Simon Schama on Catholicism

[jlc123456]

This is a stunning clip. Thank you. Even more impressive, though, is the courteous and intelligent debate occurring in these comments! I've never seen this on YouTube before. What a refreshing change!!

[Huntgoddessfishery]

I'm so glad this is on You Tube. It's a beautiful visual metaphor. I loved these two minutes when I saw them on the DVD. I kept playing them over and over.

I'm so glad that Schama tells the truth about the Roman Catholic Church in England.

Perhaps because he is Jewish himself, and knows about religious intolerance.

To me, this is what the Roman Catholic Church is all about --- beauty, majesty, dignity.

[christophmahler]

I appreciated the imaginative animation - accompanied by suitable music - as well.

I think, that series appears to be rather balanced, when it comes to controversial topics. To talk about the original virtues of the Roman Church might be a sensible task in Britain.

Religious tolerance is adressed in the series indeed - though it was 'protestant' Oliver Cromwell, who was especially credited with inviting Jews back to England - partly for economic and military reasons.

[christophmahler]

That 'beauty' should be an attribute of christian cult can be experienced in this animation.

Though with Klemens Tilmann I would add, that the Roman confession tends to confuse sacrament and dogmatic content - leading to formalism, superficial phlegma - and an emphasis of the Roman patriarchal see - which tends to end up in 'Caesarism'.

But despite these weaknesses, traditions should not be repressed in iconclasm - but rather be probed by every generation - and be continuallly developed.

[Huntgoddessfishery]

Thanks for your comment.

However, I don't understand what you mean, and I don't have time to look up all these words whose meanings I don't understand.

Well, anyway, Merry Christmas, and thanks again for the beautiful video.

[ollierat9]

Some modern churches may be unattractive but surely this has more to do with modern architechture than relgious doctrine.

[christophmahler]

I do not wish to argue, if all You try to say is, that You feel comfortable within Your local church.

But in regard to my point I would claim, that modern architecture can be related to protestantism. This might not be obvious in the UK, where church buildings - like in Long Melford - were taken from catholic sees. But it appears striking on the continent, where protestant churches had been built from scratch.

[ollierat9]

What about the churches built in the late 16th to late 19th century? and if ugly modern churches are the result of protestantism how do you explain the three catholic churches in my area that are eyesores?

[christophmahler]

I suppose, You are thinking of protestant sacral architecture until the 20th century and why these modern buildings appear rather 'conventional' ?

The Lutheranians e.g. imitated the sacral architecture of the medieval church, e.g. in a form of Roman or Gothic Revival.

I tend to believe, this reflects their political stance as they represented the interests of the principals - in opposition to the catholic emperor and the Roman see.

[christophmahler]

What are the names of the buildings, You are refering to ?

I can only assume, that counter reformation - that is the imitation of modern forms by a conservative authority - played a role in their construction.

[christophmahler]

Examples for an unique protestant sacral architecture would be the Noorderkerk in Amsterdam, St. Paul Cathedral in London or the Dresden Frauenkirche.

[christophmahler]

The reduction of church history to an idealised form of the early church was only achieved by adressing an ancient supremacy of the emperor - reverting the latin acomplishment of a separation of state and church - long before modern secularity.

Fanatism has been the effect of such a reduction.

[ollierat9]

That's an intresting point. What do you think of the way in which the church was politically involved by favouring one monarch over the over, blessing certain sides in wars or having its decisions compromised by being intimidated by other powers?

[christophmahler]

I believe this to be a crucial question.

Much can be said in regard to an answer. So far - my present view upon this matter would appear like this:

While in the east, emperor Constantine was even consulted in theological disputes - the early popes - like Nicolaus - restrained the frankish kings from sacrileges - like multiple marriages.

[christophmahler]

This autonomy in spiritual matters prevented latin christian culture from being entangled into politics - in the very opposite to the later protestant churches, which have become supporters of local principals.

[ollierat9]

I see your point but having a power like the church with its influence over the lives of so many people, the very fact of its existence changes and shapes the political landscape. Even if it seems not to be getting involved the fact that royalty wishes to be seen as in its favour influences their behaviour.

[christophmahler]

I believe, that this holds true more to the abbots of Cluny - and comparable movements - and does not have to be seen as a feature of the church in general.

If the pope is focused on questions of canon law - and a prince is devoted to defend that law - I would see only an inspirational influence on the prince.

I believe, this to be a different matter, than becoming 'entangled into politics'.

Think of John the Baptist and Herod - or the phrase 'Render unto Caesar ...'

[ollierat9]

Are you saying that the pope only interferes for good but all other church leaders are just doing it for personal gain ? What is your opinion on Benedict XII's recent comments on condoms increasing the number of HIV cases ? This is something that supports the church's law but may have a harmful effect on some people. Does that make it right or wrong?

[christophmahler]

I seek to adress a difference between an united church of christianity on one side - and many special groups with partly - so called - heretical teachings for personal profit on the other side.

I do not state, that the Roman catholic church can claim the authority of such an united church - mostly because of its imperial tradition. But as an image it once came most close to that.

[ollierat9]

You keep referring to the Protestant church but you seem to only be intrested in the Anglicans & their equivilents in other countries. What about the Quakers, the Amish, the Congregationalists, Salvation Army? You couldn't accuse any of these churches of being driven by power & wealth.

[christophmahler]

Most of the movements, You have mentioned appear later in history.

My point was that Protestantism - and I mean in the widest sense - was originally more about the politics of principalities, than about the doctrines of the Roman catholic church. Therefore I prefer to look into these original moments. That would be counciliarism in general - and local movements, lead by Martin Luther, Jean Cauvin - or Henry Tudor the VIIIth.

[ollierat9]

Some heads of principalities adopted a reformist stance to further their ambitions by winning favour with the general populace. If there had not been grassroots support for reformist beliefs in these areas then it would have been pointless for them to do so. Reformist leaders who become close to them did so for protection & to spread their beliefs. However this was not popular with many of their followers.

[christophmahler]

To support Your defense - I must admit - one could look more into the movements of the so called Hussites and Anababtists - or Lollars. Like Lutheran Protestantism, these movements were quite popular in the beginning and not well supported by principals - like the king of Bohemia or the Duke of Lancaster - in the end.

[christophmahler]

But following their further developement into Taborites, the Bundschuh uprisings and even the Kansas City Statement of Faith - I tend to conclude, that politics still are a major issue of Protestantism.

[ollierat9]

Every church, indeed every faith, can be affected by politics. This is down to a common factor: human fraility. You may think mainstream protestantisim more suspectable but I think its more a question of the position of an individual church not its doctrine. If protestantism had not existed the catholic church would would have more power & political influence.

[christophmahler]

That statement lacks any documentation from You. Therefore it sounds quite vague to me - especially at such a progressed point of our discussion.

I have mentioned indeed the factions within judaism during the lifetime of Christ. But I do see a rather distinct decline. I will name it: from 'ethos' to 'pathos' - which can not be explained solely by simple corruption.

[ollierat9]

If your'e determined only to see the negative aspects then it's not surprising you find 'pathos'.

[christophmahler]

That I am 'determined to see only the negative aspects of protestantism' is Your interpretation of this thread.

When I decribe my point in detail, You will not face the argument, but You will continue with protestant agitation - mainly based on the argument catholicism is known as corrupt.

Not once You made the effort to check my sentences about the effects of modern doctrines and about the political motivation in christian heretical movements.

You prefer to stick with propaganda.

[ollierat9]

I havn't replied to your comments on doctrine as I felt unqualified to do so. I've been unable to research these points as I would have wished but have discussed them with someone who is qualified. As a result of this & re-reading your comments I have come to the conclusion that you are right, that sadly the protestant church was largely responsible for the spread of capitalism.

[christophmahler]

Thank You.

I find it brave and mature from You to acknowledge this point - rather than to argue for a general imperfection of man.

I respected Your deleted apology - but I missed such a destinct response on my reasons for posting this clip.

[christophmahler]

I am not a member of the Roman Catholic confession - so this discussion means to me not defending a group interest - but to discuss established concepts.

I realized, that a clip about the Byzantine Iconoclasm would have been less polarizing to other members of a protestant confession.

I simply did not knew any example, which would be as sensitive and imaginative as this one.

[christophmahler]

The top-down atonement for military defeats against Islamic invaders by the imperial iconoclasts could not force its ban of icons on a rising monastic movement - which remained adamant about any resemblance with mosaic and islamic customs.

The role of the sensual in christianity had become the difference towards strictly intellectual confessions.

[christophmahler]

I appreciated this clip as depicting the nature of an iconoclastic movement - that would manifest later in institutions like the Lord Protectorate and in policies like the domination of the New World and its trade routes - despite its constant agitation against tyranny and corruption - and with a zeal, inspired by a fallback to mosaic doctrines.

[christophmahler]

This decline appears to me rather as the reduction of a tradition, which contained opposing views - to the fraction of printed texts, we call the gospel.

If You wish to compare it to the preceeding steps within judaism, at its end You will find the denial of angels or a postmortal life in favour of the control of the temple by the hellenized Sadducees - while the tent of the covenant was originally only one expression of a living religion.

[christophmahler]

I will not deny, that such a process was rather inevitable - due to a lack of reform within the Roman catholic confession. I am not defending a certain confession, but the spirit of a culture, common to any nation around the mediterranean sea.

[ollierat9]

Are you referring only to the relgious aspects of the mediterraen culture or the culture as a whole?

[christophmahler]

Beside christianity there never was a common culture around the Mediterranean Sea.

Religion is the core element of culture as it forms the customs beyond economic ends. Without religion human life would be reduced to nationalliberal policies - and the resulting clashes for political power.

That was the reason - in my opinion - why the Greeks embraced the oracles and games as a common cult.

And as the ancients declined - so did their cults.

[christophmahler]

Returning to my starting point - about sacral architecture - I would repeat my statement - that any disconnection from the traditional teaching of church history has a tendency to lead rather to more fundamentalism, than to a more learned and mature handling of the christian revelations.

[christophmahler]

When I talk of popes, then I mean the office - not the person. And while the examples of secular popes seems to disprove the concept of a single leadership within the councel of the apostolic chairs - the history of the church would be the best argument for the validity of that concept. Even at the councils at Constance and Basel, the idea of equals in a councel has not prooven successful - simply as such a gathering needs even more discipline, than formalized and elected leadership.

[christophmahler]

In regard to any discussion about contraceptives - it must be clear to anyone, that sexual intercourse without the intention of marriage and responsibility to possible offspring leads mostly to moral hazard - and often to the spread of disease.

[ollierat9]

What leads to disease is having sex with someone with a disease without using a condom.

[christophmahler]

I am sorry.

I simply do not see the urgency to have sex, with someone, who suffers a disease - except within a marriage and in regard to an incurable disease like HIV. I daubt, that a dispense would not be granted in such a hardship.

But the spread of sexually transmitted diseases is more related to frequent changing partners than to any form of contraceptives. People can have themselves tested for diseases, before they engage into a sexual relationship.

[ollierat9]

You cant' always tell if someone has an STD. People can be tested but don't always tell prospective lovers. True the more sexually partners the greater risk but some people are going to be active so isn't if better they take precautions.

[christophmahler]

I have still not understood, why I should have a sexual relation whith someone, I do not know well enough.

I will still argue, that it is the hedonistic lifestyle, that spreads venereal diseases - not Your preferences of contraceptives within Your marriage. Any exposure to bodily fluids can result in infection - therefore the use of a condom can not be considered a sure safeguard.

[ollierat9]

Condoms are not 100% but they do drastically reduce the change of infection when used correctly. I was not talking about our personal prefrences but the fact that a lot of people will give up using condoms but not all of them will give up their sexual lifestyles.

[christophmahler]

You ask, if precaution would not be a better choice.

I would ask further, why should people be lured into bad habbits, when they can be raised toward a culture of monogamy ?

[ollierat9]

Ideally yes, but as I have said some people will not change their ways. I have worked with some people from Africa and from what they have told me many men are all too happy to use the Pope's judgement as an excuse to not wear condoms but contiue sleeping around because they say they can always confess.

[christophmahler]

People, who will not change their ways cannot be helped. One can only try to avoid their company.

Poorly educated people, living in poor economies will not use contraceptives.

And I cannot recall a male, that likes condoms - even if they are educated and can afford it. Iif their partners agree to have sex outside of marriage - then infections will spread.

I have to repeat my argument, which You have not disproven. Your argument seems to me based on a scapegoat scheme.

[ollierat9]

As for anyone being beyond help I think there is always hope. None of the males I know like the feeling of condoms either but they have the sense that they will like the 'feeling' of a disease or an unwanted pregnancy even less. I don't understand what you mean by a scapegoat scheme. By point was simply someone has sex they should take responsibility whatever the circumstances.

[christophmahler]

I think, I got Your point - but I insist, that Your intention of responsible actions fits well into the proposed behaviour of getting to know people well, before beginning an intimate relationship.

[christophmahler]

Your arguments tend to pick up on todays Roman catholic confession - and its decline into mere formalities - but it were protestants, who pushed for a commercialized and industrialized world, replacing decent local customs with personal interest.

[ollierat9]

I use the Catholic church as an example to point out that it is not just the mainstream Protestant church that has flaws. I don't think the church as a whole is corrupt. I believe that all churches at all periods have had their flaws.

[christophmahler]

For the flaws of human leadership or community there have been church laws established -

dealing with corruption and misjudgement from the councils of the bishops down to the concept of 'dispens' within monastic communities.

If Your point is only about general decline, protestant churches could only be seen as sects, who simply wish to introduce their 'own christianity' - as happened especially in England and northern America.

[christophmahler]

I cannot excuse the corruption of popes in modern times - as they can be observed in the questionable cases of marriage annulments in the 15th century.

But I am convinced, that the catholic idea - that is in reference to Pauls letter to the Romans - being 'one body' in Christ - needs to be considered seriously.

And the experiences of the fathers need to be studied - rather than ignored - even if the suceeding institutions have declined into a mere authoritarian oligarchy.

[christophmahler]

In what perspective modern birth control appears in front of the life of Christ seems to me a very deep and complex question. Paul spoke often to be a fool in Christ - so the obvious propaganda by - almost to dogmatic sentences reduced - natural sciences might be not helpful to grapple with the mysteries of life.

[christophmahler]

I believe, this developement can be seen as a counterstrike against the stance of Gregory the VIIth, who claimed even a political supremacy of the apostolic chair.

The traditional relation between the see of Rome and the German Emperors had been that of mutual support - as reflected in the act of imperial coronation by the pope and in the vast economic support by the German bishops against Hungarian raids.

[christophmahler]

In the time of Gregory, England fell to the Norman dukes, who had been invested with the papal banner - and it were their successors, who killed Thomas Becket and finally favoured people like Thomas Cranmer and Thomas Cromwell, desecrating the sacraments for personal interest - by a series of unlawful marriages - and executions.

[ollierat9]

Cromwell may have been motivated by

personal power but there is no reason to suppose that Cranmer was. As for executions the

whole of europe was busy back stabbing each other and killing off their enemies or anyone who

stood in their way, it wasn't just england.

[christophmahler]

I agree to make a difference between the personality of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the king's chief minister.

When I wrote about 'personal interest', I thought mostly of Henry - as he wanted to marry a second time in opposition to canon law.

But Cranmer and Cromwell supported this personal interest.

In contrast, Thomas More denied such a support - which led to his execution.

Unless, You name examples, I deny, that there have been comparable cases on the continent.

[christophmahler]

To balance this thread, I have to admit, that a simple annulation of the marriage with Catherine of Aragon was not likely to be achieved - as Rome just had been sacked by the Emperor - the nephew of the Queen.

Also the threat of civil war in case of a female heir to the throne should be considered.

But I tend to believe, that Henry was driven by other causes.

Anne Boleyn was about 15 years younger than Catherine - the elder one in this marriage.

And also Anne became replaced later.

[ollierat9]

Has it occured to you that they supported the annulment because they belived the king when he said the marriage was invalid? (Whether it was or not is another argument). Thomas Moore was executed for not agreeing to Henry being head of the church of england, not the marriage although this is what caused the break.

[christophmahler]

I daubt, that a source can be found, documenting, that Cranmer - the later chaplain of the Boleyn family - sincerly believed the marriage with Catherine has been illegal or never consummated. She had six children with Henry - and his brother Arthur died at age 15.

[ollierat9]

When the Pope issued the dispensation to allow Henry & Katherine to marry one document stated the marriage to Arthur had not been consumated but another said that perhaps it had. Katherine & Arthur may not have achieved full intercourse but they must have had some degree of intimacy. As for Arthur being 15 that is biologically old enough.

[christophmahler]

Any annulment process - like any legal case - had to be based on evidence.

A document, that can only make a suggestion cannot be a base for a judgement. In such a situation a judge would look after, which witness is more trustworthy.

The rightheousness of Catherine had never been questioned.

I simply cannot comprehend, why You are even trying to defend Henry.

[ollierat9]

I'm not defending Henry. I was pointing out that there had been a technical error made with the process of annulment. (What he could have done was have the Pope issue a new dispensation as they had married in good faith). This was one of the arguments of his case. I didn't say Katherine & Arthur had full sex but they must have attempted to & got somewhere towards it. This may have been one of the reasons for the ambiguous wording of the dispensation.

[christophmahler]

If You claim not having defended Henry - than I must say clearly, that I cannot see, that You have not done so.

[christophmahler]

In regard to the annulment of Arthurs marriage I would like You to name certain parts of the papal bull - granted to the mother of Catherine - You believe to be a hint, that Catherine lied. Without naming specific issues, I believe Your considerations to be solely speculative.

It appears to me, that there simply was no proove, that the marriage had been consummated - and Catherine denied it even.

[ollierat9]

When Ferdinand asked for the dispensation he asked for & was granted one that referred to the fact the marriage "perhaps" had been consummated. The source I refer to is Antonia Fraser.

[christophmahler]

I guess, that You refer to 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII.' by Antonia Fraser.

And You are talking about the father of Catherine - Ferdinand the II.

But does the documents, You refer to proove, that the marriage had been consummated ?

One issue of the marriage with Arthur had been the question of dowry - which has not been fully paid yet and on the other hand was not easily to be returned.

If Ferdinand insisted on a vague formulation of the dispense - that might have been a cause.

[ollierat9]

I brought up the wording as it was used by the prosectuion. You say everyone who took Henry's side didn't really believe it. My point is that the prosecution had some sort of a case even though to us it seems ludicros. Kings at the time were held in awe. Henry especially with this appearance & personality had an extreme effect on many who knew him. This was how he convinced them.

[christophmahler]

If You look for the petition to the pope, Henry made later for the annulment - he wanted the right granted to marry even in the first degree of affinity. Such had been his conscientious scruples.

[christophmahler]

A base for calling the bull obtained by false pretences, would be - in my view - to state, that the marriage was arranged for political reasons only - which might have lost their weight already before the marriage. That would enable to question a domination of the sacrament of marriage by politics.

[christophmahler]

If Henry sincerly believed the papal dispense for his marriage to be daubtful, he would have confered about his 'biblical studies' at least - and thouroughly - first with Cardinal Wolsey - before he seduced a lady-in-waiting of his wife. Probably he would have learned, that his earlier seduction of Mary Boleyn rendered his 'daubts' pointless.

[ollierat9]

I think Henry belived what was convenient for him then convinced himself of its validity. He actually used his affair with Mary later to invalidate his marriage to Anne. Strictly speaking she shouldn't then have been executed because if she wasn't his wife she couldn't have committed adultery.

[christophmahler]

Would You then finally admit, that Henry might be on one level with the Borgia family - as 'true renaissance' men - but that he can be hardly called a model of christian principality ?

This would lead back to the beginning of our discussion and my claim, that protestantism had more to do with politics, than with anything else.

[ollierat9]

Henry did put to death those who opposed him as head of the church but he also killed reformers. Not all reformers supported the annulement. Martin Luther said that there was no valid reason for it. (not that I'm pro Luther not with his misogyny & anti-semitism)

[christophmahler]

I noticed the appeal for burning William Tyndale on the stake by Henry.

So Henry can hardly be seen as a religious reformer.

The late Anglican high church might appear as authoritarian as the Roman church. But still there is the grave difference of following the interests of a national state in the name of Christ by constitution. Even if the nation is ruled by parliament - the christian values would be easily corrupted by dynastical or national interest.

[ollierat9]

You say that a church so closely linked to national interests is corrupted. So far we argree (one of the reasons why I attend an independant non conformist church). Then how do you explain the church in Spain's support of facism during the civil war or the support of Mussolini?

[christophmahler]

Of course it must be admitted, that the Roman catholic church tends to be entangled itself with the institutions of the late Roman Empire - and the effects of its decline.

The support of spanish and italian fascism by the Roman catholic church can be seen as a reaction to socialism and its anti-clericalism.

But following my own argumentation, it is never for the church to to wield the secular sword. She failed to inspire a third way, balancing the interests of officers and workers.

[ollierat9]

The anti-clericalism of the socialists was a reaction to what you say about the protestant church that it was corrupt & polticaly motivated. The facists attitude to diffrent races & the handicapped was anti-christian.

[christophmahler]

You say, that the Roman catholic church in Spain was corrupt.

I will not question that. I will not defend the Roman catholic confession since its decline with Hildebrand of Sovana - when it had to promote the crusades, in order to compensate the loss of a catholic spirit.

[christophmahler]

But I daubt, that You can document the christian nature of socialism - or of the anticlerical legislation by the Second Republic in 1931. Probably there could have been a relation established - between the laicist state and the church - similar to the French Republic. The reason, why such a solution failed, can be traced back to the atheistic ideology (e.g. Feuerbach) of the COMINTERN.

[ollierat9]

I did not say that socilaism was a christian organisation (although in this country there is an organisation called Christian Socialists), like many belief systems in incorparates many people of different or no faith. My point was that the church supported facists who displayed anti-christian beliefs as opposed to atheism. Who would you rather trust someone who disagrees with you about the existence of god or someone who is obviously pretending.

[christophmahler]

I want to apologize for not having approved Your comment for a month - I overlooked it.

If You are refering to Spain, You need to produce some evidence, that the officers around Franco had been anti-clerical.

Their catholic roots divided them from futuristic fascists.

In regard to Germany, fascism was indeed anti-clerical.

While the Roman Church had negotiated the still valid concordate in 1933 and dissolved the Centre-Party - more than 1000 priests from Poland had been murdered in Dachau.

[christophmahler]

The relation between the catholic church and German fascism is still disputed - as the Society of Jesus was clearly a target of persecution - after the assassination attempt of 1944 by conservative officers.

It seems to me likely, that a victory in Russia would have enabled the fascists to focus on another 'culture struggle' - an utopic concept, like the attack on Russia itself.

In the long run - catholic policy can be seen as an alliance with fascism against socialist movements.

[christophmahler]

On the question, 'who can be trusted ?' - I find it difficult to give a general answer.

It seems plausible to me, that any religious person will hardly find common ground with an atheist - as the concept of man is fundamentally different.

German fascists had advocated paganism, which is increasing in western culture - like religious zeal has risen in former colonies around the globe.

I see it as a reaction to forced christianization. Cultural autonomy in a laicistic state could be a solution.

[christophmahler]

While fascism in Spain and Italy did not promote racism - in Germany it did revive paganism and justified genocide with Darwinism.

Horst Wessel was the son of a Lutheran pastor.

[ollierat9]

The use of Darwinism to justify genocide was a complete misrepresentation of its true meaning. Italy has been considered moderate but still introduced anti jewish laws between 1938-1943. For example in 1939 Jews were banned from all the skilled professions. Alliance between Franco's party & the Nazis during the spanish civil war resulted in a growth of anti-semitism in spain.

[christophmahler]

I do not intend to discuss the theory of evolution within this thread. I reminded You, that fascism in Germany argued biologistic, focused on 'selection' - whatever Charles Darwin had in mind, when he pointed to difficulties of the helpless to reproduce - comparing domestic breeding with marital legislation.

As You might remember the topic of 'affinity' - discussions about consensual adult sibling incest is mostly based on genetics.

[christophmahler]

But it should be evident to both of us, that racism in fascist Germany was politically motivated - to have a single scapegoat, reflecting liberal and socialistic forces linked by race - like international banking and Marxism - with the silent consent of so called christian industrials.

[christophmahler]

In regard to Spain and Italy, I daubt, that You can prove, that fascism is generally linked to racism.

While it is true, that both administrations did hardly more than to allow the transit of some Jewish refugees - they also hardly persecuted their Jewish citizens. If Spain would have happened to be occupied by the Germans in 1943 - like Italy - the Sephardic minority would have been surely deported.

[ollierat9]

The anti jewish laws in Italy were not because of German interference & as I've said started before the 1943 occupation. There was much less persecution in Spain but then the Jewish population was at the time very small. I can't think of any Facist organisation that isn't racist in some way or other. Unless you count the toltalitarian goverements of eastern europe.

[christophmahler]

The history of antisemitism in Italy seems to me still an ongoing debate.

It is still a question, how the laws of 1938 have been formed and why Italy has one of the highest rate of survivors - even why the fascist party had a remarkable number of jewish members before 1938.

So I would propose to agree on the term 'nationalism' - rather than 'racism' - as a key aspect of fascism.

[christophmahler]

And the very same procedure had to expected for countries like Switzerland or Great Britain - from the moment of occopation.

That both non catholic countries refused even the transit of refugees during the war is still discussed.

[christophmahler]

My definition of fascism is also not reduced to parties of the 20th century. I would describe it as an alliance of the military with merchants, in order to restore monarchical forms - supported by popular rethoric - within a proletarized republic. Think of the 'populares' - like Julius Caesar or Charles Louis Bonaparte.

[christophmahler]

Therefore I tend to see 'Lord Protector' Oliver Cromwell rather as an early form of modern fascism - which might be the reason why Carlyles Cromwell will be embraced in the New World - as it had been in Germany.

According to Schama it was Cromwell, who tolerated Jewish families in England again - to profit from their trade relations and their observations abroad - while it was presented as a chiliastic matter.

[christophmahler]

If You meant rather to adress a resemblance of the Roman Principate and the Roman See - under the pontificate of people like Hildebrand - instead of linking fascism and racism - then I would agree.

[christophmahler]

It was the Marquess of Pembroke indeed, who wished to see Wolsey, More and Fisher dead - as all of them expressed firm objections to the annulment of a valid and politically sound marriage. More refused to swear to uphold the annulment by Cranmer.

[ollierat9]

I think what she wanted was them to accept her as Queen. She probably realised that their executions would excacerbate the situation & make her unpopular with the general public. At the end of the day if Henry wanted to do something nothing would deter him.

[christophmahler]

I think, You underestimate the ambition of the Marquess of Pembroke.

According to Schama, Anne introduced Henry to the writings of William Tyndale and the humanistic concept of the supremacy of the Roman emperor. Cranmer was in danger to be seriously challenged by the most learned, pious, respected and popular clerics, England ever had: More and Fisher.

The 'authoritarian', 'chauvinist' (Schama) laws - pretending that legal formality was kept - were indeed provided by Thomas Cromwell.

[christophmahler]

What I see, is an alliance of a despotic monarch, an ambitious oligarch and a tyrannical commoner to form a nation, where christianity will be twisted increasingly into a pretext of personal and financial calculations.

And I believe this to be the deep rooted cause, why the British Empire and the later Atlantic Charta - with its related global institutions - find little 'concordance' or 'faith'.

[ollierat9]

Once the King had decided he wanted Anne what do you think her options were? Become a mistress to be used & discarded or refuse & bear the wrath of her family. You have to remember that in the begining they belived that the annulment would be a quick straightforward case. Showing Tyndale to Henry was a something of a last resort.

[christophmahler]

Now, You seem to defend the Marquess of Pembroke.

I tend to believe, that the pose of a martyr, that is sometimes given to Anne Boleyn nowadays is a wishful fiction - of the same oligarchs, she descended from. If she did not want to became Queen, she should not have tried so hard by suggesting arguments like that of the royal supremacy. If Your speculation is right, the church would have been her strongest defender.

[christophmahler]

No one could hope, that the annulment of the marriage with Catherine would be obtained easily. The only reason, why the process went that far, that the humanist Cranmer became Bishop of Canterbury was the weakness of the Pope.

Nicholas the I. would not have hesitated to threat Henry immediately with excommunication - in order to defend the sacred laws and the unity of the church.

[ollierat9]

I was referring to the early stages before the Queen's nephew had sacked Rome & captured the Pope. Until then there was no reason to doubt it would be given as I have pointed out already it was not unheard of.  The threat of excommuniction didn't work though did it?

[christophmahler]

In regard to Your example of Jeanne De France - and due to the fact, that Henry was seen as a defender of the church, supporting against the protestant principals on the continent - I would admit the likelyhood of an anullment - which would have been a shame.

Charles wanted to keep England allied with the unified Spain, rather than with an unifying France - as he was fighting the islamic Ottoman invasion on the Balkans - and I believe, that this was the more important political task of the age.

[ollierat9]

Louis XII got an annulment from Jeanne De France because she was unable to give him a son. He made her undergo a physical examination in front of 27 witnesses. He didn't have any excuse apart from the want of an heir and the pope granted it. He remarried Anne of Brittany.

[christophmahler]

To compare several - contemporary - cases of annulation is a good idea.

And it must be admitted, that the annulment of the marriage between the former Duke of Orléans and the Duchess of Orléans was simply unjustified.

The accusation by Louis, that Jean had been unable to consummate the marriage due to malformation of her genitals was shameless - therefore the almost public examination in her defence.

[christophmahler]

But taking a closer look, this case reveals itself as very different from the case of Henry.

There had been strong political reasons to enable Louis to marry Anne of Brittany - the richest woman of her time.

[ollierat9]

You said that Popes don't get politically involved. So why was Louis allowed to discard his first wife & remarry? Was he excumunicated? If Katherine's uncle hadn't have sacked Rome the

annulment would have been allowed.

[christophmahler]

Due to the peace settlement between Brittany and France - and the contract of her marriage with king Charles of France - Brittany would become property of the husband, if he outlived Anne - and she could marry only with the consent of the king. As Charles died, she was to marry the new king Louis - to keep Brittany in french possession.

[christophmahler]

Pope Alexander the VIth was seen mostly as a secular priest - he needed desperately the military support of the french king Louis to keep the Borgia family established in central Italy. Such was the background of that corrupt annulment.

[christophmahler]

So this case is an example for a humanistic secularization of the Roman see after the rise of the Italian cities and the final fall of Constantinople to the Turks.

But it is not an evidence, supporting the later case of Henry.

His case had no other political significance than an estrangement from Spain - and I simply see no excuse.

[christophmahler]

But - so I believe - in the end iconoclasm might turn out as part of a cycle. As painted walls got lime washed - and will be repainted - man has explored and met himself and will turn his matured attention again towards the world.

[ollierat9]

Many protestant churches are very beautiful. Even the ones that don't have images. The baptist church I used to go to was decorated in sky blue and gold with honey coloured wood and

had fresh flowers at the front and window sills.

[christophmahler]

None of the protestant churches I attended to seemed beautiful to me.

They appeared rather like public schools or libraries - designed in modern architecture for a bureaucratic purpose.

As if in order never to be reminded of a time, when every christian was a member of the church - not of many churches.

No matter how sensual attractive a cult can be - it would be this spirit of reconciliation, I would either miss - or find.

[alejandra379]

CAtholicism has always been a religion full of spectacularism... theres always a big display of color, sound, light and pretty much everything when we celebrate mistery. In contrast, protestantism is more private, more to the inner senses....

[YoungNubb]

I rather disagree. Though I understand your position on the matter. It can seem like protestantism is private and boring, but this is really not the case. I disagree with the early protestants in that they disliked all decorating of churches, not just the graven icons of saints and the like. Protestantism opened the door into the bible, the reading, the out loud speaking of the words all true Christians believe are God's words Protestantism in its early incarnation was a bit too strict.

[Islandretreat]

Popery is an after-growth of paganism spreading its popish theology under a Christian mask. Protestantism is revived Christianity. The teachings of Christ are the seed of [Bible based] Protestantism. As John Knox explained at the time...The plain and straight commandment of Yahweh is, 'Not that thing which appears good in thy eyes, shalt thou do to the LORD thy Yahweh, but what the LORD thy Yahweh has commanded thee, that do thou; add nothing to it; diminish nothing from it.'

[christophmahler]

I agree that the predominance of the bishop of Rome can be seen as based on the imperial cult of that city - rather than on the life of Christ.

But while reform of the church is an expression of its life - protestantism ended up as the mask of local oligarchy (as with the german principals) and nationalism (as the British Empire).

[christophmahler]

Compared to the cults of the Greeks (Zeus Ammon), the Romans (Sol Invictus), the Persians (Zoroaster), the Hebrews (Hillel and Philo) and the Indians (Siddhartha) - there can be no original teachings of Christ be found. Archeological findings about the Essenes and the Therapeutae point to that.

What christianity seems to distinguish from other steps of culture is the extraordinary life of Christ - the sacrifice of a just person.

[christophmahler]

Protestantism has not solved the problem, how to reach consent in a gathering since the Council of Basel. Until today it falls apart into ever more sects - reflected in the record low in membership of the US Presbyterian Church. In the end it has not more to offer than earlier heresies: ignorant fanaticism - based on ink on paper.

This can be seen as a pagan fetish, too.

[christophmahler]

The dialectic between Protestants (Paul) and Catholics (Peter) in modern times can be seen as of the same nature as the tension between Sadducees and Pharisees.

The living Christ in Majesty would be the balance and higher order of such epic struggle.

[Hesperell]

Are you kidding me? You are actually calling it Popery? Give me a break. Give us a break.

Catholicism is beautiful in that it embraces the character of the culture, and in that it allows the beauty of His earth and all of its people to be presented in the bold way it exists. We just have different traditions. In the olden days, when the poor could not read or understand Latin, the images showed the stories of the Bible in an understandable medium. Humanity is in and of itself boldly colored.