Five Myths About Christianity, Islam, and the Middle Ages

Inside Catholic ^ | October 23, 2009 | H.W. Crocker III

[NYer]

---

H. W. Crocker III is the author of Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church: A 2,000-Year History. His prize-winning comic novel The Old Limey and his book Robert E. Lee on Leadership are available in paperback; his latest book is The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War

[NYer]

Interestingly enough, a group of Muslim theologians are taking a new approach to studying the Koran.

A Muslim Scholar Teaches Christians How to Read the Sacred Scriptures

[cameraeye]

One thing, tarquiya!

[the_Watchman]

Luther denied the divine right of the pope and affirmed the divine right of princes (uniting church and state, which were previously separate)

Anyone who would suggest that Rome was not involved with state politics prior to Luther has a screw loose!

[AnAmericanMother]

Guess what -- he's right!

Any serious student of history who hasn't been corrupted by Marxist liars will tell you the same.

[texmexis best]

It had it’s reformation: Wahabbism in the 19th century.

Which is not good.

[AnAmericanMother]

No, the Pope was in pretty constant conflict with the various rulers of Europe. Sometimes he came out on top - as with King Henry doing penance - sometimes not - as in the "Babylonian Captivity".

In those days, of course, the Pope had territory to defend and a serious interest in the politics of central Italy.

But it's a far cry from 'being involved in politics' to a melding of church and state, which is what this author is talking about. Especially when the State becomes a god (as it seems to be in danger of doing these days) that is something that was unheard of in medieval times.

[americanophile]

This is a very Latin-centric article, hardly surprising, but full of glaring omissions. The case for the ‘Dark Ages’ being less than dark, and for Islam's true warlike nature, are particularly strong if one takes into account the great history of the Byzantines. I can't understand why or how this fantastic civilization - which also held the door shut against Islam for hundreds of years, goes without mention. Charles Martel is rightly famous, but if he was the hammer than many of the Byzantine emperors were the shield. Some of the achievements of the Byzantines were not surpassed until well into the Renaissance. Indeed, the flame of classical learning, culture, and many other elements of ancient progress were carried by Byzantine society until the fall of Constantinople (one of the greatest schismatic failings of the West of all time - there was no united Christendom). The fall of Constantinople is indeed the spark that touched off the Renaissance - much of that learning and culture fleeing the captive Christian east for western Europe. To place Islam in it's proper context, one must understand its 800 year+ assault on the Christian Byzantine Empire, and to understand the meteoric rise of western Christendom from the Renaissance on, one must understand the Dark Ages which requires a knowledge of the vastly underrated Byzantine Empire.Still, a very interesting discussion.

[americanophile]

A very interesting discussion.

[SoCal Pubbie]

True, there was no melding of Church and State in Medieval Catholicism. The Church, and the Pope himself, was above King and Emperor. The Divine right of kings meant that a ruler was placed there by God, who's representative on Earth was the Pope himself. The Pope, or his Bishop, crowned the king and should the king he found a heretic and excommunicated, the Pope would take all measures to have him removed by whatever means necessary.

[achilles2000]

Where did Luther confirm the “divine” right of princes? Luther did believe, as was common then, that a country should have a common religion. The Pope thought that the “Holy Roman Empire” should have a common religion. The disagreement was one of scope.

Parts of that Empire thought otherwise about the Imperial religion, particularly if it meant being looted or oppressed by the Borgia and some of the other notorious “Renaissance” Popes. The proper contrast would be with Calvin, who developed a clear doctrine of sphere sovereignty that was put into practice (the doctrine was not Calvin’s, but he sharpened it and forced acceptance of it by the civil government in Geneva).

Crocker’s problem is that he is an anti-Protestant bigot whose grasp of history has some odd gaps. Petrarch, whom he deems one of the glories of the Renaissance, was the man who coined the deceitful phrase “The Dark Ages.” He was also a man of very low morals. Moreover, the Renaissance was a rebirth of what? Classical paganism. Machiavelli was an apostle of pagan political theory and the true father of the modern authoritarian/totalitarian state. The Renaissance had some great artists, but that is a very small part of the story (although it is the only part people know) - and the rest of the story isn’t good.

Crocker does make some very good points - some of which could be made with even more pointedly (e.g. the Musselmen were not all that good at preserving anything, and as the Christian and other advanced cultures of the conquered peoples ebbed, the “Islamic” culture declined too). Moreover, the Catholic Church both before and after the Reformation did many great things. Most Protestants acknowledge this.

Crocker, on the other hand, seems consumed with an unreasoning hatred of Christians who disagree with Catholic doctrine (His book Triumph is a good example of this). It’s a pity because Crocker brings up many points that need to be made.

[AnAmericanMother]

Actually, the concept of the "Divine Right of Kings" originated much later. It was first posited in the late 16th century by French jurist Jean Bodin, but it did not gain much traction until adopted by James I & VI of England & Scotland. It played a large role in bringing his son Charles I to grief.

THAT one can't be blamed on medieval philosophers or the Pope.

[AnAmericanMother]

I think by its terms the discussion is limited to Europe proper. There was, technically speaking, no “Middle Ages” in Constantinople, since it did not undergo the same changes that the West experienced, and it fell in the middle of the 15th century.

[americanophile]

"I think by its terms the discussion is limited to Europe proper."

...which is why excluding the eastern half of the Roman Empire is perplexing.

[AnAmericanMother]

When I took Byzantine History way back when (from an author and authority in the field whose name unfortunately escapes me — English was not his native language, and I had trouble with his English, and his book was ENORMOUS, with a yellow cover with the seal of Constantine on it) the Eastern Empire was not considered part of Europe. Europe didn’t exist until the Western Empire fell, and the East soldiered on for many years thereafter.

[annalex]

The Middle Ages is, quite simply, the most natural and most just form of social organization, to which the civilized people will be returning perhaps sooner than we think. It is the past 500 years that were an aberration.

[livius]

Excellent article! I just got back from Spain, where I saw a wonderful exhibit (Las Edades del Hombre) of treasures from medieval and later churches. The exhibit is sponsored by the dioceses of Castilla y Leon, and focuses on a different part of the region every two years. When you see the beauty that these “backward” medieval folk produced...

His point about “reformers” is true. They always tend to a sort of puritanical, harsh view of life, where art and music are suppressed and usually where women have to go back and put on tons of clothing. This is just as true of the Protestant “reformers” as it was of Mohammed, who saw himself reforming local religious practices with his purer vison.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Perhaps I misused this actual term. As stated on Wiki (I know, not really an authority):

“The remoter origins of the theory (Divine Right of Kings) are rooted in the medieval idea that God had bestowed earthly power to the king, just as God had given spiritual power and authority to the church, centering on the pope.”

Nonetheless, in the Middle Ages, it was the Church that physically lowered the Crown onto the head of Monarch at the time of coronation, symbolizing that it was the Church, and ultimately the Pope who, while not always claiming political authority, claimed ultimate spiritual power over the monarchs, and thus in the end superiority.

[AnAmericanMother]

The idea that the king had to be blessed by the religious authority goes all the way back to the ancient Gauls. Probably even further, did we but know.

But other than the threat of excommunication, the Pope had no real power. The Emperor Conrad ignored his excommunication completely, and there were others. Napoleon was not the first to diss the Pope . . .

[NYer]

His point about “reformers” is true. They always tend to a sort of puritanical, harsh view of life, where art and music are suppressed and usually where women have to go back and put on tons of clothing. This is just as true of the Protestant “reformers” as it was of Mohammed, who saw himself reforming local religious practices with his purer vison.

Welcome back! I have a thousand questions about the mood amongst Catholics in Spain, especially with the upcoming Youth Day.

As to your comment, I'll bet we can both name an extremist Catholic group that fits the above description.