc) I know it exists but have forgotten it for lack of use. It is driving me crazy...

Jesuites spend one whole... what? year in rhetorics? Our last year in highschool was called rheto and the one before was philo; without being a Jesuit!

Did you know that "Humans and dolphins are the only species that have sex for pleasure."? This is just in case you were wondering about that side of bestiality.

Éloïse De Pelteau
June 18, 2006 - 03:38 am
Bubble, 'une quinzaine' 'en quinzaine' for every two weeks. I don't know for every two months or two years.

OK, ok, so I din't know hebdomadal is genuine English, is it in common usage? My Larousse only mentions hebdomadaire. English teens here never say 'rheto' or 'philo' they say troisième secondaire, or quatrième secondaire.

I only opened my mouth because of Robby. After 4 years of this I just scan S of C, fatigue set in.

robert b. iadeluca
June 18, 2006 - 04:05 am
Marriage

robert b. iadeluca
June 18, 2006 - 04:19 am
"Youth was brief and marriage came early in the Age of Faith.

"A child of seven could consent to a betrothal and such engagements were sometimes made to facilitate the transfer or protection of proerty.

"Grace de Salaby, aged four, was married to a great noble who could preserve her rich estate. Presently he died and she was married at six to another lord. At eleven she was married to a third.

"Such unions could be annulled at any time before the normal age of commummation which in the girl was presumed to be twelve, in the boy fourteen. The Church reckoned the consent of parents or guardian unnecedssary for valid marriage if the parties were of age. She forbade the marriage of girls under fifteen but allowed many exceptions.

"In this matter the rights of property overruled the whims of love and marriage was an incident in finance. The bridegroom presented gifts or money to the girl's parents, gave her a 'morning gift' and pledged her a dower right in his estate.

"In England this was a life interest of the widow on one third of the husband's inheritance in land. The bride's family gave presents to the family of the groom and assigned to her a dowry consisting of clothing, linen, utensils and furniture and sometimes of property.

"Engagement was an exchange of gages or pledges. The wedding itself was a pledge (Anglo-Saxon weddian, promise). The spouse was one who had re-spo-nded ;I will.'"

When I became engaged to a woman from Brittany in France after WWII, her family apologized to me because they couldn't furnish a dowry or give me any gifts. I accepted her mother's apology because of the destitution of the war but, of course, would not have taken anything in the first place. This was 1946!

Any comments about marriage, engagements, dowries, etc?

Robby

Mallylee
June 18, 2006 - 04:57 am
Sometimes a bride price is paid by the man and his family who expects the woman to do all the work of growing food,tending livestock, cooking,providing children for the father;s lineage, and child care. The man concentrates his powers on hunting and warfare.

http://www.umanitoba.ca/anthropology/tutor/marriage/bride_wealth.html

The page in question from Durants is about people with property. I dont think there is any question of endowing the bride, or joining two imprtant estates when the couple are serfs, or poor bourgeois.In past times, and in fiercely tribal societies, th family honour is what counts, not an individual's wealth. Family honour is maintained when the bride brings a good dowry. In Indian sub continent some girls with poor dowries are put to death for the honour of the family.

I guess that being seen to endow one's daughter has been , and still is, perhaps, a sign of conspicuous consumption, These huge expensive weddings are similar to providing a dowry. A relative of mine provided a huge wedding for his daughter because she was marrying someone with super prospects. This was money well spent, I guess he knew what he was doing. The bridegroom's widowed mother, a force in the neighbourhood, perhaps had to be sweetened

('conspicuous consumption' : Veblen)

Bubble
June 18, 2006 - 07:36 am
Here the rabbi officiating at the wedding also has a contract ready to be signed by the groom and two witnesses. One of the clauses is the sum the groom will have to pay his wife if he decides to divorce one day. It can be some hefty amount, usually the young couple never dream they could divorce.

That precious piece of paper is taken away by someone from the bride side and usually noone will know who keeps it preciously just in case. I have no idea who has mine!

Rich7
June 18, 2006 - 08:02 am
In India, the cost of raising a female, especially the dowry at marriage, has created a new industry, mobile abortion clinics.

An ultrasonic scan is performed in a mobile van, and if the baby is determined to be female it is aborted. There are problems in this overpopulated country because of a growing shortage of females.

http://www.sikhnet.com/sikhnet/discussion.nsf/by+topic/EB54309140139964872571720042947E!OpenDocument

Rich

Scrawler
June 18, 2006 - 08:38 am
My grandparents were betrothed to each other at the age of 3 to bring two large Greek families together. When my grandfather came to America at the age of 17, he later sent for my grandmother. They were married in America in 1920 and as far as I know had a very happy marriage.

mabel1015j
June 18, 2006 - 05:39 pm
and they always appalled at the pawn that "Alice" is to Henry II and his sons and her brother. Alice was betrothed to Richard at seven, but Henry was having an affair w/ her in her teens and wanted her to marry John, who disgusted her......Seems we have not become that much more "civilized" on the issue of women as property since the 12th century......

"The promiscuous nature of man overflowed the dikes of secular ecclesiastical legislation. Some women felt that abdominal gaiety could be atoned for by hebdomadal piety. Rape was common dispite the severest penalties." Would someone comment on Durant's putting those three sentences together? .........jean

Justin
June 18, 2006 - 09:57 pm
Eloise: Hebdomadal is not in common usage. Very little English is in common usage.

hats
June 19, 2006 - 01:30 am
Mabel, I happened to see Lion in Winter on tv quite awhile back. Your post makes me want to see it again. I am going to put it on my queue. I am glad you mentioned it.

hats
June 19, 2006 - 01:38 am
I am reading "Snow Flower And the Secret Fan" by Lisa See. The story takes place in China. There is a lot said about the marriage of a bride. There is the matchmaking service, the preparation of quilts and other necessaries that must go along with the bride.

There is also the interesting life the bride will lead in her husband's house. For example, serving and working for the mother-in law and father-in-law, dealing with the brides of the other brothers and of course, the concubines living in the house. All of this can become very complicated. Also, the bride is expected to bear a son or sons, not a girl child.

This is a little like the life of the woman and husband in "The Good Earth." _____________________________________________________________________

My grandmother had her first child at age thirteen. Ten to twelve children would follow. The oldest girl child acted the part of mother because my grandmother became sickly after the first child.

hats
June 19, 2006 - 01:45 am
Nowadays young people try out marriage before signing papers. Older folks call it "shacking up." I think there is a law in some states where people can do this for some years. Then, after a certain amount of years have passed the marriage becomes legal.

I don't think, to young people, making a marriage legal is important. It's all about feelings or doing whatever feels right to you.

robert b. iadeluca
June 19, 2006 - 02:57 am
"The Church allowed separation for adultery, apostasy, or grave cruelty.

"This was call divortium but not in the sense of annulling the marriage. Such annulment was granted only when the marriage could be shown to have contravened one of the canonical impediments to matrimony.

"It is hardly probable that these were deliberaely multiplied to provide grounds of divorce for those who could afford the substntial fees and costs required for an annulment. The Church used these impediments to meet with flexible judgment exceptional cases where divorce would promise an heir to a childless king or would otherwise serve public policy or peace.

"Germanic law allowed divorce for adultery, sometimes even by mutual agreement. The kings preferred the laws of their ancestors to the stricter law of the Church. Feudal lords and ladies, reverting to the ancient codes, sometimes divorced one another without ecclesiastical leave.

"Not until Innocent III refused divorce to Philip Augustus, the powerfl King of France, was the Church strong enough in authority and conscience, to hew bravely to her own decrees."

I was wondering -- how much effect does the church have on marriage these days?

Robby

mabel1015j
June 19, 2006 - 08:45 am
Is it simply that they like the physical environment of the church - the aisle, the grandeur, the pomp? They usually have a clergyperson to administer the rites, again, just tradition? I think, for those who are not religious and have not been in a church for years, it's the picture of how we think weddings should be - has nothing to do w/ the church or religion.

Annulment seems easy to come by if you have the right amount of money or prestiege,.... has always been true. Eleanor of Acquitane and LOuis VII decided they were too closely related, breaking the Church's laws against cousins marrying - after 10 or 12 years of marriage. Church annulled! One of the young Kennedys decided he was in love w/ his children's nanny even tho he had 3 or 4 children w/ his wife already. Church annulled! Why did they bother? Why not just get a divorce? They couldn't participate in the sacraments of the church? Haven't they already broken the laws of the church? .........I don't get it. .......jean

Justin
June 19, 2006 - 12:48 pm
I think we need the counsel of Merijo on this topic. The rationale for annulement vrs. divorce is quite complicated.

Fifi le Beau
June 19, 2006 - 06:35 pm
Robby asks, I was wondering -- how much effect does the church have on marriage these days

Marriage in the USA is controlled by the respective states. It is purely a civil affair to the state. To have a legal marriage that is accepted by law, one must apply for a license and pay a fee to the state.

There are designated officials who can legally marry someone. A justice of the peace, a judge, or an ordained minister in this state. The official who marries the couple must sign the license. The signed license is sent to the state who then issues a marriage certificate.

The church can say the marriage is annulled or dissolved, but it is not legal until decided by the state courts.

An application to marry is a civil act controlled by the states, not a religious one. You can be married in a religious ceremony by an ordained minister, but the state says whether the ceremony is legal. Only the state can legally dissolve the marriage in a civil court, not a religious one.

Marriage in this country is controlled by the state, not religion.

Fifi

robert b. iadeluca
June 21, 2006 - 03:11 am
Woman

Bubble
June 21, 2006 - 03:22 am
Yes ?

robert b. iadeluca
June 21, 2006 - 03:24 am
"The theories of churchmen were generally hostile to woman.

"Some laws of the Church enhanced her subjection. Many principles and practices of Christianity improved her status. To priests and theologians woman was still in these centuries what she had seemed to Chrysostom -- 'a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a desirable calamity, a domestic peril, a deadly fascination, a painted ill.'

"She was still the ubiquitous reincarnation of the Eve who had lost Eden for mankind, still the favored instrument of Satan in leading men to hell.

"St. Thomas Aquinas, usually the soul of kindness, but speaking with the limitations of a monk, placed her in some ways below the slave:--

'The woman is subject to the man on account of the weakness of her nature, both of mind and of body. Man is the beginning of woman and her end just as God is the beginning and end of every creature. Woman is in subjection according to the law of nature but a slave is not. Children ought to love their father more than their mother.'

"Canon law gave to the husband the duty of protecting his wife and to the wife the duty of obeying her husband. Man, but not woman, was made in the image of God. Argued the canonist:-'It is plain from this that wives should be subject to their husbands and should almost be servants.'

"Such passages have the ring of a wistful wishing. On the other hand the Church enforced monogamy, insisted upon a single standard of morals for both sexes, honored woman in the worship of Mary and defended woman's right to the inheritance of property."

OK, ladies. Go to it!!

Robby

hats
June 21, 2006 - 04:36 am
Go to it!! There is to much to say and not enough time.

Bubble
June 21, 2006 - 05:03 am
So we are the natural necessity, the fascinating desirability, the tempting and misunderstood Eve... Nothing has changed since immemorial times, many still harbor these notions.

Sons are more desired than daughters. Look at China and India with so many more young men now that they need to import brides.

hats
June 21, 2006 - 06:33 am
Women have fought for equality. At one time women could not vote. We as women owe so much to women like Susan Anthony.

Susan Anthony

mabel1015j
June 21, 2006 - 12:57 pm
except as Bubble says, it's astounding that it is still believed by many, especially in the U.S. There are still arguments about whether woman "can' be ministers, who controls our bodies, "can" we be heads of state - apparently everywhere but in the U.S. - I actually had a 20 yr old student in my class this semester who said he wouldn't vote for a woman because he didn't want her to have her thumb on the button during 'that time of the month' and he was dead serious, not just goating the professor! Of course, he was a product of home schooling and a "Christian" college.............sometimes it is so depressing. 51% of the country being so disrespected......but i think we have the Church to thank for many of those 21st century opinions. Much of the church hierarchy has kept such silliness alive, at the same time preaching that all are 'children of god,' and using women's time, talents and dollars as often as they could.........It's hypocritcal............

Even in the time that we are discussing there was the contrary opinions that woman was not capable of much responsibility and must be subject to all men, no matter their brain power or behavior, but at the same time was encouraged to have as many children as she could - apparently, some special "responsibility light" gets switched on in the motherhood arena............It's all about control and male ego and it all makes me nauseous......jean

hats
June 21, 2006 - 01:02 pm
Mabel, people seem to have a million reasons why a woman should not become president. It's ridiculous that a woman's mind is different from the mind of a man. In science textbooks I don't think the diagrams show our brain as smaller. It's maddening. God forbid, if your are a minority and a woman, your brain is really without the ability to think and create like a man.

Will a woman become president in 2008? I seriously doubt. Geraldine Ferraro ran for vice president years ago. Did she win? Nope.

Ferraro

Rich7
June 21, 2006 - 01:14 pm
I might have mentioned this once before, but even if I did, I'm going to say it again, anyway.

The Vatican is regularly criticized for not ordaining women as priests. One of the arguments the church has used over the years is that none of Christ's disciples were women. Well, none of his disciples were Chinese, either, but we have plenty of Chinese priests.

Rich

hats
June 21, 2006 - 01:19 pm
Exactly.

Scrawler
June 21, 2006 - 02:21 pm
I'd say despite the church's efforts or perhaps because of the church's efforts women managed to achieve a lot on there own during this time. I can't help wonder that perhaps the churches view on women went back to the pagan religions. They saw women as a threat to their own survival much the same way religious men felt threatened by "witches."

And one more thought I'd like to see women achieve their own goals and not be influenced by being equal to men. Perhaps in the future we might see either sex make achievements not because of gender but because they truly are the better person to do the job etc.

Oh and did I mention most men are born of women!

hats
June 21, 2006 - 02:23 pm
Scrawler, that last point is the best one of all.

Mallylee
June 21, 2006 - 02:36 pm
In my book, The Creation of Patriarchy, I trace in detail how in many cultures in the ancient Near East the pantheon of gods and goddesses was supplanted by a single god. This transition took the form of changes in the creation myths, upgrading of a male god, usually the storm god or the war god, who becomes the chief god, and then the dethroning of the mother goddess. It also led to a later downgrading of the role of priestesses through their stricter regulations by the state.

Professor Emerita Gerda Lerner of Wisconsin University

http://www.hds.harvard.edu/news/bulletin/articles/lerner.html

The biblical core texts sat like huge boulders across the path women had to travel in order to define themselves as equals of men. But women did not submit quietly. For over a thousand years, individual women in every century found ways to reclaim their humanity and spiritual equality. Many of them found their way to emancipation through the ancient practice of mysticism. Mystics saw God as inherent in all of creation, accessible through love and unconditional devotion. The mystic's way of knowing and perceiving transcended national and religious boundaries. Practicing mystics can be found in all religions, and in most historical periods. The great twelfth-century mystics, Hildegard of Bingen and Elizabeth of Schoenau, were followed by the Beguine mystics, Marie of Oigniens, Hadewijch, Mechthild of Magdeburg, and the remarkable nuns of Helfta, whose mysticism flourished in the thirteenth century.

From the link to Gerda Lerner's article

robert b. iadeluca
June 21, 2006 - 04:49 pm
"Civil law was more hostile to her than canon law.

"Both codes permitted wife-beating and it was quite a forward step when, in the thirteenth century, the 'Laws and Customs of Beauvais' made a man beat his wife 'only in reason.'

"Civil law ruled that the word of women could not be admitted in court 'because of their frailty.'

"It required only half as high a fine for an offense against a woman as for the same ofense against a man.

"It excluded even the most high-born ladies from representing their own estates in the Parliament of England or the Estates-General of France.

"Marriage gave the husband full authority over the use and usufruct of any property that his wife owned at marriage.

"No woman could become a licensed physician."

Robby

Justin
June 21, 2006 - 06:23 pm
`Many men and some women, in all walks of life today,fail to understand the importance of the work of Betty Friedan and the women's movement largely because they are convinced by religious interests that woman's role in life should be a subservient one. There is also fear, of course, that women, who are so much inferior to men, will prove to be better at a task than a man and thus embarass the man leaving him feeling weak and unmanly.

Women can do much to help man overcome such fears. Husbands , particularly, should be helped to learn that one can be comfortable and proud of a wife's accomplishments without losing his manhood.

Religion can do much to overcome the ancient customs that repress women. The Episcopalians have elected a woman to lead them. That's a start. Ministers can preach against views that place women in a subservient role in life. Women are not after equality. They want the right to be all they can be as citizens and human beings. Equality is not possible. The genders have different capabilities and thus in some ventures women will prevail and men will be mediocre. That's something we have to learn to live with and to appreciate, not decry.

When we are asked about the women's movement we must stand up and cast our ballot in favor of women's rights. We must not allow the ignorant in society to promote the messages of John Chrysostum, Thomas Acquinas, and Paul of Tarsus. .

Bubble
June 21, 2006 - 10:55 pm
Scrawler, you are right, women did succeed beautifully in bringing forth male offsprings (who see themselves as almost perfect!). Let's see man cloning himself... lol

kiwi lady
June 22, 2006 - 12:38 am
In the early Christian church - very early, women were church leaders. There were Lydia and Priscilla both mentioned in the gospels.It is man who has kept women down not the precepts of true Christianity.

Carolyn

robert b. iadeluca
June 22, 2006 - 03:45 am
"Woman's economic life was as varied as the man's.

"She learned and practiced the wondrous unsung arts of the house -- to bake bread and puddings and pies -- cure meats -- make soap and candles, cream and cheese -- to brew beer and make home medicines from herbs -- to spin and weave wool, and make linen from flax, and clothing for her family -- and curtains and drapes, bedspreads and tapestries -- to decorate her home and keep it as clean as the male inmates would allow, and to rear children.

"Outside the agricultural cottage she joined with strength and patience in the work of the farm -- sowed and cultivated and reaped -- fed chidekens, milked cows, sheared sheep -- helped to repair and paint and build.

"In the towns, at home or in the shop, she did most of the spinning and weaving for the textile guilds. It was a company of 'silkwomen' that first established in England the arts of spinning, throwing, and weaving silk.

"Most of the English guilds contained as many women as men, largely because craftsmen were permitted to employ their wives and daughters and enlist them in the guilds. Several guilds, devoted to feminine manufactures, were composed wholly of women. There were fifteen such guilds at Paris at the end of the thirteenth century.

"Women, however, rarely became masters in bisexual guilds and they received lower wages than men for equal work. In the middle classes women displayed in raiment the wealth of their husbands and took an exciting part in the religious feasts and social festivities of the towns.

"By sharing their husbands' responsibitilities, and accepting with grace and restraint the grandiose or amorous professions of knights and troubadors, the ladies of the feudal aristocrcy attained a status such as women had rarely reached before."

Only in recent years have certain colleges awarded women academic credits for what they call "life experiences."

Robby

tooki
June 22, 2006 - 05:34 am
Justin, in post 897, says, “Husbands, particularly, should be helped to learn that one can be comfortable and proud of a wife’s accomplishments without losing his manhood.”

A great idea, but who’s going to help the learning?

I am not persuaded by Justin‘s comments that either the clergy or wife’s are capable of fulfilling this “help the husbands” task.. Give us some ideas, Justin, on where and how to begin making these changes.

hats
June 22, 2006 - 05:50 am
I feel like a double standard surrounds the meaning of "equality" and women. Women join are military forces. Women are policemen and firefighters. It seems women are used to help in desperate times. Then, put back in a chest called "weakness" until they are needed again.

mabel1015j
June 22, 2006 - 11:08 am
I have great faith in both the women and men of the 30/40's-something young adults, despite the previous story i shared about the 20 yr old in my class. Many young women are much more assertive in getting equality in their relationships and in their careers than our generation was. Many young men are much more involved in all aspects of domestic life and seem to have less need to control their partners and spouses and have less concern about wives making more money.

There's still work to do, and as always in history, those w/ power/control never give it up willingly. WE who believe in equality have to be the ones who do the re-educating. I agree w/ Justin, when we see discrimination or hear discriminatory/prejudiced comments, WE have to speak up. If we don't we are part of the problem.

Of course, there have been times when i have had to pick my battles. I have worked in academia and for the Dept of Army, so I've had many potential battles, and some ingrained nineteenth-entury-types are not worth the energy. But i often find people who have just been brought up in the 'tradition' of sexism and they can be re-educated when talked to reasonably and calmly.

I find fathers have a road-to-Damascus experience when their dgts are retricted from fulfilling their potential. Husbands take a little longer because they fear losing control of wives, of loss of being served, but most husbands I know of my generation have improved significantly since the 1960's........it's just all so DARN slow and so DARNED irrational. ....jean

mabel1015j
June 22, 2006 - 11:14 am
It's not always easy, and it may create conflict - again pick your battles - but no change ever comes w/out some conflict - as we are darn well seeing in Durant or in reading any history.

If the curmudgeon we are living w/ is beyond hope, work on the next generations that you come in contact with. Sometimes it's easier to work w/in institutions that we participate in than at home - churches, civic groups, work, etc. When we see women are being sidelined, or demeaned, we need to speak to that act or policy. We have a woman minister who recently had a difficult pregnancy and delivery. Even some women in the church were talking negatively about how much time off she was asking for - i mentioned a man in the congregation who had taken a long absence from his job after a heart attack and how sympathetic everyone had been... .....we are sometimes our own worst enemies and have sometimes bought into the idea that maaaaybeeee women are inferior, or pregnancy is different, or mothers who put more priority on that job than men have put on fathering are just not behaving "like men" - which we may use as the standard - LET'S CHANGE THE STANDARD OR AGREE THAT WE ARE DIFFERENT BUT JUST AS VALUABLE.........jean

robert b. iadeluca
June 22, 2006 - 05:01 pm
Public Morality.

robert b. iadeluca
June 22, 2006 - 05:13 pm
"In every age the laws and moral precepts of the nations have struggled to discourge the inveterate dishonesty of mankind.

"In the Middle Ages -- not demonstrably more nor less than in other epochs -- men, good and bad, lied to their children, mates, congregations, enemies, friends, governments, and God.

"Medieval man had a special fondness for forging documents. He forged apocryphal gospels, perhaps never intending them to be taken as more than pretty stories. He forged decretals as weapons in ecclesiastical politics, loyal monks forged charters to win royal grants for their monasteries.

"Archbishop Lanfranc of Caterbury, according to the papal Curia, forged a charter to prove the antiquity of his see. School masters forged charters to endow some collegs at Cambridge with a false antiquity and 'pious frauds' corrupted texts and invented a thousand edifying miralces.

"Bribery was general in education, trade, war, religion, government, law. School boys sent pies to their examiners, politicians paid for appointments to public office, and collected the necessary sums from their friends.

"Witnesses could be bribed to swear to anything. Litigants gave presents to jurors and judges. In 1289 Edward I of England had to dismiss most of his judges and ministers for corruption.

"The laws arranged for solemn oaths at every turn. Men swore on the Scriptures or the most sacred relics. Sometimes they were required to take an oath that they would keep the oath they were about to take.

"Yet perjury was so frequent that trial by combat was sometimes resorted to in the hope tht God would identify the greatest liar."

Robby

Mallylee
June 23, 2006 - 12:24 am
I have heard of this test that is still performed to indicate whether or not a person is lying. It is something like this : the strength of the suspected liar's arm is tested against the arm of the person who accuses her.I dont know how relative muscular strength, and size are screened out.('Kinesiology' I think it's called)

Other types of tests that rely on belief that a person's body reveals their truthfulness http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/crime.aspx?id=204

hats
June 23, 2006 - 02:49 am
MallyLee,thank you for the link.

Justin
June 23, 2006 - 12:16 pm
One interesting test applied quite commonly called for the person charged to be tied hand and foot and tossed in deep water. If they floated they were quilty.If they sunk they were innocent. oops, she drowned.Too bad.

Justin
June 23, 2006 - 07:17 pm
Carolyn: What are the precepts of 'true" Christianity?

If one can not convert a nineteenth century husband.Work on the next generation. Teach your daughters to assume responsibility,to achieve results and to be confident,independent,and self sufficient. Teach your sons the same things and to admire women who are just like them.

We know so little about love. Some men look for a woman who is attractive so they can parade her in front of other men. Some men look for a woman who is less well educated or who is meak and mild and who will not hurt his image of himself.Some men want women whom they can take care of. Others, and perhaps the best husbands, encourage their wives to be all they can be and are proud when a wife succeeds. Many women give up careers to foster a husband's career. I don't think there are many men who would give up a career to foster his wife's career in spite of the fact that some wives would, in the long run,make better providers for a family.

kiwi lady
June 23, 2006 - 08:13 pm
Justin my idea is "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" "love one another" These two precepts are the basis of what Christianity means to me.

mabel1015j
June 23, 2006 - 08:15 pm
and as i see more young people i know well and know there parents, it has been proven for me: many of us "marry" our opposite gender parent............is there any science on that Robby?

Which means it is hard to get into a different mindset about how relationships should be equitable, unless our parents behaved in that way, or if your opposite gender parent has treated you as an adult who is capable, responsible, smart. I think there IS evidence that mothers encouragement of sons and fathers encouragement of dgts is very important to their self-esteem. In reading about presidents and their mothers, I noticed that most of the mothers had an encouraging relationship w/ their fathers and then they encouraged there sons and had great influence on them........I know, I know - off the topic, but interesting..........jean

Bubble
June 24, 2006 - 01:08 am
Carolyn #911, that is the basis of Judaism!

3kings
June 24, 2006 - 02:03 am
I thought Judaism was based on a stern God, who wanted " An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth " The idea was to punish sinners, whose misdemeanor could be as innocent as physically supporting the ARC of the Covenant that was in danger of falling.

On the contrary, Christianity is about the forgiveness of sinners, but not their sins. Do others think I have that wrong ? I know Justin believes I do. ++ Trevor

Bubble
June 24, 2006 - 03:52 am
Trevor, some things evolves. love justice and fairness were/are always required from way back. I wish I knew by Torah better, to give examples. We do not cut the hands of those who steal, nor lapidate unfaithful spouses.

About the Arc, apparently they could have be fried alive if they had touched it without the proper precautions. It is a theory of course.

Éloïse De Pelteau
June 24, 2006 - 07:17 am
Without the knowledge of another faith I would not be tempted to advance a possibly inaccurate view on it. The faith of a person is like their race and part of that person. It is not fair to judge their behavior on the basis of hearsay or on media sensationalism.

Women have to live with their gender and envying men serves no purpose. A 100 year old woman was asked why she looked so young, was so bright and cheerful and she said: "I am content with what I have". My mother, who died at 95, never envied anyone.

Durant wrote from a man's point of view. He hardly wrote anything about how women influenced the course of history and at important events, women influenced the decision makers more than transpired in S of C. I never expected anything else from Durant.

Big words to flatter women's ego are just words, actions are to few to weigh in the balance.

Women are just as fit as men to reach a high goal and if a woman's highest goal is being a good mother, then she reached the top of her aspirations and is satisfied.

Mallylee
June 24, 2006 - 09:22 am
Eloise, a person may change her mind about her faith, but she cannot change her parentage, or her 'race'. That is why it's bad to disapprove of a person because of her parentage, or 'race' but okay to criticise her beliefs

winsum
June 24, 2006 - 11:32 am
I'm in and quickly out.The age of faith persists to this day and continues to shape our institutions. . .so depressing for me. bye again . . .Claire

winsum
June 24, 2006 - 11:38 am
Justin which of those fellas is you?

I picked mine for his genes he had beautiful dark blue eyes which my son has inherited and a cleft in his chin . . . he's got that too, and great cheekbones etc etc. big mistake. . . vbg . . . My daughter looks like me more or less. the less part belongs to my husbands mother, but she makes the most of it and is very pretty. . . and both are smart and happily married and leading useful satisfying lives and yes, I was the big support person in their growth. Their dad expected them to be like him. . .insecure and parenoid. . . claire

kiwi lady
June 24, 2006 - 01:32 pm
Trevor I would also agree with you there. Love means to love the person and hate the sin. Sometimes its very hard to separate a person from something they have done.

Carolyn

Justin
June 24, 2006 - 02:12 pm
I see two aspects of Christianity ie: What it is and what people would like it to be. Yes, Jesus mentioned the golden rule, indirectly, but he mentioned it. He also denied the "golden rule" in action.

Has the 'golden rule' ever been part of the christian message? We have just reviewed the history of Christianity and I frankly, have seen very little application of the golden rule in that history. Perhaps others can point out some moments in the history when it was applied.

I am more than willing to accept that some Christians try to adhere to the golden rule but that does not make it a Christian precept.

It's possible that adherants, disatisfied by what they see in Christianity everyday, make the religion for themseves, what they would like it to be. It's too bad these folks can't just be adherants of the golden rule and allow Christianity to take it's lumps for what it is in reality.

It is thought that Jesus, on the cross, said "Father forgive them for they know not what they are doing." That message has been interpreted, as forgiving sinners. The Catholic Church implemented that idea in Confession and Penance.

3kings
June 24, 2006 - 09:41 pm
Can anyone help please ? I enter SoC by going to discussions, clicking on "Books and Literature" and this folder comes up. From there I navigate to SoC.

Lately discussions no longer points to "Books and Literature" but I manage to find a link to this discussion on the home page. That would be fine, but what comes up is my last post from the day before, and nothing else.

I then have to go to 'previous' click on that, then from there click on 'last' then cycle back to my last post and finally see all the later posts that followed my entry.

I tried to e-mail someone in S'Net but so far my pleas have received no response. ++ Trevor

Bubble
June 25, 2006 - 12:36 am
Trevor, if you arrive to your last post and nothing else, try to click on "refresh on your browser, it may be that you are stuck on the "old" link. Erasing temp files also helps.

Bubble
June 25, 2006 - 12:50 am
Justin #"It is thought that Jesus, on the cross, said "Father forgive them for they know not what they are doing." That message has been interpreted, as forgiving sinners. The Catholic Church implemented that idea in Confession and Penance.

In reading the newly translated Gospel of Judah and its commentaries, it could be interpreted differently.

There it explains that Jesus did everything to be put to death, that he WANTED to die and be delivered of his human self. He ordered Judas to go to the authorities. The other disciples were not aware, thus "they know not what they are doing", and thought he was a victim. One can believe what is in this Gospel or not, but it is interesting to see different approaches to same event.

This Gospel also talks about some having a spark of God in their souls and others not. These others would "know not what they are doing", being unaware of the difference. It all goes back to Cain and Seth, Abel having been disposed of.

hats
June 25, 2006 - 01:39 am
Justin, help me to understand what you are saying. You say that Christ, "He also denied the "golden rule" in action." How?

Mallylee
June 25, 2006 - 01:52 am
Justin#921

Same here ! All the Christian institutions ( all religions too) are faulty, like all other societal arrangements. What I like about Christianity is the mythical vision of perfect goodness. There is no such thing,in real life, but the idea of just one superman, and 'Oh what if he really lived the Golden Rule all the time !'

hats
June 25, 2006 - 01:56 am
MallyLee,I agree no man is perfect. Jesus is a good role model for us.

robert b. iadeluca
June 25, 2006 - 06:22 am
"Cruelty and brutality were apparently more frequent in the Middle Ages than in any civilization before our own.

"The barbarians did not at once cease to be barbarians when they became Christians. Noble lords and ladies buffered their servants and one another.

"Criminal law was brutally severe but failed to suppress brutality and crime. The wheel, the caldron of burning oil, the stake, burning alive, flaying, tearing the limbs apart with wild animals was often used as penalties.

"Anglo-Saxon law punished a female slave convicted of theft by making each of eighty female slaves pay a fine, bring three faggots, and burn her to death.

"In the wars of central Italy in the late thirteenth century, says the chronicle of the contemporary Italian monk Salimbene, prisoners were treeated with a barbarity that in our youth would have been incredible."

Are we, indeed, becoming more civilized?

Following our usual ground rules in this discussion of refraining from political comments and instead speaking like historians, how do we compare to the population of the thirteenth century?

Robby

Mallylee
June 25, 2006 - 10:12 am
I think we have improved. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the establishement of International Law are without precedent and are unequalled in their reach and power to cause less brutality and human freedoms for all

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

hats
June 25, 2006 - 10:21 am
I am not sure we are more civilized. Perhaps, our cruelty is displayed in a different way. This question, I think, deals with the penal system today. How are criminals treated today? Are they treated like animals? Are these people rehabilitated? Are we adjusting and readjusting our justice system today? Has it grown old and out of date with time? How are victims of crime treated? We talked about the penal situation during the Wally Lamb discussion.

Scrawler
June 25, 2006 - 10:51 am
I don't think that being civilized makes us today any less cruel than early civilizations. We still extract information through torture. Many states have the death penalty. If we truly believed in the golden rule, than how could we as a world continue to have wars or put people to death for their crimes. I think the question is: do we have a right to take another person's life whatever the crime he/she has committed? Does taking that person's life make us more or less civilized?

hats
June 25, 2006 - 11:04 am
We worry a great deal about whether prisoners deserve death by injection. However, rarely do we discuss what should happen to the people on death row. I am not sure if saving people from the death penalty gives us the right to call ourselves a civilized nation. Isn't the job half done? How are people treated on death row? Perhaps, their living conditions would make us see ourselves again as "uncivilized." How we treat our neighbor, whether free or imprisoned, gives us the right to call ourselves civilized or uncivilized.

Justin
June 25, 2006 - 01:58 pm
Hats: Tobit, on sending Tobias to Rage advises him "Do that to no man which thou hatest." Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount says,

Matthew: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them..."

Luke: "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."

Jesus, in violently removing the money changers from their traditional places in the Temple, did what he would not like to have had done to him.

Jesus, in telling his diciples, to leave family and livelihood and follow him to spread the word in foreign places encouraged them to desert their families, wives and children. He encouraged them to do no more than he did himself. He left his family to fend for itself while wandering freely in the area of Jerusalem to preach his message. The family of Jesus and the families of his diciples are the aggreived ones who might well say" Do unto others etc... "

These are just two of many examples.

hats
June 25, 2006 - 02:21 pm
Justin, with the money changers in the temple, I think Jesus was only chastising his chidren. I don't think He lashed anyone physically. He was making the point that the Temple was a Holy place, not a place to make a profit but a place to glorify God. When you use the word "violence" aren't you adding your own take to the scripture?

I do admit you are a good debater. You have me quaking in my little boots.

hats
June 25, 2006 - 02:23 pm
Justin, why are you so intent in proving Jesus was selfish and cruel? Do you believe He is not worthy of the honour that is given to Him?

Justin
June 25, 2006 - 10:34 pm
Hats: Jesus was a human being with human characteristics. From birth to death he was never any more or any less than that. He was a Jew who followed the Mosaic laws.

Long custom encouraged the money changers in the Temple. They had a religious purpose. People bought animals to sacrifice in the Temple. They came with various issues of coinage and the money changers made it possible for the people to use their coins to purchase sacrificial animals. When Jesus removed them from the Temple he made it impossible for many to purchase sacrificial animals.

A short few centuries before people sacrificed their children at the Temple. The substitution of animals, as we see in the story of Abraham and Isaac was long in coming. Jesus interfered with that practice. The NT does not say exactly how he removed them except that he chastised them.

This was not a simple act done because Jesus thought bankers did not belong in the Temple. It was a revolutionary attack on the sacrificial practices of his fellow Jews, many of whom had travelled long distances to sacrifice in the Temple.It was the Jewish priests of the tribe of Levi who actually sacrificed the animals. Jews have stopped sacrificing animals because such ritual could only be accomplished at the Temple and the Temple is no more.

Christians speak of the Holy sacrifice of the Mass. It describes the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ. This concept of sacrifice is carried forward in this way. Lamb of God is a sacrificial animal.

Justin
June 25, 2006 - 10:55 pm
Hats: It is not my intent to prove or disprove any of the qualities assigned to Jesus. This is a history discussion. It is not a religious discussion. It is very easy to mix concepts of the divine and human in Jesus especially, when we have passed his period in history. Try not to be offended by discourse that treats Jesus as a man operating in a given cultural environment. It is necessary to separate Jesus the man from Christ,the divine human as well as to place Jesus the human figure in his cultural context.

I have no interest in honoring, liking or disliking, Jesus as a figure in history any more than I have for Caesar, or Charlemagne. That kind of bias would destroy our objectivity and make us unworthy scholars of history.

Bubble
June 25, 2006 - 11:22 pm
#936 . People tend to overlook or they want to forget that these precepts were part of Judaism and not invented on the spot to fit the new religion.

Some ritual of the animals sacrifices remain with the ritual killing of sheep (or sometimes rooster)at Passover time. This is especially true for the Samaritans still living in Samaria.

hats
June 26, 2006 - 02:05 am
Justin, I appreciate you answering my question. I know others, like you, have been in the discussion a very long time. These posters know when a subject is being repeated by a new poster. I am just learning my way around. Robby's guidance is great! The bright red letters at the end of more than one statement made by Durant are a question for the posters to think over and answer. The pretty leaf green letters up in the heading are different topics for nearby discussions. One at a time the green topics will change to red or another bright color and are written in huge printed letters. That way we know Robby has moved on.

By the way, I am not "offended. Justin writes "Try not to be offended by discourse that treats Jesus as a man operating in a given cultural environment." Justin, not using the personal pronoun "you" did not sidetrack me. You are worried about offending a newcomer, me. Thank you for being concerned about my feelings. Your answers didn't give me heartburn. Seeing Jesus as historical doesn't bother me.

Each person can deal with "Jesus" in their own fashion, cultural, religious or cultural and religious together or not at all. It is enough for me to choose my beliefs and values.

I would like to learn in this discussion. When I am off topic, I would like to be told nicely. Again, I appreciate you answering my question.

Bubble
June 26, 2006 - 02:37 am
Hats, you are doing great, and are so considerate. It is a pleasure to have you here.

My comments too are never directed to someone specific, but are honest thoughts or reactions to what I read in general. I know it is often different from mainstream.

To come back to Robby's last post, I don't think we are more civilized. It is not enough to look only at how we punish criminals or act act with prisoners. One should also look to daily life, how some wives, some kids are treated by their families. The number of misbehaviors around, the slander, the rudeness, the "taking advantage" of weaker people, these show if we really are civilized or not. Rape, knifing, shooting, stealing are not rare if we go to extreme behavior.

hats
June 26, 2006 - 02:42 am
Bubble, I had the same thoughts yesterday. When I look at the news, I hear about terrible situations. No, I don't think we are more civilized either as long as children can't live in a safe world. Sometimes living in their home is like living on a battlefront. Children and wives are abused physically and emotionally. Our behavior is a long way from being civilized. Why is it so hard for man to become civilized?

Bubble, by the way, you are always, always kind and considerate. I applaud you.

robert b. iadeluca
June 26, 2006 - 04:12 am
The last few posts are what make this discussion alive and stimulating. Disagreements, so long as they are civil, cause one to think. We are not just idle readers of Durant. We read, we think, we talk, we agree, we disagree, and we come to our own personal conclusions.

But we are never again the same. We develop. Perhaps we even become a bit more civilized. This is why this discussion group has lasted these five years and will go on for many more.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
June 26, 2006 - 04:16 am
Medieval Dress

robert b. iadeluca
June 26, 2006 - 04:31 am
"Who were the people of medieval Europe?

"We cannot divide them into 'races.' They were all of the 'white race' except the Negro slaves.

"But what a baffling unclassifiable variety of men!

"Greeks of Byzantine and Hellas, the half-Greek Italians of southern Italy, the Greco-Moorish-Jewish population of Sicily, the Romans, Umbrians, Tuscans, Lombards, Genoese, Venetians of Italy -- all so diverse that each at once betrayed his origin by dress and coiffure and speech.

"The Berbers, Arabs, Jews, and Christians of Spain, the Gascons, Provencals, Burgundians, Parisians, Normans, of France -- The Flemings, Walloons, and Dutch of the Lowlands -- The Celtic, Anglian, Saxon, Danish, Norman stocks in England, the Celts of Wales, Ireland, and Scoland -- The Norwegians, Swedes, and Danes. the hundred tribes of Germany -- The Finns and Magyars and Bulgars -- The Slavs of Poland, Bohemia, the Baltic Sttes, the Balkans and Russia.

"Here was such a farrago of bloods and types and noses and beards and dress that no one description could fit their proud divesity."

Let us look at ourselves. Each of us fits into at least one of the above.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
June 26, 2006 - 04:39 am
Note the change in the GREEN quotes in the Heading to see where we are headed.

Robby

Bubble
June 26, 2006 - 05:05 am
Except for the Berbers perhaps and adding the Chinese and Japanese instead, I think Durant could be describing the diversity of the United States, or as described the microcosm of Israel these days.

hats
June 26, 2006 - 05:09 am
Medieval Europe and people of color

You have to scroll down pretty far to get to "Medieval Europe."

Bubble
June 26, 2006 - 05:56 am
Very interesting link, Hats, many references that I had not known. Thanks.

Éloïse De Pelteau
June 26, 2006 - 06:13 am
Les Pérégrines was discussed in 2002 and in this LINK you have maps and information on the history, weapons, dress, of the Medieval era.

I don't know how to exactly define civilization, it is too vast a concept to say that we are more civilized and unless one is prepared to closely examine each segment of civilization carefully, I wouldn't advance an opinion. In certain ways we have refined the manner in which we live compared with people in ancient times, in other ways the more advanced a civilized population has become, the less concerned they are with the plight of very poor nations and shamelessly take advantage of them by sheer exploitation of their natural resources leaving destitution behind. Is this the civilization we are talking about?

Hats, it's nice to see you here.

hats
June 26, 2006 - 06:35 am
Hi Eloise thank you. I learn a great deal from your posts as well as the others too. Thanks for the link.

Scrawler
June 26, 2006 - 10:24 am
Hatred and cruelty stems from one thing FEAR and we fear that or those we see as different, perhaps if we could see all people as we see ourselves we could reduce our fears.

Mallylee
June 26, 2006 - 10:27 am
Scrawler, I see through the same window as you

hats
June 26, 2006 - 10:49 am
Scrawler, that is a wonderful point.

Justin
June 26, 2006 - 02:29 pm
Scrawler: You bring us back to the "Golden Rule". Fear is, in large measure, a cause of dissension between peoples. Greed is another contributor.

Are we civilized? Of course, we are civilized. So too, were the people of the Middle Ages. Are we more civilized than the people of the Middle Ages? Certainly. Let us remember that civilization exists when advances are made in Economics, Political organization, Cultural and educational themes. Both periods satisfy those conditions. Have we achieved perfection yet? Of course not but we are moving in the right direction some of the time. The course to civilization is a zigzag one at best. Some people and some nations are in the van while others lag. The Swiss and the Swedes are in the van. The people of the Middle East are laggard.

robert b. iadeluca
June 26, 2006 - 03:55 pm
"The Germans, by a millennium of migrations and conquests, had made their type prevail in the upper classes of all Western Europe except central and southern Italy, and Spain.

"The blood type was so definitely admired in hair and eyes that St. Bernard struggled through an entire sermon to reconcile with this preference the 'I am black but beautiful' of the Song of Songs.

"The ideal knight was to be tall and blond and bearded. The ideal woman in epic and romance was slender and graceful with blue eyes and long blond or golden hair.

"The long hair of the Franks gave place in the uuper classes of the ninth century to heads closely cropped in back with only a cap of hair on the top.

"Beards disappeared among the European gentry in the twelfth century. The male peasantry, however, continued to wear long and unclean beards and hair so ample that it was sometimes gathered in braids.

"In England all classes kept long hair and the male beaux of the thirteenth century dyed their hair, curled it with irons, and bound it with ribbons.

"In the same land and century the married ladies tied up their lair in a net of golden thread, while highborn lasses let it fall down their backs with sometimes a curl falling demurely over each shoulder upon the breast."

Comments, please?

Robby

Justin
June 26, 2006 - 10:24 pm
A woman's hair can be a glorious thing to behold. No matter how worn,it is a mark of beauty. When the French cut the hair off women collaborators,it hurt deeply. More than a man can imagine. In Hemingway's story of the Spanish Civil War, the young heroine is raped by soldiers and loses her hair in a similar manner. When she meets the hero her prime concern is that she has no hair.

robert b. iadeluca
June 27, 2006 - 03:07 am
"The West Europeans of the Middle Ages were more abundantly and attractively dressed than before or since.

"The men often excelled the women in splendor and color costime.

"In the fifth century the loose toga and tunic of the Roman fought a losing war with the breeches and belt of the Gaul. The colder climate and military occupations of the North required tighter and thicker clothing than had been suggested by the the warmth and ease of the South.

"A revolution in dress followed the transfer of power across the Alps. The common men wore close fitting pantaloons and tunic or blouse, both of leather or strong cloth. At the belt hung knife, purse, keys, sometimes the worker's tools. Over the shoulders was flung a cloak or cape. On the head a cap or hat of wool or felt or skins. On the legs long stockings. On the feet high leather shoes curled up at the toe to forestall stabbing.

"Toward the end of the Middle Ages the hose grew longer until they reached the hips and evolved into the uncomfortble trousers that modern man has substituted as a perennial penance for the hair shirt of the medieval saint.

"Nearly all garments were of wool except some of skin or leather among peasants or hunters. Nearly all were spun, woven, cut, and sewed at home. The rich had professional tailors known in England as 'scissors.'

"Buttons, occasionally used in antiquity, were avoided before the thirteenth century and then appeard as functionless ornaments, hench the phrase 'not worth a button.'

"In the twelfth century the tight Germanic costume was overlaid in both sexes with a girdled gown."

Robby

hats
June 27, 2006 - 03:17 am
Justin, the part of the Hemmingway book or story you share is very moving.

My father worked as a tailor all of his life. He had his own business. I think he would have laughed knowing tailors were once known as "scissors."

I would love to see some of the Medieval costumes we are discussing.

"The men often excelled the women in splendor and color costime." This statement makes sense to me. The male bird is always flashier in color than the female bird. Oddly, down through time women have chosen the colorful clothing while the men have chosen the more subdued colors.

hats
June 27, 2006 - 03:20 am
In Medieval times it must have taken a very long time to sew clothing. How in the world did the Medieval people do it? Not counting the other duties. It did help for the rich to have servants, I suppose.

hats
June 27, 2006 - 03:26 am
By the way, when we were discussing blonde and blue eyes, I thought of the Vikings. I can't remember in which period the Viking came along. Was it during the Medival period or before? I don't want to get away from the Medieval period.

robert b. iadeluca
June 27, 2006 - 03:37 am
Click HERE to see Medieval costumes of women. Click onto the pictures to get a larger version.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
June 27, 2006 - 03:43 am
Here is MORE about Medieval clothing.

Robby

hats
June 27, 2006 - 03:44 am
Robby, thank you!

Éloïse De Pelteau
June 27, 2006 - 04:08 am
I still sew and I love to go in fabric stores and browse looking at all the cloth displayed in there and think of all the things I could sew with this fabric or that one. I am sorry that women don't dress much any more.

HERE are some medieval dresses women wore every day. Think of the washing involved.

Scrawler
June 27, 2006 - 10:35 am
"The word "shoe" changed almost as frequently over the ages as shoe styles. In the English-speaking world, "shoe" evolved through seventeen different spellings, with at least thirty-six variations for the pural. The earliest Anglo-Saxon term was "sceo," to cover, which eventually became in the plural "shewis," then "shooys" and finally "shoes." ~ Panti's Extraordinary Origins of Everyday Things

Éloïse De Pelteau
June 27, 2006 - 12:56 pm
In Medieval times shoes were called 'chausses' in French, pronounced shoess so close to shoes. Today we call them 'chaussures'. Funny how languages change through time.

Rich7
June 27, 2006 - 03:24 pm
I always liked the derivation of the word sabotage. It supposedly came from the French word for a wooden shoe:- Sabot.

When a worker was not happy with working conditions in his (or her) factory, he would drop a wooden shoe (sabot) into the machinery drawing all work to a halt. Hence "sabotage."

Rich

Justin
June 27, 2006 - 04:16 pm
The sabot plays a role in Flaubert's "Germinal". It is the wooden shoe worn by miners.

Rich7
June 27, 2006 - 04:17 pm
Strange, they called tailors "scissors." Almost as unusual was a word used in the early days of typing. The person operating the machine was called a "typewriter."

Rich

mabel1015j
June 27, 2006 - 09:06 pm
I can use that.

Eloise - I don't think there was much washing of clothes going on, thus the perfumed hankerchiefs to put to ones' nose. Of course, there was not much washing of bodies, or brushing of teeth, or deodorants, adding many odors. When the Romans had fresh water from the aquaducts and the public baths, they prided themselves on being the cleanest city "in the world" and tho't of others as filthy barbarians. Remember, society digressed significantly in many ways in the middle ages.

Rich - those first "typewriters" were all men, as men were the office workers at the time, including the stenographers and bookkeepers. Then it was decided that they would send women out to demonstrate the machine, that they might sell better to the men who were buying them. So the women became the "typewriters," giving women a new occupation and eventually many new office occupations. It was a blessing at the time since working in the office was a cleaner, sitting down job then the many jobs available in the factories. Eventually those jobs became a female ghetto w/ a glass ceiling.....sometimes sexism works for you, sometimes it works against you.

I think the institution of the state has become more civilized in most parts of the world. It's MUCH, MUCH less acceptable for a gov't to apply the kinds of torture and punishment that we see w/in the church and state of the middle ages. Individuals??? .........Well, i think it has generally improved, at least in western society, but there is still plenty of brutality in individual behaviors.........but even there, western society says it's unacceptable........

we live in the best of times...........jean

Bubble
June 27, 2006 - 11:54 pm
Rich7, thanks for that sabotage enlightning. Interesting!

There is so much variety in this SoC. It is most enjoyable. ET

Mallylee
June 28, 2006 - 01:37 am
Scrawler, most intersting----sceo, to cover. Your post set me wondering, and wandering through Google but I could not find any other etymological developments from sceo; to cover. I suspected that the NE Scottish farmng custom of SHOLLING the potatoes(covering them against the light) might be a developent from sceo.

This was told to me years ago by an elderly Jehovah's Witness who was reared on such a farm. JW's believe in a sort of after death state they call Sheol (I think thta is how they spell it) where the dead lay buried awaiting the return of the Saviour

Bubble
June 28, 2006 - 01:45 am
She·ol, n. (in Hebrew theology)
1. the abode of the dead or of departed spirits.
2. (l.c.) hell.
[1590–1600; < Heb shÃ’$l]

Mallylee
June 28, 2006 - 03:32 am
Thanks you Bubble! How interesting . Where did you get the info? I'd like to look at that source for anything else intersting.

As for the development of notions about Hell ; I understand that the original idea of inferno was not a fiery furnace, but a cold, likeless place. Milton, or it may have been Dante, I seem to remember carried on this idea

robert b. iadeluca
June 28, 2006 - 03:48 am
The Home

robert b. iadeluca
June 28, 2006 - 03:57 am
"There was not much comfort in a medieval home.

"Windows were few and seldom glazed. Wooden shutters closed them against glare or old. Heating was by one or more fireplaces. Drafts came in from a hundred cracks in the walls and made high-backed chairs a boon. In winter it was common to wear warm hats and furs indoors.

"Furniture was scanty but well made. Chairs were few and usually had no backs. But sometimes they were elegantly carved, engraved with armorial bearings and inlaid with precious stones. Most seats were cut into the masonry walls or built upon chests in alcoves.

"Carpets were unusual before the thirteenth century. Italy and Spain had them and when Eleanor of Castile went to England in 1254 as the bride of the future Edward I, her servants covered the floors of her apartment at Westminster with carpets after the Spanish custom -- which then spread through England. Ordinary floors were strewn with rushes or straw, making some houses so malodorous that the parish priest refused to visit them.

"Walls might be hung with tapestries, partly as ornaments, partly to hinder drafts, partly to divide the great hall of the house into smaller rooms. Homes in Italy and Provence, still remembering Roman luxuries were more comfortable and sanitary than those of the North.

"The homes of German bourgeois in the thirteenth century had water piped into the kitchen from wells.

Any comments about homes in general?

Robby

Malryn
June 28, 2006 - 04:36 am

MEDIEVAL ARCHITECTURE

MEDIEVAL HOUSES

MEDIEVAL HOUSES

hats
June 28, 2006 - 04:41 am
Mal, thank you for the links.

Malryn
June 28, 2006 - 04:45 am

MEDIEVAL BUILDINGS

MEDIEVAL HOMES from medieval-life.net


MEDIEVAL BATHING

Bubble
June 28, 2006 - 04:58 am
Mallylee- sorry, I forgot to mention Sheol was a definition from Websters dictionary.

Mallylee
June 28, 2006 - 06:19 am
Okay, Bubble. I was so intrigued that I found quite a lot in Wikipedia all about Hell, Sheol, Gehenna etc.and how the different notions came to be.

Mallylee
June 28, 2006 - 06:21 am
were curtained and also testered so that the person in bed did not have to endure the outdoors climate of the bedroom

As for wearing a hat indoors in the winter, I do it most of the time, to save gas and electricity. A lot of heat is lost through bthe head, especially in babies who have big heads,and old people with thin hair!

Rich7
June 28, 2006 - 06:59 am
Thank you, Mabel.

Thank you, Bubble.



Rich

Justin
June 28, 2006 - 11:14 am
Bubble: Do the Hasidim consider women to be subservient to men?

mabel1015j
June 28, 2006 - 11:27 am
......jean

Scrawler
June 28, 2006 - 02:14 pm
"The downward side of beds and bedroom comfort is reflected in a term from the Middle Ages: bedstead. Today the word describes a bed's framework for supporting a mattress. But to the austere-living Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, a bedstead was merely the location on the floor where a person bedded down for the night.

Hardship can be subtly incorporated into custom. And throughout the British Isles, the absence of comfortable beds was eventually viewed as a plus, a nightly means of strengthening character and body through travail. Soft beds were thought to make soft soldiers. That belief was expressed by Edgar, king of the Scots, at the start of the 1100s. He forbade noblemen, who could afford comfortable down mattresses, to sleep on any soft surface that would pamper them to effeminacy and weakness of character. Even undressing for bed (except of the removal of a suit of mail armor) was view as a coddling affection. So harshly austere was Anglo-Saxon life that the conquering Normans regarded their captives as only slightly more civilized than animals." ~ "Panati's Extraordinary Origins of Everyday Things."

robert b. iadeluca
June 28, 2006 - 07:06 pm
Mal:-So good to see you here again!!

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
June 28, 2006 - 07:32 pm
"Monasteries, feudal castles, and rich homes had latrines, emptying into cesspools but most homes managed with outhouses.

"In many cases one outhouse had to serve a dozen homes. Pipes for carrying off waste were one of the sanitary reforms introduced into England under Edward I. In the thirteenth century the chamber pots of Paris were freely emptied from windows into the street with only a warning cry of Gar' l'eau! -- such contretemps were a cliche of comedies as late as Moliere.

"Public comfort stations were a luxury. San Gimignano had some in 1255 but Florence as yet had none.

"People eased themselves in courtyards, on stairways and balconies, even in the palace of the Louvre.

"After a pestilence in 1531 a decree ordered Parisian landlords to provide a latrine for every house but this ordinance was much honored in the breach."

Any memories about such topics?

Robby

mabel1015j
June 28, 2006 - 09:13 pm
Aaahhhhhh, we Anglo-Saxons have long had a custom of depriving ourselves of comfort and pleasure - no wonder we are the more boorish curmudgeons of the planet. We needed a little infusion of the Mediterranean, African, Caribbean cultures to warm us and lighten us up!! ......Hallelujah!!!!.........jean

Justin
June 28, 2006 - 09:41 pm
Running to the outhouse on a Winter morning was always a chilling moment and the odor on contact was bracing. Fortunately, the rear end exposure made the experience one of short duration.

Bubble
June 28, 2006 - 10:52 pm
Fuuny that flies are not mentionned by Durant... I suppose that in winter time, Justin, the flies were hibernating?

robert b. iadeluca
June 29, 2006 - 03:38 am
"Food was abundant, varied, and well prepared, except that lack of refrigeration soon made meats high and put a premium on spices that could preserve or disguise.

"Some spices were imported from the Orient. But as these were costly, other spices were grown in domestic gardens -- parsley, mustard, sage, savory, anise, garlic, dill.

"Cookbooks were numerous and complex. In a great establishment the cook was a man of importance, bearing on his shoulders the dignity and reputation of the house. He was equipped with a gleaming armory of copper caldrons, kettles, and pans and prided himself on serving dishes that would please the eye as well as the palate.

"Meat, poultry and eggs were cheap although still dear enough to make most of the poor unwilling vegetarians. Peasants flourished on course whole grain bread of barley, oats, or rye, baked in their houmes. City dwellers preferred while bread -- baked by bakers -- as a mark of caste.

"There were no potatoes, coffee, or tea. But nearly all meats and vegetables now used in Europe -- including eels, frogs, and snails -- were eaten by medieval man.

"By the time of Charlemagne the European acclimatization of Asiastic fruits and nuts was almost complete. Oranges, however, were still a rarity in the thirteenth century north of the Alps and the Pyrenees.

"The commonest meat was pork. Pigs ate the refuse in the streets and people ate the pigs. It was widely believed that pork caused leprosy but this did not lessen the taste for it. Great sausages and black puddings were a medieval delight. Lordly hosts might have a whole roast pig or boar brought to the table and carve it before their gasping guests. This was a delicacy almost as keenly relished as partridges, quails, thrushes, peacocks, and cranes.

"Fish was a staple food. Herring was a main recourse of soldiers, sailors, and the poor.

"Dairy products were less used than today but the cheese of Brie was already renowned. Salads were unknown, and confections were rare. Sugar was still an import and had not yet replaced honey for sweetening.

"Desserts were usually of fruits and nuts. Pastries were innumerable. And jolly bakers, quite unreproved, gave cakes and buns the most interesting shapes immaginable -- quaedam pudenda muliebra, aliae virillia.

"It seems incredible that there was no after-dinner smoking. Both sexes drank instead."

OK, you food lovers! What are your comments?

Robby

Bubble
June 29, 2006 - 04:14 am
Piglet roasted whole on a spike and open fire cannot compare in smell or taste to any other baked or cooked meat; the same for whole roasted kid when the internal cavity is crammed with herbs, spices and onions.

There were no potatoes as yet, I wonder if they had rice?

As for Brie, if I was to comment, there would not be enough room: we are almost at the limit of post 1.000!

Malryn
June 29, 2006 - 04:33 am

It's good to be back, ROBBY. A trip to the ER this week for asthmatic bronchitis, and a few doctors' appointments in the near future have decided me that these medical interruptions are now part of my life to be accepted. So, for Pete's sake, Marilyn, STOP MOPING AROUND, AND LIVE IT UP!

Such a mishmash of communication I've encountered out in the real live world recently. Not only was I asked about a heart attack I never had, someone in the orthopedist's office put on my record that I had a broken hand. A physio-therapist attempted to work on it before I stopped him and sent him down to my almost healed left femur instead. Oy veh! I must check again on Medieval medicine. I am fascinated with this Middle Ages stuff.

MALLYLEE, in re hats indoors in the wintertime: I wear one all the time. I keep the temperature around 62-63 degrees F. Cool suits me better. You're right about heat escaping through the head. I wear a hat or visor inside in the summer to keep glare out of my eyes. Well, kid, I grew up in New England where 75 degrees F was a heatwave; maybe that's why. I was also raised Unitarian. Wonder if that has anything to do with it?

ROBBY, I'm catching up. I'll be gratefully 78 this coming Sunday.

Hi, JUSTIN and HATS and BUBBLE and ELOISE and all of my SOC friends.

ROBBY, if I can find my book, which Dorian-daughter safely put away somewhere when she was here Mother's Day, I'll type Durant segments in here while you're in Montreal, okay? When will you come to my Pennsylvania mountain in the Poconos for a visit? (I've certainly been glad to be "elevated" with all this flooding around.) Bring BUBBLE and PETA like last fall in NC, and I'll get DOR up here. Y'all come!

Mal

hats
June 29, 2006 - 05:30 am
Hi Mal, when you are here posting, all seems right with the world. I am glad to read your posts. It's a welcome sight.

Malryn
June 29, 2006 - 05:32 am

Independence Day

"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it . . . . The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interest alongside its own without bias."

~ Jurist, Learned Hand


Source:

CRITICAL THINKING
What is it good for? (In fact, what is it?)

hats
June 29, 2006 - 05:34 am
Mal, thank you for the great quote and the article. I will take my time reading the article. I am always interested in critical thinking. Is critical thinking a gift or a process one can learn?

Éloïse De Pelteau
June 29, 2006 - 06:51 am
Hi! Mal, great to see you, have you made any progress in possibly coming to the Montreal Bash? We will have the honor of having Robby with us, you should convince your son, or Dorian to drive you up. I was happy to see a photo of you out and about in your spiffy wheelchair in Mount Pocono.

Food is an endless topic to talk about. I read cook books like literature and drool over the pictures. I wonder if truffles were popular in Medieval times, apparently it is a delicacy many people pay a hefty price for them.

If people were eating whole grain cereal in Medieval times, a little meat and lots of vegetables, they were probably healthier than we are with genetically modified food, pesticides, additives and trans fat.

Canada is working on a legislation to ban, or reduce trans fat to less than 2 to 5%, from all prepared food in Canada, if the law passes, it will be the second country, after Denmark, to pass such a law to reduce heart disease.

hats
June 29, 2006 - 07:17 am
Hi Eloise,

I am glad to hear you still enjoy the art of sewing. I enjoyed the wonderful link you gave us of Medieval clothing. Thank you.

Rich7
June 29, 2006 - 07:38 am
"Oranges, however, were still a rarity in the thirteenth century north of the Alps and the Pyrenees." -Durant

Oranges were a rarity in my lifetime. I remember, growing up in New England, getting an orange in my Christmas stocking and considering it an unusual treat.

It might have been Louis XIV who had the first glass greenhouse built just for the sake of raising orange trees. It was called "The Orangerie." The trees were cultivated as much for their fragrant flowers as for the fruit.

There's not a major city in the North America worth its salt that doesn't have a French restaurant named "L'Orangerie."

Rich

mabel1015j
June 29, 2006 - 08:22 am
and welcome back, i missed your wit while you were gone, hope Pennsylvania is treating you well........jean

Mallylee
June 29, 2006 - 09:26 am
Great article, Mal, thanks

Scrawler
June 29, 2006 - 09:34 am
Pretzel: "From numerous references in art and literature, as well as extant recipes, we know that the pretzel was widely appreciated in the Middle Ages, and that it was not always baked firm and crisp but was frequently chewy. A recipe for moist, soft pretzels traveled in the thirteenth century from Italy to Germany, where the baked good was first called, in Old High German, bretzitella, then brezel - the immediate predeccsor of our word."

Hot Dog: "The evoluion of the broad sausage to a slender hot dog began during the Middle Ages. Butchers' guilds in various European city-states converted regional sausage formulas, producing their own distinctive shapes, thicknesses, and brands, with names denoting the places of origin. Wiener wurst - "Vienna sausage" - eventually gave birth to the German-American terms "wiener" and "wienie."

Hamburger: "The hamburger has its origin in a medieval culinary practice popular among warring Mongolian and Turkic tribes known as Tartars: low-quality, tough meat from Asian cattle grazing on the Russian steppes was shredded to make it more palatable and digestible. As the violent Tartars derived their name from the infernal abyss, Tartus, of Greek mythology, they in turn gave their name to the phrase "catch a tartar," meaning to attack a superior opponent, and to the shredded raw meat dish, tartar steak, known popularly today by its French appellation, steak tartare.

Tartar steak was not yet a gourmet dish of capers and raw egg when Russian Tartars introduced it into Germany sometime before the fourteenth century. The Germans simply flavored shredded low-grade beef with regional spices, and both cooked and raw it became a standard meal among the poorer classes. In the seaport town of Hamburg, it acquired the names "Hamburger steak."

Ice Cream: "A favorite dish of the nobility of China consisted of a soft paste made from overcooked rice, spices, and milk, and packed with snow to solidify. This milk ice was considered a symbol of great wealth.

As the Chineese became more adept at preparing frozen dishes - they imported and preserved snow from mountain elevations - they also develped fruit ices. A juice, often including the fruit's pulp, was either combined with snow or added to milk ice. By the thirteenth century, a variety of iced desserts were available on the streets of Peking, sold from pushcarts." ~ "Panati's Extraordinary Origins of Everyday Things"

Yummy! Anyone hungry yet?

Bubble
June 29, 2006 - 09:57 am
The Tartars had such tough meat that they needed tenderizer. They put their cuts of meat between horse and saddle and the pounding during the gallop helped shred the meat and tenderized it. Bubble

kiwi lady
June 29, 2006 - 12:06 pm
Modern day meat tenderiser. Chop up a couple of kiwifruit and throw in a lidded container with the meat you want to tenderise. Do not leave steak in with the kiwi too long or when you cook it it will disintegrate. We only marinate normally for half an hour in the kiwi. You can chuck the kiwi in with your normal marinade but as I said do not leave it for hours! I usually turn the meat over in the marinade after about 15 mins.

Carolyn

Rich7
June 29, 2006 - 04:20 pm
"Food was abundant, varied, and well prepared, except that lack of refrigeration soon made meats high and put a premium on spices that could preserve or disguise. -Durant

The premium on spices was so great that it set off an age of exploration and trade that quite possibly is the foundation for our global economy as it is today.

The following article shows the importance of spices in world economic development. It also, interestingly, debunks the long held notion (and that implied by Durant's statement) that the drive for spices was impelled by a need to cover up the smell and taste of decaying meat. Meat was much better preserved by the already available techniques of salting, smoking, and drying.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=1134

Rich

kiwi lady
June 29, 2006 - 06:00 pm
We use so many spices now in our cooking we cannot imagine what it would be like if they were not available. Lets face it we like the taste of spices and I guess it would be pretty much the same in the era we are talking about here.

mabel1015j
June 29, 2006 - 06:25 pm
Interesting article Rich, thank you......jean

Justin
June 29, 2006 - 06:33 pm
It is so nice to have you back where you belong, Mal.

jane
June 29, 2006 - 06:49 pm
It looks as if it's time to move to a new discussion area to continue ...

"---Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant ~ Volume IV, Part 11 ~ Nonfiction"