Europe Returning to Pagan Roots

NewsMax ^ | May 30, 2003 | Fr. Mike Reilly

[Hugenot]

NewsMax.com's religion editor, Fr. Mike Reilly, sees a disturbing trend in the latest news from the European Union.

Zenit News is reporting on the new Constitution for the European Union and the news is not good.

"Drawing inspiration from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, which, nourished first by the civilizations of Greece and Rome, characterized by spiritual impulse always present in its heritage and later by the philosophical currents of the Enlightenment, has embedded within the life of society its perception of the central role of the human person and his inviolable and inalienable rights, and of respect for law. ..."

Do you get the sense that there's something missing from the preamble? What "spiritual impulse" are they referring to? Could it be the Irish druids, who worshipped trees? Or perhaps the Norse gods like Thor and Loki? Maybe they mean ancient German legends about Siegfried coming from Valhalla.

Are these the "spiritual impulses" that united Europe, or rather was it something called Christendom?

"It borders on the ridiculous that the Preamble should make nominal reference to the Hellenistic and Roman component and jump directly to the 'philosophers of the Enlightenment,' omitting the Christian reference without which the Enlightenment is incomprehensible," Josep Miro i Ardevol, president of the Convention of Christians for Europe, said in a statement.

In an interview on Vatican Radio, Cardinal Roberto Tucci, a member of the executive council of the radio, said that "It was not a question of adherence [to Christianity], but of recognizing the historical fact of the enormous influence that Christian culture has had on European culture."

"The most unifying factor of Europe, which has been Christian culture, is missing" in the Preamble, he said.

The draft continues, "Conscious that Europe is a continent that has brought forth civilization; that its inhabitants, arriving in successive waves since the first ages of mankind, have gradually developed the values underlying humanism: equality of persons, freedom, respect for reason. ..."

Where do they think these values come from? What other civilizations espouse these values? The fact is that it was Christian culture which civilized and united tribal barbarians into what was left of the declining Roman Empire, which would eventually become modern Europe. That is why every modern tyrant has seen the need to attack and suppress Christianity.

This does not bode well for Europeans who treasure freedom. If our rights come from men, then men can take them away. Our founding fathers were wise enough to acknowledge that "man was endowed by his Creator with certain inalienable rights. ..."

Sadly, the leaders of Europe lack that insight.

[TheAngryClam]

Having read both Dante and Vergil in the original, I'd pronounce Vergil the winner- he's more succinct, and yet more descriptive, his allusions to the present are less clumsy and forced (as Dante's contemporaries in Hell are), and his translation of the old Homeric and Alexandrian epic traditions into a new language (Latin) is far more successful than the comparatively easier task of adapting Latin style to the Tuscan dialect. Not to mention that Vergil died and the Aeneid is a rough draft, while the Divine Comedy is a finished work and that the less read portion of the Aeneid (Books VII-XII) is still more widely read than the Paradiso of the Divine Comedy. Rome wins.

As far as Aquinas's Summa, I wasn't particularly impressed when I read it (or with the town of Aquino when I went there). And, furthermore, it's not a fair comparison to Aristotle from our modern vantagepoint, since the only intact work of Aristotle's (rather than the lecture notes that comprise the bulk of the Aristotlean corpus) is the Poetics.

Finally, the best structure to compare the cathedrals to, the Basilica Julia, no longer stands. However, the open space of its interior surpasses many of the cathedrals, and without the use of exterior butresses or foreign imported pointed arches, I might add. Add to that the fact that it was built in only a few years, as opposed to the centuries required for the cathedrals, and once again Rome is the winner.

And the Western scriptoria managed to preserve an estimated 4%-6% of all writing from the ancient world, and did such things as lose the only copy of Callimachus' Aetia in the 1200s.

Compare this to the preservation of works from the archaic period of Greece (600-500 BC) well into the Empire. Rome once again triumphs over anything that the Christians could accomplish.

[TheAngryClam]

I don't know about the painting even- the Odysseus paintings were fairly impressive, as well as some of the finer details I saw in the Villa at Oplontis.

[ffusco]

it is more likely that the muslims plundered the great libraries, following the grand tradition of their claims to have invented math and science.

Arafat once told Orianna Falacci that Palestinian culture was superior to the west because they invented (stole) math.

Barf.

[ffusco]

Just a concession to win a bigger argument. Aesthetic pronouncements about pictorial representation are mostly matters of taste. But I think the Flemish masters, Chiarro-scurro, and the Sistine Chapel are technically superior to Roman frescos. IMHO.

[TheAngryClam]

I'll grant the Flemish Masters.

[katana]

You're right, and that certainly turned out well.

[ffusco]

Romanized Goths in Germany and France still have the Roman eagle in their national symbology. As well as the 3 course meal, the daily bath, the alphabet and about a zillion other things as common as the celebration of Mother's day in May, wearing a wedding ring and the Roman naming practice. Even King Arthur MIGHT have been a descendent of the Artorius clan, prominent in England around 400 AD.

[Antoninus]

The Emperor replaced Patriarchs -- he did not serve as one-Constatnine did not set rules--he called a council of Bishops to do it-

Constantine was the archetype, preferring to allow Christian authorities to solve religious problems. He little resembled the Byzantine emperors that would follow him who had patriarchs who displeased them in any way deposed/exiled/blinded/killed. Now let's use a little logic. If the Patriarchs/Bishops were the highest Church authorities and the Byzantine emperor could change them as often as he changed his shoes, where in reality did the power lie--certain pillar saints notwithstanding?

The Pope WAS king of the Papal states AND reserved the right to depose of Latin Catholic Kings at will.

The Pope was a temporal ruler of the papal states. He never claimed to be a "king," though he administered his domains much like a king would have. The Pope never claimed to have temporal authority over all of the former Western Empire and his attempts to depose western kings were not always successful.

And I said the Protestants later on went to emulate the Byzantine model.

You said that the Byzantines had some sort of "separation of church and state." In order to prove that, you'll have to cite better evidence than a vague reference to Constantine. If you mean in that Protestant kings and queens, like Byzantine emperors and empresses, tended to deal heavy-handedly--and sometimes tyranically--with the leaders of the Christian churches in their domains, then yes, I'd agree.

[Tribune7]

I guess the people in Europe have something to look forward too.

God has always existed, and right and wrong have always existed. And people have always understood what is right and wrong.

But societies that reject the teachings of Jesus -- hence rejecting Jesus -- end up being hells on earth.

[Antoninus]

Generally, from the sporadic suppressions, which featured large amounts of clemency, a myth of system, Holocaust-like oppression for centuries has grown.

Look, I've read tertiary sources like the Oxford Classical Dictionary as well as the primary sources like the letters between Pliny and Trajan, Eusebius, and several martyrologies. You're not saying anything I haven't heard from every "holocaust denier" who wish to minimize the persecutions or make them look fictitious or grossly exaggerated. My own conclusion is that the modern political biases of the "persecution deniers" outweigh any possible religious bias of the ancient panegyrists.

I tend to agree with the excellent summary which appears in the Catholic Encyclopedia which may be found here. An excerpt from which reads:
"Of the 249 years from the first persecution under Nero (64) to the year 313, when Constantine established lasting peace, it is calculated that the Christians suffered persecution about 129 years and enjoyed a certain degree of toleration about 120 years. Yet it must be borne in mind that even in the years of comparative tranquillity Christians were at all times at the mercy of every person ill-disposed towards them or their religion in the empire."

The entry does not venture to guess a number other than "countless," but from my own research, I'd say a more accurate estimate would be several hundred thousand. Hardly the "myth" you make it out to be.

[man of Yosemite]

Yes, and some might think if we all converted to Islam tonight, the Arab extremists would all stop hating us and put their bombs away. There is a reason we are not all alike. Unfortunately for them, God appears to be on our side. I certainly aim for that little fact to continue.

[Antoninus]

BTW, I've read estimates that as few as 3-4,000 Christians were killed by Romans, far fewer than the popular culture would have you believe. I'm more than willing, however, to read counter-estimates.

Actually, these estimates come from today's popular culture which is only too eager to downplay the persecutions. Read this:

Martyrs

[ffusco]

The population of the Roman Empire at its height was only 60 million at any given time. If a hundred thousand were martyred over a century it is only a thousand per year.

[TheAngryClam]

I find it interesting that you quote only from sources that would seek to emphasize the number of martyrs for their own benefit, rather than neutral sources like the OCD (which is a secondary source, like the Catholic Encyclopedia).

[Destro]

You misqoute me and you contradict yourself.

I said The Eastern Christians actually had a seperation of church and state but they never called it that. I think the term the Orthodox use is a "symphonic relationship".

The Emperor was not head of church and state.

Your contradictory statement The Pope never claimed to have temporal authority over all of the former Western Empire and his attempts to depose western kings were not always successful. If the Pope never claimed temporal authority why did he crown Charles the Great? Why did give England to William the Bastard? Why did the Pope give Ireland to the Norman English (that's right my Irish Catholic pals--the Pope gave you over without even a by your leave).

As chronicled here: THE FALL OF ORTHODOX ENGLAND

Gives a god account of the symphonic relationship between the church and state in Orthodoxy too.

[Tribune7]

In Rome entire cities with sewers and plumbing were built as well harbours and other infrastructure.

As the saying goes, "Rome wasn't built in a day."

The Renaissance lasted roughly 200 years from 1350 to 1550. Rome lasted from 753 B.C. to 475 A.D.

Anyway, the achievements of Rome would pale if you would compare any 150 year period in its history to the achievements made in the Christian Reformation.

[ffusco]

Good point. It can be argued that the rennaissance continues today: Columbus through the Lunar Landing and beyond.

It must also be remembered though that Rome wasn't built in a day and during her existence things were built, rebuilt, bricks were clad in marble, expanded and restored several times. The aquaduct in Seville still supplies municipal water!

[Antoninus]

The great churches often took centuries to build, while they were beautiful works they can not compare to the ancient engineering where roads and acquaducts went through mountains and over gorges. In Rome entire cities with sewers and plumbing were built as well harbours and other infrastructure. Only in painting did the Rennaissaance ever surpass Rome.

Of course, the aqueducts and roads were built in 72 hours, right? And the great cathedrals can just be passed off as "beautiful works" while ignoring that they are glaring testaments to the fact that the infrastructure and learning necessary to build them must have existed. And of course, the Romans had better ships, armor, weapons, and medicine than the High Middle Ages, right?

Look, I love classical civilization. I love ancient Rome and Roman history. Nothing thrilled me more than visiting the Pantheon or the Roman Forum, or the Basilica of Maxentius. But when you try to exalt Imperial Rome at the expense of the High Middle Ages, I have to beg off. The growing PC tendency to vilify/denigrate the achievements of Christian Europe are a source of increasing irritation to me. I'd compare these to any Greco-Roman temple:


Chartres Cathedral, 13th Century


San Marco, Venice, 11th Century


Cathedral of Pisa, 12-14th Century


Santa Maria Cathedral, Sienna, 13th Century

[Tribune7]

The aquaduct in Seville still supplies municipal water!

Rome was a great culture which I shall not dis.

[Antoninus]

The population of the Roman Empire at its height was only 60 million at any given time. If a hundred thousand were martyred over a century it is only a thousand per year.

Right you are. And that is excusable, right?