CATHOLIC CARDINAL FORESEES MUSLIM CONQUEST OF CHRISTENDOM

"Christendom" was a dicey proposition long before Martin Luther was a gleam in his daddy's eye.

You will note, if you actually read my post, that nowhere did I claim that Christendom was Utopia.

There were always political intrigues all throughout that time. When I wrote The Catholic hierarchy, particularly (that modifier means that it was not limited to the Avingon Popes) the Avignon popes, were admittedly pretty corrupt, it was an attempt to acknowledge that fact without having to go through the entire history of Church-State relations prior to the Protestant Reformation.

CATHOLIC France -- both before the FR with the Avignon papacy mess and after the FR with Napoleon's conquests and their aftermath -- did as much as anything else to make "Christendom" the faded memory that it is today.

The difference is that in the time prior to the Protestant Reformation (and the wars that followed it), most rulers deferred to the Papacy. The exception was France. In fact, the Avignon Papacies resulted directly as a result of France's Phillip IV's refusal to acknowledge this fact (in fact, Unam Sanctum was issued in response to that issue). The issue that started it all was Phillip arresting one of the French bishops and Boniface demanding his release (of course, the demand was ignored by Phillip). Phillip IV dragged Boniface VIII to France ... which is what started that dark period in history.

Am I saying that either Boniface or the popes prior to him were exemplars of perfection? No.

As another example of this, it's interesting the timing between the schism of 1054 and the conquest of Anatolia by the Muslim Seljuks (1071).

You will note, if you actually read my post, that nowhere did I claim that Christendom was Utopia.

I did read your post. Have you ever read a history book that didn't have some censor's nihil obstat?

Nowhere in my post, you may note, did I claim that "Christendom" must be a utopia in order to NOT be considered a dicey proposition.

There were always political intrigues all throughout that time. When I wrote The Catholic hierarchy, particularly (that modifier means that it was not limited to the Avingon Popes) the Avignon popes, were admittedly pretty corrupt, it was an attempt to acknowledge that fact without having to go through the entire history of Church-State relations prior to the Protestant Reformation.

The Photian Schism and the Investiture Controversy, to cite just two earlier examples, were a lot more than just "political intrigues." To note their significance is not improper. To ignore their significance for discussing Church/State relations, and pretend that direct challenges to a strong version of Christendom were NOT being made long before Wittenberg become famous, is.

If Christendom is defined as "most rulers deferring to the Popes," then to say that "Christendom" was doing well until those pesky Protestants showed up seems to fly in the face of a lot of Mediterranean basin and European history.

But perhaps, in the interests of clarity, you could give us a definition of "Christendom," or perhaps delineate what you mean when you speak of "deferring to the popes," so that we could better undertstand and judge what you're trying to argue.

Good point and one that I should have included in my original post.

Christendom is a social-political construct representing the influence of the Christian Church over not just society but over society's polity, as well. (The Pope crowning kings is a significant token of that relationship)

I did read your post. Have you ever read a history book that didn't have some censor's nihil obstat?

Every now and again I do [ ;-) ]. You have to remember though that I am not a progressive. I don't see the Reformation as being a good thing. I also don't see the modernism of the enlightenment as being a good thing either. There were good things that came out of them (The Council of Trent as an example of a good thing that came out of the Reformation...the United States as being a sole exception in the anti-clerical revolutions that sprung out of the enlightenment is another example), but the movements, in of themselves, I see as being precursors to the modern-day pit of depravity we see ourselves in today.

But, unlike most, at least I acknowledge my biases.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.