In the eighth century, Constantine was known primarily through the account of him in the legend of Pope Sylvester. In this he was incorrectly portrayed as an emperor who had persecuted Christianity until struck down with leprosy. On rejecting the suggestion of his pagan priests that he bathe in the blood of sacrificed babies, he had a vision of Saints Peter and Paul telling him to find Bishop Sylvester, who cured, healed and baptized him. Onto this core narrative was grafted the [false] claim that when Constantine subsequently decided to leave for the East, out of gratitude he entrusted Pope Sylvester with a set of imperial regalia, including a crown, and with the authority for himself and his successors to appoint an emperor in the West should circumstances ever require it. (Collins, Roger. Keepers of the Keys of Heaven: A History of the Papacy (p. 148). Basic Books. Kindle Edition).
The “Donation of Constantine”, cited above, and an ancillary “Constitution of Constantine” of course were forgeries, a fact that was not known until the late 1400s, but the documents were “probably not written until the ninth century” and “the ideas behind it were older and may have developed in the papal court”. “Their widespread acceptance enabled Leo to make Charles [Charlemagne] emperor on papal authority” (Collins, p. 150).
The nexus of politics and “the Church” was never so great as it was during the medieval years. According to Collins, “virtually every other Western emperor before the sixteenth century wanted papal coronation to legitimize his authority” (Collins, p. 150).
Many of you will have heard of the document Unam Sanctam , promulgated inn 1302, which concludes with the famous statement, “we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff”.
This is not a religious sentiment. It is a statement written to a King of France, and the reasoning is political:
For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: ‘Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms’ and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: ‘The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man’ [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven’ etc., [Mt 16:19].
This form of political papacy had its own “cancel culture”. It is outlined by William of Ockham in his “A Short Discourse on the Tyrannical Government”. The longer title is known as:
William of Ockham
A Short Discourse on the Tyrannical Government
Over Things Divine and Human,
But Especially Over the Empire
And Those Subject to the Empire
Usurped by Some Who are
Called Highest Pontiff
In a prologue, he affirms that he is aware of “the faith handed down by Christ and the Apostles” (p. 4). Further:
If I do unwittingly say anything contrary to it, I am ready to be corrected by anyone at all who can show me the truth; an as well I will by my own inquiry and by asking others at the appropriate time and place, with careful attention seek the truth (p. 4).
So Ockham, a Franciscan, an honest man, was committed to his idea of “Church” and Christian doctrine.
But he rejects the view that the papacy has secular authority. In Book 1, Chapter 1, sets out an argument that he disbelieves, and works to disprove, but one that is extant throughout “the Church”, that one may dare not question the pope’s political power.
Since I am about to investigate many matters concerning the power of the pope, I have decided, because of the error of some who fear papal power more than God’s, to inquire first whether thorough examination of the nature and extent of the pope’s power is permissible and without danger of just accusation. There are some – too ready to please men, by whose will they can now be raised, now lowered – who dare assert that no one is permitted to inquire about the pope’s power by disputation (p. 5).
Yes, there have been worldly leaders who have been more than happy to kill or imprison individuals who spoke out against themselves and their governments.
But this is, in what we know as “Christendom”, the original “Cancel Culture”.
They rely on this, that according to the canon and civil laws no one is permitted “to dispute about the ruler’s jurisdiction”; therefore, a fortiori, it is not permissible to dispute about the power of the supreme pontiff, lest one commit the crime of sacrilege.
This is the very same phenomenon that is seen with the Twitter mobs and the Leftist mobs – “we have decided upon what is political orthodoxy – whether it be speech about race or gender or the environment or whatever”.
Ockham was excommunicated (which excludes him from the sacraments and therefore from salvation) and exiled. He died “unreconciled”.
“You are not even permitted to inquire about our standard orthodoxy on this”.
Comments, questions?
John wrote:
ReplyDelete"Yes, there have been worldly leaders who have been more than happy to kill or imprison individuals who spoke out against themselves and their governments. But this is, in what we know as 'Christendom', the original 'Cancel Culture'."
There are some similarities with modern cancel culture, but also some significant differences. And there were other activities vaguely similar to cancel culture that predate what you're focused on, that were independent of Catholicism, etc. Drawing the parallels you're drawing doesn't help much in understanding leftism, nor does it suggest that Catholicism is "the source" of leftism. And your initial claims didn't have the "in what we know as 'Christendom'" qualifier.
There are some similarities with modern cancel culture, but also some significant differences.
DeleteJason, it really isn't about ticking off points of similarity and points of difference. What I have been suggesting all along is that Roman Church government practiced a form of tyranny, which, if it did not begin in the methods of governance of the Roman Catholic Church in the middle ages, was strongly modeled there, and it serves as a model for the methods of punishing
And there were other activities vaguely similar to cancel culture that predate what you're focused on, that were independent of Catholicism, etc.
It is true that, in general terms, governments have been "mean to people" for millennia, especially those who may not support them openly, only one form of government -- the papacy -- has lasted, and been oppressive in ways consistent with its doctrines and governmental structures consistently for centuries. In virtually every other case, at least so far as I am aware of (some eastern dynasties may have lasted as long), governments that are oppressive don't last.
Even while Islam has been a religion for decades, it hasn't had the kind of Caliphate that lasted as long, or was rooted as deeply, as the papacy.
Drawing the parallels you're drawing doesn't help much in understanding leftism, nor does it suggest that Catholicism is "the source" of leftism.
"Wokism" is a religion. I haven't gotten to that point yet (I mentioned it in my initial post). As far as "drawing parallels", much of my time has been taken up thinking about and responding to objections from you and others.
As far as "the source", I have several times mentioned that may have been an overstatement, but that the roots of religious-based oppression certainly are evident there.
Please don't forget the initial points I was addressing:
"Culture is the root of politics, and religion is the root of culture".
"The papacy is an institution through which 'every good thing' has become polluted.
"Roman Catholicism in our day, through institutions like 'First Things', provides for something that appears to be a useful ally for Christians in the 'culture wars' today, but that the 'Roman Catholic' influence in their thought 'is part of the problem'.
"The papacy" has hobbled Christianity in the world, and it's ability to affect culture in a Godly way.
You have quibbled about words ("global", "Christendom", below, etc.). As best as I can tell, your objections focus on these quibbles, and your (unwarranted) notion that somehow I am "overreacting" wrongly attributing some evil (intentions or purposes or methods) to Roman Catholicsm. Roman Catholicism has existed for centuries, and it has worked very hard to bury any information at all about its less-than-flattering side. It seems more alarming to me that people strive to minimize it.
I noted a huge amount of factual information that I had yet to bring to these blog posts. This post here, as Ockham sees it, is direct evidence of similarity (if not causation -- Ockham is a pretty obscure writer and it's difficult to get access to his work -- likely because "the Church" spent large amounts of effort at hiding information that disagreed with their principles or methods -- much in a similar vein that the news media today hide information that doesn't match the current narrative).
There are centuries'-worth of similarities, and there are also plenty Marxist writers and thinkers in our day who look back to those centuries for ways to pattern their own thoughts and methods. It is my intention to point these things out in a systematic way.
And your initial claims didn't have the "in what we know as 'Christendom'" qualifier.
It's not a qualifier. It's nothing but a synonym for Medieval Roman Catholicism.
John wrote:
Delete"It is true that, in general terms, governments have been 'mean to people' for millennia, especially those who may not support them openly, only one form of government -- the papacy -- has lasted, and been oppressive in ways consistent with its doctrines and governmental structures consistently for centuries. In virtually every other case, at least so far as I am aware of (some eastern dynasties may have lasted as long), governments that are oppressive don't last."
As I explained in previous threads, the amount of time a source did something doesn't tell us much about the influence that source had on another source. That's especially true if the behavior in question is something people can easily become involved in without the influence under consideration and it's been centuries since the source who allegedly did the influencing was involved in the behavior in question. When you mention how long Roman Catholicism did something like manipulating language or governing in an oppressive way, that doesn't tell us much about the level of influence Catholicism has had on leftism in those contexts. As I've explained elsewhere, it's not as though figuring out how to do something like manipulate language or govern oppressively is difficult to do, nor are we in a situation in which medieval Catholicism would be the only or even the primary source in which leftism would see such behaviors exemplified.
The "Twitter mobs" you referred to in your initial post above are largely acting out of emotions, impatience, vindictiveness, and such, which don't require much knowledge about or influence from medieval Catholicism.
You wrote:
"As far as 'the source', I have several times mentioned that may have been an overstatement, but that the roots of religious-based oppression certainly are evident there."
You can't keep referring to "the source", then try to deflect criticism by saying that your language may be wrong. As I mentioned earlier, you told a commenter in the initial thread in this series that he's probably right, not just maybe right, that Catholicism is just a source rather than the source. On other occasions, though, you've only said that your initial language may have been wrong or that you haven't said anything that's wrong. You've even reiterated your original "the source" language at times. You seem to be trying to have it both ways.
John wrote:
Delete"It's not a qualifier. It's nothing but a synonym for Medieval Roman Catholicism."
First of all, "Christendom" doesn't normally refer to medieval Roman Catholicism alone. Secondly, let's substitute "Medieval Roman Catholicism" in your original comments and see if those comments make sense that way:
"Yes, there have been worldly leaders who have been more than happy to kill or imprison individuals who spoke out against themselves and their governments. But this is, in what we know as [Medieval Roman Catholicism], the original 'Cancel Culture'."
The issue under consideration here is the nature of the connection between Catholicism and leftism. Therefore, if sources outside of medieval Catholicism have been involved in the behavior in question, those sources have to be taken into account. You can't dismiss them because they weren't part of medieval Roman Catholicism. If leftism could have been influenced by those other sources, the ones outside medieval Catholicism, that's relevant. Your comments quoted above were erroneous, then, and substituting "Medieval Roman Catholicism" for "Christendom" doesn't change that.
You keep complaining about "quibbling about words", but you need to stop using words inaccurately. It's not some sort of inappropriate "quibbling" to correct false claims that you make. You can't just redefine terms like "the source" and "Christendom" however you want.
"Yes, there have been worldly leaders who have been more than happy to kill or imprison individuals who spoke out against themselves and their governments. But this is, in what we know as Christendom, the original Cancel Culture."
ReplyDelete"This is the very same phenomenon that is seen with the Twitter mobs and the Leftist mobs – we have decided upon what is political orthodoxy – whether it be speech about race or gender or the environment or whatever."
Worldly catholic leaders persecuting people in the medieval age -- evil. Leftist cancel culture persecuting people today -- evil. But why think modern leftist cancel culture originated mainly in medieval catholicism? Based on same methods -- silencing speech, imprisoning and killing opponents, deciding what it is political orthodoxy? But two different groups can have the same methods but be UNRELATED. The police and criminals both use aggressive methods, yell at people, use bad words, manipulation techniques, force others to obey them, shoot their guns, but that doesnt mean criminals originated from the police. Medeival catholics and modern leftists can use the same (evil) methods but that doesnt mean leftists or leftist methods originated from catholics or catholic methods.
I believe the catholic church is bad, it leads many people to spiritual death, theres ALOT wrong with the catholic church, but you sound like you want to make catholicism the scapegoat for almost everything wrong the left does. Catholics have done a lot of wrong but are catholics to blame for almost everything wrong the left does? The left seems to influence catholics as much or more than catholics influence the left today. Just look at all the catholics in politics like Mario Cuomo. Does Cuomo care more about waht the catholic church says or does Cuomo care more about what his leftist politics and party say?
John Bugay's main argument:
ReplyDeleteWhat I have been suggesting all along is that Roman Church government practiced a form of tyranny, which, if it did not begin in the methods of governance of the Roman Catholic Church in the middle ages, was strongly modeled there, and it serves as a model for the methods of punishing.
There are centuries'-worth of similarities, and there are also plenty Marxist writers and thinkers in our day who look back to those centuries for ways to pattern their own thoughts and methods. It is my intention to point these things out in a systematic way.
Questions and concerns:
First, is there evidence Leftists today have modeled their methods primarily after the Medieval Roman Catholic Church? Let's take two prominent "Marxist" organizations: Black Lives Matter and Antifa. This does not imply BLM and Antifa are perfectly Marxist, but they do have Marxists and Marxist thought is often prevalent in their thinking (e.g., their analysis of social justice through an economic lens and their assumption that rich and poor should be economically equal). Is there evidence BLM and Antifa are primarily modeling their methods after the Medieval Roman Catholic Church's methods?
Second, how does Bugay propose to overcome the apparent evidence that BLM and Antifa seem equally or more influenced by socialist or anti-fascist methods than by Medieval Roman Catholic Church methods?
Third, why could BLM and Antifa not have developed their own methods independent of the Medieval Roman Catholic Church?
Fourth, why cannot the methods of BLM and Antifa have multiple sources of influence, not only or primarily the Medieval Roman Catholic Church? For example, Antifa is not only Marxists, but it is also anarchist. The anarchist strain in Antifa eschews authority. But the methods of the Medieval Roman Catholic Church are anything but anarchist. The Medieval Roman Catholic Church itself is authoritarian and hierarchical and their methods reflect their authoritarian and hierarchical structures (e.g., their top-down "methods of governance").
Fifth, if BLM and Antifa have modeled their methods primarily after the Medieval Roman Catholic Church's methods, then have they consciously or intentionally done this? If it has not been consciously or intentionally done, then BLM and Antifa adopting these methods could not have been primarily or directly influenced by the Medieval Roman Catholic Church. At most there could be secondary or indirect influence.
Sixth, BLM and Antifa have used methods like rioting, tearing down statues, and throwing Molotov cocktails. Is the Medieval Roman Catholic Church a primary source for methods like rioting, tearing down statues, and throwing Molotov cocktails? For example, rioting definitely predates the Medieval Age. Also, why is not tearing down statues influenced by Byzantine iconoclasm or Puritan iconoclasm? And Molotov cocktails have a history in improvised incendiary weapons in ancient Greek fire, WWI kerosene oil, WWII Finns during the Winter War with the Russians, American napalm bombing in Vietnam, or Palestinians against Israelis in the contemporary Middle East.
Seventh, if BLM and Antifa have modeled their methods primarily after the Medieval Roman Catholic Church's methods, is it primarily about language and rhetoric? But obviously words can affect people, and people can take actions based on words. They are not easily separated.
Gerald:
DeleteFirst, is there evidence Leftists today have modeled their methods primarily after the Medieval Roman Catholic Church? Let's take two prominent "Marxist" organizations: Black Lives Matter and Antifa. This does not imply BLM and Antifa are perfectly Marxist, but they do have Marxists and Marxist thought is often prevalent in their thinking (e.g., their analysis of social justice through an economic lens and their assumption that rich and poor should be economically equal). Is there evidence BLM and Antifa are primarily modeling their methods after the Medieval Roman Catholic Church's methods?
There is no direct evidence that I am aware of that such a thing has occurred but there is a striking similarity to what Ockham described above: "They rely on this, that according to the canon and civil laws no one is permitted “to dispute about the ruler’s jurisdiction”; therefore, a fortiori, it is not permissible to dispute about the power of the supreme pontiff, lest one commit the crime of sacrilege."
There IS direct evidence that if you want to "dispute" about a particular belief of theirs, they will mob-up around you and gang up on you and shout in your face that you are an evil racist. The medieval Roman Catholic Church did not have Twitter, but given their inquisitional leanings, it seems as if they would have happened upon similar tactics.
econd, how does Bugay propose to overcome the apparent evidence that BLM and Antifa seem equally or more influenced by socialist or anti-fascist methods than by Medieval Roman Catholic Church methods?
Keep reading. I have in fact dropped the issue.
https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2020/08/need-for-clearly-articulated-Christian-worldview.html
Third, why could BLM and Antifa not have developed their own methods independent of the Medieval Roman Catholic Church?
I never addressed this, and I never said it couldn't happen. Since I've already said I've dropped this, I see no reason to respond to your other questions at this time.
Thanks for your interest.
What you have said shows a significant problem with your entire case. This is because "striking similarity" between Leftist tactics and Medieval Catholic tactics alone does not imply Leftists learned their tactics directly and primarily from Medieval Catholics. Twitter mobs and the Inquisition can each gang up on people, call them names, and worse, but similar tactics alone do not imply Twitter mobs learned their tactics from Medieval Catholics. Homer Simpson and I both use strikingly similar methods in drinking beer, but our use of strikingly similar beer drinking methods does not imply I learned my beer drinking methods from Homer Simpson.
DeleteLeaving my questions unanswered does not help your case. It is better to drop a bad case than continue with a bad case. Thank you for your time.
I appreciate your comments.
DeleteI suppose the challenge for anyone who is interested is to find/note some historical predecessor to the papacy as it pertains narrowly to the idea of using force to control/check faith, morality and political thought.
ReplyDeleteI think you can find the use of force to control moral action, (ie enforcing laws).
You will find the use of force to further a political agenda.
You might even find the use of force to force conversions.
But what about the three being married and becoming inseparable?
I deduce John’s arguing, based not in a little part upon the graphic he used in a previous post, that medieval thought was sort of bottle-necked and out of it came the idea that absolute obedience to a HUMAN institution is necessary in order to create a utopia on Earth.
The result of obedience to a man-made office is a focus outward by the power mongers. They now see ALL the world’s problems as a need for others to reform. There is no looking inward, and no call to repentance and reform on their own part. How could there be?
Force is now justified to not only subdue a man’s obedience in action, but obedience in his thought. Those who cannot be swayed, must be destroyed.
You can make an argument that faith, morality, and politics were present in national politics prior to the 5th century, but paganism presented challenges with synergizing morality. Each god desired and had a different morality which made it hard to unify. Historians have contended Constantine found in Christianity’s monotheism, a means to unify his realm.
Thus, the marriage of monotheism with the strong arm of the Roman Empire, and the philosophy of the Greeks, which was refined into Roman Catholicism. It is not just Rome’s history, it’s our own.
Papalism was the impetus and center of the marriage. The Scriptures were set aside and made subject to a man, ie the Pope, (another leftist tactic). Now an authority on Earth determined faith, morality, and used politics as a means to further consolidate power; submission of one’s loyalty was not good enough. One must submit his intellect and will as well.
Since morality was subject to human innovation, the concept of casuistry developed in the 16th and 17th centuries in Roman Catholic thinking, championed by the Jesuits. The Jesuits were largely responsible, and have been ever since the 17th century, for setting up and operating schools, and we are all aware of their ultramontanism. Casuistry may have been defeated in open battle by the likes of Blaise Pascal, but the root ideology, centered in the papal office, remained alive and well. One man determines right and wrong. The concept was alive and well, though not debated, early in the church as forgeries were often used to consolidate power. A wrong can be tolerated and perpetuated if it serves a greater benefit.
BLM and other movements are a manifestation of this thought... and Gerald is right again, their tactics are different. However, tactics and available resources are typically a means to achieve an ends,
ReplyDeleteand “ends” are derived from ideologies. It’s the ideology that is in the dock.
If you look up where the money donated to BLM goes, you’ll find it almost all goes to fund leftist candidates for office who want to centralize power and force an ideology. It’s no secret, they intend to use force to execute judgment.
John says “wokism” is now a religion. I agree to a great extent. The one thing they have need of is a “pope” to consolidate all their faith, morality, and politics, and make the Scriptures subject to their new religion by force. I think they are working on getting the “pope” (be it a king or president) identified and in power. (Note: Though it may seem so, I am not arguing an eschatological position).
As a counter-argument, conservatives today are less likely to place any real hope in a human institution. I personally think this is where modern Roman Catholic conservatives and modern Evangelical Conservatives SHOULD differ. But the question at hand is not what we see in conservatism today, but what is at the heart or core of leftism.
My example above is left wanting, I must admit. There are a lot of holes, and as so many of you have pointed out, Roman Catholicism itself did not develop in a vacuum, absent of other ideas. Aquinas was largely influenced by Aristotle and even some Muslim philosophers.
One could argue BC Israel was a nation where politics, morality, and faith all combined in the monarchy, and force was allowed to subdue obedience. However, the thought of using force to subdue other peoples who believed different was not evident, in my estimation. The Bible is clear that the use of force to destroy or subdue a people could only be authorized by a direct revelation from God, and war was never waged to make the adversary bow the knee to the high priest while he consolidated power and shaped the world’s morality through his teaching, (contrary to the Scriptures). When wars were waged otherwise, they failed. The king and high priest were not allowed to make those decisions alone. Israel’s victories in battle almost always came at a time when they were out numbered and expected to lose, so the world would know it was God who was fighting for Israel.
Still, early parallels in thought, not surprisingly, can be drawn back to ancient Israel. It is the papacy’s elevation of a man/office above the Scriptures to codify and legitimize a specific morality where I most see parallels with leftism today in the west. That “idea” refocused Christendom outward in force, and not the force of the Holy Spirit, but the force of inquisitors, secret societies, “holy wars”, and genocide.
Leftism isn’t there yet, but they don’t have their pope in place yet either.
I largely focused on the West, and since the US is mostly influenced by western culture, I think that is fitting. But one could argue the exact same ideology was growing in the East through Islam and the various caliphates.
ReplyDeleteIslam, however, has never really changed tactics. They have always sought to conquer with the sword. The Jesuits birthed subversion as a means to achieve their ultramontanism after the reformation, which sought to control social movements and install sympathetic political leaders. That’s the way of the West. That’s how our intelligence systems work today. There seems to perhaps be a larger connection to our western roots in the US.
Finally, I must admit, we all knew John’s original premise was a bridge too far. I thought he was using hyperbole to create shock and awe and draw in readers, and I realize the dangers Jason eluded to and agree whole heartedly. In any case, John has walked his initial premise back.
With that said, it does not follow that he cannot adjust his premise and continue on, noting where his thinking is flawed, and adjust course, even if his originals premise was ridged and unbending. He seems to be, while defending his thoughts, growing and shaping new thoughts with the criticism. In the end, he may find out it is a bridge too far still, but attacking him for adjusting his thinking due to very good constructive criticism is probably not good, considering that is the objective of the criticism.
Gerald is right, and as DQ has already stated rightly, we can’t just take two similar concepts and draw a straight line. No idea operates in a vacuum.
I also think trying to draw one for one comparisons between medieval Roman Catholicism and today’s leftism is not necessary to establish the development of thought and trace it back to an origin. I know John said, “it is THE source,” but again, we all now agree that any thought has multiple influences. The question is, what is the primary influence? The critics in these threads have won the battle on establishing it is not the ONLY influence.
It must be said, for an idea to come from, and take root in the annals of history, it need not continue to thrive in the organization or nation where it was derived. We should not expect to look at modern Roman Catholicism and find the ideas we are discussing thriving today. Medieval Roman Catholicism was much different, and as I said before, it is our church history.
We need to be willing to cut into our own flesh a little too.
Thus, the marriage of monotheism with the strong arm of the Roman Empire, and the philosophy of the Greeks, which was refined into Roman Catholicism. It is not just Rome’s history, it’s our own.
DeleteHi NG, thanks for your comments here. I don't have time to respond point by point -- I largely agree with much of what you are saying. This line here is "pretty much the thing".
If I had it to do over again, I wouldn't have made such a strong statement, but you've hit the nail onn the head here. It is "our history", and Rome was the teacher. Especially the papacy.
the root ideology, centered in the papal office, ... It is the papacy’s elevation of a man/office above the Scriptures to codify and legitimize a specific morality where I most see parallels with leftism today in the west. That “idea” refocused Christendom outward in force, and not the force of the Holy Spirit, but the force of inquisitors, secret societies, “holy wars”, and genocide.
Yes. The papacy is more than an ideology, but so too is leftism. Leftism is a religion, with religious fervor, with a new morality, and enforcement (they put you through hell if they can).