Constantine had already divided the Roman Empire between East and West. Now Magnus Maximus (Great Greatest) divides the Western Empire in two and uses his new power not to rebuild civilization but to persecute heretics.
Gratillonius:
"'Maximus, Emperor Maximus, I misjudged him. He lives not for Rome but for power, and for power not only over bodies but souls...
"'So you see Ys is in danger... You are, your whole Sisterhood. He means to destroy what he calls witchcraft, rip it out by the roots and cast it on the fire.'" (p. 111)
Gratillonius, King of Ys, will defend Ys but not rebel against Rome. He must oppose Maximus' version of Christianity but meanwhile has been impressed by Martinus who has opposed Maximus. Everything constantly changes.
5 comments:
Christianity had problems transitioning from a persecuted secret cult to a State religion.
From persecuted to persecuting.
Kaor, to Both!
And I would far prefer for the Church to be independent of the State, any State, keeping the State at arm's length, avoiding the temptations from being a state church.
And I saw a lot about St. Martin in Gregory of Tours' HISTORY OF THE FRANKS!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: that's a recent concept, though. Virtually nobody had any such concept in antiquity; the closest was the sort of indifferentism the Roman government practiced in the High Empire... but that was predicated on a 'live and let live' attitude by all the religions.
Christianity simply refused to play by those rules -- that was one reason for its ultimate success.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I don't entirely agree. E.g., Matthew 22.15-22 says: "Then the Pharisees went and took counsel how they might trap him in his talk. And they sent to him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, "Master, we know that thou art truthful, and that thou teachest the way of God in truth, and that thou carest naught for any man; for thou dost not regard the person of men. Tell us, therefore, what dost thou think: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? But Jesus, knowing their wickedness, said, "Why do you test me, you hypocrites? Show me the coin of the tribute." So they offered him a denarius. Then Jesus said to them, "Whose are this image and the inscription?" They said to him, "Caesar's." Then he said to them, "Render, therefore, to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God things that are God's." And hearing this they marvelled, and leaving him they went off."
This has been one of the most hotly debated sayings of Christ from the earliest times of Christianity. And, I recall how, during the second phase of the Iconoclast controversy, there were even Byzantine theologians who denied the State had any right to interfere in ecclesiastical matters. Also, I read in Dante's treatise DE MONARCHIA how he used this text to argue the Church had no right to interfere with the State in its legitimate sphere.
So what I wrote above was not that new an idea, but did need centuries of debate for its implications to be worked out. I would also argue Matthew 22.15-22 was also key to developing ideas on the need for limiting and restraining the powers of the State, any State.
And we still have States trying to meddle with the Church in tyrannical ways. Barely ten years ago the glorious leftist saint, Barack Obama, was trying to force Catholic nuns to pay for the revolting crime of abortion in their health insurance. Fortunately, that bad man was forced to back down!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment