Tales Of The Flying Mountains,
Prologue.
The Advisory Council of the spaceship Astra clarifies the need for selection and interpretation of historical facts. The examples given are reasonable. They could obviously be discussed further but here they are offered only as examples. "Mohammedanism" should be "Islam" but that is the kind of historical detail that is always with us.
"'...man being what he is, moral judgments are inevitable. Was it right, was it desirable that Christianity take over Europe...?'" (p. 16)
Do we need to discuss whether this was right or desirable? It happened and we certainly need to understand why. One question in a future history takes us back into past history and, within the works of the Andersons, to the times when merfolk fled from an exorcism or when the last King of Ys converted to Christianity.
I have a Religion and Philosophy blog for such questions but fewer people read it.
Possible Reasons Why Christianity "Took Over"
monotheism, with an omnipresent deity
a universal morality
freedom from divisive dietary laws
a single blood sacrifice of a perfect victim, efficacious for all time
a divine incarnation
a death and resurrection
a triune deity
fulfilled prophecies (the historical element)
a Mother of God able to replace the Mother Goddess
angels and saints instead of gods and heroes
the Adversary as a rebel angel instead of an anti-God
canonization of saints replacing deification of emperors
the bishop of Rome becoming Pontifex Maximus (an already existing post)
scriptural and Classical scholarship
incorporation of Greek philosophical schools
monasticism as a retreat from a hostile secular world
the flexibility to shed some of these elements at the Reformation
Yes, Christianity is comprehensive, robust and still with us.
Is this a diversion? No. Poul Anderson's works incorporate every issue.
41 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I believe "Mohammedanism" to be legitimate, because Mohammed founded Islam.
It was right of Christianity to arise and convert Europe and spread to many parts of the world. Because that is the ordinary means of salvation God desired for us.
I don't understand that bit about the Mother of God replacing a "mother goddess." The BVM is not a goddess or any sort of divine being. She is the Mother of God because she gave to her Son, the Incarnate Logos, all that every mother gives to her children, bodily life and sustenance.
It was the Emperor Gratian (r. 375-83) who rejected the title of Pontifex Maximus, which he thought unfitting for a Christian ruler.
Not all monks thought the secular world was hostile. Many monasteries were founded by the gifts of devout laymen/women.
No, what the Protestants did during the "Reformation" was to reject many crucial, life-giving elements of Christianity, starting with rebellion against the authority of the Papacy, founded by Christ to be the Earthly leader of His Church.
I would also observe, with no wish to seem offensive, that this process of "shedding" many elements of Christianity seem to lead many Protestant churches to becoming less and less Christian. Such as those who deny the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, or even to allowing horrors like abortion.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Muslims insist on "Islam," meaning "submission to God." They think that "Mohammedanism" gives too much emphasis to one man.
To say that the Mother of God replaced the Mother Goddess is not say that the Mother of God is a goddess. On the contrary.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!'
I have no objection to mostly using "Islam" as such, if only because it's quicker to type than "Mohammedanism." And I still believe the second term to be legitimate.
Yes, but so many of the more ignorant or hostile Protestants stubbornly and falsely insist Catholics/Orthodox believe the BVM to be a goddess. That has to be refuted over and over.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We have to use the term that the people concerned prefer.
But, when I say that devotion to the Mother of God replaced devotion to the Mother Goddess, I do not mean that devotees of Mary regard her as a goddess.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
We are not bound to accept only inaccurate terms.
Of course! It was not you I had in mind as regards the BVM. I specifically mentioned some types of Protestants. Even Luther himself remained orthodox about Marian theology.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Which is the inaccurate term?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
It's inaccurate to deny "Mohammedanism" legitimately means or refers to Islam.
Ad astra! Sean
I am just going out to meditation.
"Mohammedanism" is illegitimate because Muslims object to it.
Kaor, Paul!
Nor do I care what they say. I've seen too many horrors, atrocities, massacres, and barbarities, here and now, to give a cuss about their feelings.
Btw, Muslims are again trafficking in black slavery in Libya and other countries. My late friend, Bruce Binnie, told me of how Libyans he knew told him of how they would one day again have black slaves.
Ad astra! Sean
Paul: "We have to use the term that the people concerned prefer."
I have no problem with using the term Muslim for the followers of the religion founded by Mohammed, but I can certainly think of cases in which following your statement would be inappropriate.
Eg: this self-proclaimed 'Queen of Canada'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romana_Didulo
Sean,
Appalling attitude!
Paul.
Kaor, Jim and Paul!
Jim: I've never heard of Romana Didulo till you mentioned this impostor. The conclusion I drew after looking her up was that she is/was a grifter conning deluded followers into giving her money. Fortunately, she seems to have gone dormant.
Paul: A realistic attitude about the Islamic threat. People as different from each other as Salman Rushdie and Hirsi Ali Ayaan would disagree with you.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course there are people who disagree with me! When everyone is in agreement, that will be astonishing.
There is no Islamic threat. That is like speaking of a Jewish threat because of current Israeli atrocities.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Wrong, Islam has been a danger to the world since the wars and pogroms of its founder, Mohammed. Its prime doctrinal sources, the Koran, Hadiths, Sharia law, etc., teaches the rightness and necessity, as a divinely mandated obligation, of Muslims waging jihads on all who refuse to "know themselves humbled," and submit to Islam. It also teaches the rightness and ideal of a theocratic merging of Mosque and State under the rule of a caliph. It also teaches the rightness of barbaric and savage laws as regards non-Muslims, women, and criminals.
I don't care if the nice Muslims you personally know would never act out what I described above. They cannot speak for all Muslims, not even in the UK. Moreover, those "nice" Muslims are unable to stop fanatics from perpetrating endless atrocities, from attacking Jews/synagogues in the US to massacring by the thousands Nigerian Christians. Why? Because these "nice" Muslims can't deny what their religion teaches. If they did, they would be denounced as heretics and face actual and possible danger.
I also note that every single Muslim country, even the mildest (Jordan and Malaysia), imposes irksome and humiliating restrictions on all non-Muslims.
The usual pattern thru out Islam's history has been for periods of jihadist fanaticism to be followed by periods of relative laxity, till outraged "reformers" lash the backsliders, excoriating them from falling away from the "revelation" granted thru Mohammed. Then new waves of fanaticism and jihadism start, which is what we have been seeing since the Muslim Brotherhood arose 80 plus years ago.
Your views are false to facts and history.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Wrong.
My views are true to facts and history.
Modern jihadism is a response to Western interference in the Middle East and to Zionism.
Paul.
Note that the Bishop of Rome ended up supervising the (official, Roman) Church because Rome was the capital.
Yes. And the split of the Empire between East and West left Rome as the only Western church with a direct Apostolic link, to Peter and Paul, the founders of Christianity. Thus, the Bishop of Rome claimed universal authority as the successor of Peter. The Eastern churches had never recognized that authority. The Indian Apostolic link is to St Thomas.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Disagree, but I will add that a huge reason for the resurgence of jihadist fanaticism from Islam has been weakness and cowardice from too many Western nations. A West which was still strong and self-confident as it was in 1914 would not have tolerated that kind of renewed Muslim barbarism.
I'm all for the US and the West crushing this renewed Muslim barbarism!
Mr. Stirling: I believe your comment needs some nuancing. In their book ANTIOCH & ROME: NEW TESTAMENT CENTERS OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY, Frs. Raymond Brown and John P. Meier discussed how it was the "grand strategy" of the first pope, Peter, and Paul to "conquer" the mightiest empire of ancient times by deliberately focusing on its capital, Rome itself.
I realize you don't believe, as Catholics do, that Peter was inspired by God to transfer the Papacy to Rome, with the line of Roman bishops being the holders of the unique authority conferred on Peter by Christ.
Paul: I have repeatedly tried to correct your mistakes about the Eastern churches. It is false to say they never recognized Papal authority--they did, over and over and as recently as the Council of Florence (1438-45). The chief problem being the persistent interference of Eastern Roman emperors in ecclesiastical affairs. And there were eastern theologians like St. Theodore Studion who defended Papal primacy and denied the right of the State to meddle with the Church.
Btw, at least half of all Syro-Malabar Orthodox Christians returned to communion with the Papacy centuries ago.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Disagree.
I can't read all this in detail now because I have to go out.
If I were in a Muslim country, then I would oppose injustice there but I would not agree with Americans invading or bombing the country!
Paul.
I have not made mistakes about Eastern churches.
At least half? The others didn't.
Did they "return"? Had they been Papist before?
Kaor, Paul!
Even if you thought as you said above in an Islamic dominated country, you would get next to nowhere in opposing Muslim injustices. You would be bucking the dead weight of more than a thousand years of Muslim doctrine, Sharia law, entrenched popular bigotry and custom, etc.
So, you have no problems with Muslims attacking/invading other countries (starting with Mohammed himself)?
Incorrect, you have many mistakes about the Eastern churches, as you would find out if you read works like THE CHURCH IN CRISIS: A HISTORY OF THE GENERAL COUNCILS (from I Nicaea to I Vatican), by Fr. Philip Hughes.
I checked, there are even more Syro-Malabar rite Catholics than I thought, about 5.5 million to 6 million. Somewhat less than half in India, the rest worldwide.
Schism can take several forms, from the deliberate to the merely accidental (such as long isolation or sheer distance from the Papacy). Christianity may have first reached India around AD 500 via Nestorian missionaries, who were in schism from Rome.
FYI, "Papist" is an offensive word.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
People in Islamic countries oppose injustice. Of course it is difficult but it is done.
I have no problems with Muslims attacking/invading other countries? When did that statement come on the agenda? The problem with emotive issues like this is that accusations of that sort start to be made.
Incorrect. I have made no mistakes about the Eastern churches. (Can we stop this "Incorrect" stuff? I only reply in kind.)
Eastern churches did not recognize Papal supremacy and many still do not. Some Mar Thoma Christians have united with Rome, when that issue came up, whereas others have not.
Can we just discuss the issues instead of categorically disagreeing all the time? It seems that you identify with your beliefs so completely that they becomes like a life or death issue. They are not.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I am not holding my breath that those who oppose the brutalities of Islam in Muslim controlled countries will have much success. It will more likely need conversion to a non-Islamic faith for that to happen.
That bit about Muslim aggression was due to you bemoaning Western interference in the Mid East. I was remembering the many, many jihads waged by Muslim since Mohammed's time. Starting long before Western aggression.
Incorrect, what you said about the Eastern churches. I cited two works which touches on such issues in this combox. Fr. Hughes, esp., cited repeated instances where the Eastern churches did exactly that, recognizing Papal primacy and authority. That does not mean I deny the Eastern churches are not still in schism, in the eyes of Rome.
Not only are there Syro-Malabar rite Catholics, there's also Chaldean rite Catholics in India. Something else to look up.
These matters touch on matters of life and, the eternal fate of human souls.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Bemoaning? Opposing military interventions which serve the economic and strategic interests of the US, not the interests of people living in the region.
Jihads started long before Western aggression? Both jihads and aggression are wrong. You can get into a "Yes, our side did something wrong but their side did something wrong first..." set of justifications and rationalizations. It is this good guys/bad guys attitude that is now, quite literally, destroying the Earth.
Correct, what I said. What you call "schism" is Eastern churches not accepting Roman authority. There are Eastern churches that have united with Rome and others that have not.
You will understand that I do not believe that the spiritual well-being of human beings depends on issues of ecclesiastical authority.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
The strategic interests, safety, and survival of the US/Western civilization come FIRST. We have conflicts, wars, etc., because humans and their nations contend for supremacy. The alternatives we have now is the US/Western civilization, Maoist China, and jihadists dreaming of a worldwide caliphate. These struggles are going to continue till somebody becomes top dog. Thank you, I prefer the Terran Empire (oops! I meant the US!) to the alternatives.
I will respond to your error about the Catholic/Orthodox at a better hour.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The survival of the human race, including all the people killed in wars in the Middle East, comes FIRST. Jihadists are not going to achieve a worldwide caliphate. China is not going to conquer the world either militarily or economically. The US backs violence just as bad as that perpetrated by its opponents.
I have made no error about the Church. The Orthodox do not accept Papal supremacy.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Refused, my country/civilization comes first. No US and the world would be vastly worse off.
You are missing the point about Maoist China, the regime in Peking has global ambitions--meaning I expect it try to achieve them.
It does not matter if jihadists will fail to achieve their ambitions, the mere effort by these fanatics could well be catastrophic.
You are not paying attention to what I actually wrote: there were TIMES when what came to be called the "Orthodox" churches admitted and acknowledged Papal primacy/authority. That is a historical fact. You are insisting that what we see now has always been the case, which is untrue.
I'll cite a clear example of this using the second phase of the Iconoclast Controversy (813-843), quoting from pages 164-65 of Fr. Hughes' THE CHURCH IN CRISIS (Hanover House, 1961). First quote, from pages 164-65: "In the debates which the emperor [Leo V, r. 813-20] arranged in order to give some prestige to his jejune ideals, the Catholics were easily victorious, and one of them, Theodore, abbot of the Stoudion monastery, carried the argument well beyond all hair-splitting about the meaning of Old Testament quotations, by asserting these religious questions lay wholly outside the emperor's sphere of authority." Here we see the Catholics denying the right of the State to meddle in matters of doctrine. Leo V's reaction was fierce: "The patriarch of Constantinople was forced out, for standing by the tradition, and in his place a married layman was installed--an unheard of novelty. He faithfully carried out the emperor's orders, and called a council of bishops to sanctify the revolution. Here there were bloody scenes, when the Iconoclasts battered their Catholic opponents into insensibility. From the church the victims were carried off to the emperor's prisons or banished, and it was announced the council had quashed the decrees of the General Council of 787."
Also from page 165: "In the persecution that now began, there appeared this novelty of a Catholic leader, Theodore, who strove to unite the Catholics around the twin ideas that the state has no rights in questions of belief, and that the survival of the true tradition of Christian belief lies in the union of Catholics with the Apostolic See of Rome. Never before had these truths been stated so explicitly by a cleric subject to the Byzantine power. Theodore now became the chief target of the emperor's fury, but everywhere bishops, priests, monks were arrested, tortured, banished."
Again, I'm reminded of such momentous texts of Scripture like Matthew 16.13-20 and 22.15-22 and all the tremendous consequences springing from them. The Iconoclast Controversy was the last time schisms were caused by the theological peculiarities of this or that Eastern Emperor. The later schisms were mainly caused by patriarchs of Constantinople.
Ad astra! Sean
Refused.
You are not paying attention to what I have written. There has not been continuous acceptance of Papal authority by the Eastern bishops such as there was by the Western bishops until the Reformation.
Can we just discuss issues without using words like "Refuse" and "error"? This not normal discourse.
The world would be far better off without US military interventions and other foreign policies.
Humanity comes first. Our civilization has a lot to answer for and is resented for reasons. It is a matter of urgency to think of a single human race on a single planet.
Other civilizations have a lot to answer for? Sure. Continuing to squabble about that is the worst possible response to the now current environmental disaster and to the continued warmongering of politicians East and West.
Kaor, Paul!
Incorrect, I have never said what we call the Orthodox churches always continuously acknowledged Papal primacy/authority. You should simply admit you erred.
If there was no US, or if it was weak/unimportant, it's a dead certainty some other Power like Maoist China or even a jjhadist caliphate would be doing those "interventions." Almost certainly such a Power would be a far harsher master.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Incorrect. Can we stop using that language?
I do not agree that I erred. Can we stop using that language?
You are still backing one imperialist power against the others. Humanity has to reject all of them and many people around the world are doing so. Meanwhile, the US is having massive problems with imposing its will on Iran as Russia is having with Ukraine. All that kind of intervention has to stop. Many parts of the world need help from those who are able to give it, not more destruction.
Paul.
I think I know what has happened here. What I thought and meant was basically correct: that the institution of the Papacy (the unique, universal authority of the Bishop of Rome as the direct successor of the chief Apostle, Peter) developed in the Western Church, not in the Eastern Church. This, after all, is one of the differentiating features between Catholic and Orthodox. However, I phrased this in a way that enabled a Western Christian sensitive about issues of ecclesiastical authority to quibble about historical details in a way that has confused the issue. I can accept clarification about such details although this does not alter one of the basic East-West, Orthodox-Catholic differences.
Kaor, Paul!
I have NEVER said there has been continuous, uninterrupted acknowledgement of Papal primacy/authority in what became the Orthodox churches. But, before 1054, there was general agreement among the Orthodox that the Pope did have a real primacy, and not a merely honorary primacy. I am not retreating from that historically verifiable fact.
In a strife prone world inhabited by a quarrelsome race like ours, I believe in supporting the best existing "imperialist power." Like it or not that is the US/West. This warring-states era is going to last till somebody emerges victorious.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Can we be less confrontational? It's no good when we have to start saying what we NEVER said. If I reread my own past comments, I would probably want to rephrase some of them but I mainly want to move forwards, not backwards.
The ideas that we are discussing took time, sometimes a lot of time, to develop and also diverged. We cannot just read later or current ideas back into the earliest period as if there had been no process of development.
Paul.
We are not a quarrelsome race. The present global economic system, which you support, generates a lot to quarrel about. The US is not the best "imperialist power." (No quotes needed.) (Like it or not.) No one will emerge victorious. We will destroy ourselves or, if we avoid that but make no radical changes, warmongering, with seemingly endless destruction, will continue indefinitely.
Kaor, Paul!
I could argue this "confrontational" debate or discussion bears out my belief we humans are innately prone to being "quarrelsome."
The Wikipedia links you sent me and your comment above shows a way of "moving forward." Papal primacy/authority did not spring full blown into existence at the very beginning of Christianity. As you said the developing of Papal primacy was a slow, gradual, organic process, starting from its roots in the NT. In the earliest mostly post-Apostolic years, we see Clement of Rome writing to the Church in Corinth (c. AD 90) as one having the right to speak with authority. St. Ignatius of Antioch's "Letter to the Romans" (c. AD 107) addresses the Church there with extraordinary deference. St. Irenaeus of Lyons speaks of the Bishops of Rome in AGAINST HERESIES (c. AD 180) as having a unique authority no other bishops had or have. And so on with many other early Christian writers.
As generations passed more and more Christian bishops acknowledged the bishop of Rome as the man who could rightly judge their disputes. That also included the popes having the right to judge doctrinal controversies, such as the condemnation of Marcion, who wanted to eject the OT from the Scriptures (c.AD 150). And those who acknowledged a real primacy for Rome included the bishops of the Eastern Parts of the Empire.
These comments about the organic development of Papal primacy reminded me of the works of two other men: John Henry Newman and Vladimir Soloviev. These very different men started from different points, Anglican Protestantism and Russian Orthodoxy. Their studies of Christian history and theology led them, in AN ESSAY ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE (Newman) and THE RUSSIAN CHURCH AND THE PAPACY (Soloviev), to the same conclusion: Anglicanism (and all of Protestantism) and Orthodoxy gravely erred in rejecting Papal primacy. That rejection cut them off from the only sure means on Earth of preserving the true tradition of Christian faith and belief, the Catholic Church. Albeit the Orthodox churches fell far less into error than Protestantism.
It might be interesting to list the writers I've mentioned in this combox:
John Henry Newman, AN ESSAY ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
Vladimir Soloviev, THE RUSSIAN CHURCH AND THE PAPACY
Philip Hughes, S.J., THE CHURCH IN CRISIS: A HISTORY OF THE GENERAL COUNCILS
Frs. Raymond Brown & John P. Meier, ANTIOCH AND ROME: NEW TESTAMENT CENTERS OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY
I have read all these and others it would be tedious to list.
As for your final comments I do not believe them to be correct and realistic. Humans are not going to become what you want them to be.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
As for my final comment, I have given ample reasons for it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I believe your reasons to be erroneous and unrealistic.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I know you do! What is the point of endlessly saying this?
Paul.
Post a Comment