You wrote:
“What precisely is your problem? Can you not carry on a civil written discussion of social, political and ecclesiastical history without engaging in invective and abuse?”
Yes, I’m doing it right now – and have been.
“Indeed we are discussing changes in the behavior of Western Christians in the 11th and 12th centuries, which you and old-school Latin ecclesiastical historians attribute to the unprecedented rise of “secret heresies”, but which Scott and I attribute to Islamic influence.”
Which neither one of you can document in the least. Also, you’ll still have to prove there was a change at all.
You’re assuming that based on a better known example rather than taking into account that there was a wider spectrum of behavior.
“My question, however, had been about purely Christian precedents for the execution of heretics prior to the rise of Islam, and your pointing to events in the 11th and 12th centuries was quite unresponsive.”
No, I don’t think you have that right. You are falsely framing the issue based upon a strange and ridiculous idea which you are proving is based on NOTHING.
“Thank you for pointing out Priscillian, now finally you answered the question (and also the subsequently given challenge of giving multiple instances since reviewing that sorry bit of history, I see that the Empire executed six of Priscillian’s followers). Yes, my knowledge of ecclesiastical history is much deeper and broader in the history of the Eastern Patriarchates than in the history of the Patriarchate of Rome.”
And yet you produce not a single shred of evidence for your claims. Not a single shred. Not one.
“Even in this instance the capital charge was the practice of magic, which you want to conflate with heresy. So you are engaging in a bit of definition-stretching here to support your claim.”
False. I am merely dealing with things as they actually were. All of these things were more nuanced than you give them credit.
“But perhaps this is just one of those East-West differences: you say magic constitute heresy, we tend to say it’s humbug.”
Really? So why then did Elder Cleopa of Romania wrote:
“The man who resorts to black magic and necromancy is an enemy of God, disobedient to His commandments, not content with the salvatory lessons God teaches him through the Scriptures, but rather, prompted by the demons in this illegitimate work, he seeks to investigate things rationally. And so, believing in these fantasies, he withdraws from God and the teaching of our Church.”
Withdraws from God and the teaching of the Church. Sure sounds like heresy to me.
“Though regarding it as humbug is not to say that someone deluded into believing they can practice magic is not imperiling his or her soul, only that he or she is imperiled by delusion.”
A delusion fostered by Satan. The real danger is not the delusion alone, but the fact that it opens a door for Satan to come through.
“Now, you demand documentary evidence of Christians explicitly citing Muslim sources for “authority”, knowing perfectly well that no Christian would cite a Muslim source for authority. This is an absurd demand.”
Not at all. It strikes right at the core of your claim. That’s the whole point. You’re claiming something which you yourself have just admitted – de facto – you have not a single shred of evidence for. In fact, all the evidence goes against it.
“(Oh, but because it’s absurd, you get to sneer at me, my employer and colleagues, and claim that my not being able to cite such a document will be a ‘typical K-State choke.’”
The point is that I knew from the beginning that you would fail. Sorry, but it’s true. The theory you are supporting has never had any evidence for it nor could it. It is an absurd theory that makes no sense in any way. It denies all that we know about history and the Church.
“How marvelous for you! It must make you feel like such a big man!) (And with brief counter-sneer, I will attempt to return to civility.)”
Counter-sneer? Oy vey. Work on that Dave. Really, try.
“Do any historians, social, political or ecclesiastical doubt that the aniconism of Islam was an influence upon iconoclasm? None certainly that I have read — and I have read extensively on the history of both the Church and the Empire in the relevant period.”
It is a modern as well as almost contemporary fashion among historians to claim that Islam influenced iconoclasm among Christians. I think the intellectually lazy take that in without any critical thought whatsoever. You might want to read this: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/617544?uid=3739256&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21101530069541
“But can you point to any iconoclast writings citing Islamic sources of authority for the destruction of icons?”
Yes – if you simply track down the bibliography of the article I just linked to you’ll see that the Christians themselves blamed Muslim influence for the outbreak of iconoclasm on the part of Christians. See footnotes 3 and 4. The problem is that there is no real proof that such an influence existed nor did any of the original sources offer any. My gosh, that was easy. Now, you try.
“To have done so would have laid bare the heretical nature of iconoclasm, so, of course, non-Christian sources were not cited for authority.”
Again, the influence was claimed by the orthodox to have existed. The issue there would not be the claim, but its validity. You’re really not making a good case here. Your analogy has failed and I have found essentially what you demanded just not in a way you probably expected.
“Did Emperor Frederick II leave documentary evidence citing Islamic authority for his adoption of the Muslim custom of keeping a harem?”
Pope Gregory IV or Pope Innocent IV did document hat in regard to Frederick II saying he followed Saracen ways and had a harem guarded by eunuchs. Here’s just one mentioning of that but there are many: http://books.google.com/books?id=GlIDGodwC30C&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=innocent+IV+provided+with+a+harem+guarded+by+eunuchs&source=bl&ots=kFVVEzWTpu&sig=qrcsebqoyQSm9ZM_uMsLUcqzowQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0bHkUOmDHqWO2QXEvYHYCg&sqi=2&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=innocent%20IV%20provided%20with%20a%20harem%20guarded%20by%20eunuchs&f=false
“Did the Crusaders leave documentary evidence citing Muslim authority for adopting practice previously unknown among Christians of waging religious wars?”
Uh, you’ve never read Erdmann have you? The Byzantines were fighting religious wars for many, many years before the crusaders. Perhaps you didn’t know that. So, your premise there is seriously flawed to say the least.
“How about those Crusaders who appealed (blessedly in vain) to have death in battle in a Crusade regarded as Christian martyrdom — did they leave documents citing Islamic authority for their view?”
“But, do you really think that Frederick’s polygamy or the notion of Christian holy war or the desire of some Crusaders to establish a Christian analogue of the Muslim conception of martyrdom were not influenced by Islam simply because no documents citing an Islamic source of authority exist?”
No, your premise is wrong, your apparent knowledge is faulty. You can’t even frame things as they actually existed. Again, read Erdmann and your entire view of things will change. Hence, you’ll probably never read it. http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Idea-Crusade-Carl-Erdmann/dp/1597407984 And you never read this book either: http://www.amazon.com/First-Crusader-Byzantiums-Holy-Wars/dp/1403961514
“For that matter do you really think that my not citing vladimir998 as authority for writing bits of invective in posts to fellow FReepers means that your sneering posts did not influence my engaging in the bit of sneering above?”
Your sneering – if there be any – is all your own. And honestly, what you call sneering in your post, I can’t take seriously as sneering any way.
“We have enough instances in our own time of social and cultural influences spreading without documentary chains of “authority” — for example, various European parliaments create “gay marriage”, leftish politicians and celebrities throughout the Anglosphere embrace the idea, but American courts cite American jurisprudence to conjure a right to “gay marriage” out of thin air. Do you really want to argue that since the American courts cited the 14th Amendment, or some provision of their state constitution, that the European legislation and “elite” opinion was not merely an influence on, but actually the real basis for, the courts’ actions?”
Again, your analogy makes no sense.
“Latin Church sets up inquisitions — investigative tribunals unprecedented in Christian history,”
False. Inquisitions were no different in their basic formulation than ecclesiastical courts before them. They were also not set up as investigative bodies. They essentially became so.
“but entirely analogous to Muslim tribunals in neighboring Almohad Spain — and because they don’t cite Islamic “authority”, you want to argue that the bad example set by the Muslims in Spain was not an influence?”
It was no influence at all. There is no relationship at all, no comparison, no evidence and it isn’t even a reasonable comparison.
“I am also underwhelmed by your assertion that “heresy could not and would not be known” so that only “heretical acts” could be the basis for a capital charge of heresy.”
Underwhelmed or not, it’s true. Your lack of understanding of historical events or understandings on the part of medieval men changes nothing.
“The Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils were able to know that some persons (e.g. Arius) were heretics with sufficient certainty to promulgate solemn anathemas against not only their teachings, but their persons,”
Because Arius had openly proclaimed his heresy and had repeatedly refused to recant when patiently asked to do so by his saintly bishop. If Arius had never proclaimed his heresy, no one would ever have known it. Instead he literally sang songs about his heresy – and proclaimed it in front of the council. THEN the council declared him a heretic.
“when they refused to recant and accept the council’s statement of the Faith. I, evidently unlike you, trust that the Church can discern heresy in her children or erstwhile children (erstwhile since *unrepentant* heretics separate themselves from the Church), not just “heretical acts”.”
No one can be known as a heretic without giving a sign of it – and that means an action. Seriously, use common sense. No Orthodox theologian would ever say that the Church knows who heretics are before they give some sign of their adherence to heresy. That’s exactly why Arius was allowed to verbally hang himself with rope given to him by the council fathers. His open proclamation of his heresy was proof enough. Didn’t that ever occur to you?
“In truth the notion of “heretical acts” sounds odd to my Orthodox ears — I have never seen the phrase used by Orthodox writers”
Irrelevant. I have never seen any but the most recent of orthodox theologians use the expression “Final Theosis” outside of Greek yet Eastern Orthodox have used it for centuries. Does that make “Final Theosis” an invalid term? No. Actions are different than thoughts. A heretical thought, a heretical belief, can be held by someone and yet never betrayed by a known action and thus kept secret to mortal men. A seditious thought in someone’s head can’t be known by the U.S. government. Write an email about it and you have an entirely different situation. See the difference? It’s common sense. Don’t forget the very word heresy implies a choice has been made.
“other than Russians from after the “Latin captivity” of Russian theological education in the 19th century, and that rarely, and only then in connection with actions to establish dioceses on the basis of the heresy of ethnophyletism.”
Christian philosophy of personhood is far more developed in the West than in the East. I am not surprised that we take into account thoughts AND actions and also distinguish between the two.
Also, when you can actually get Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox to actually agree on whether or not Catholic sacraments are valid let me know. Until then that must mean that one Church or the other embraces a heresy. Either the Russians do – which means that the largest Orthodox church in the world easily fell into heresy and can’t seem to get out of it - or the Greek Orthodox – who so often appear to think of themselves as the purest of the Orthodox - are actually just heretics. Which is it?
But I suppose you could be right. There is an alternative hypothesis to cultural transmission across a hostile frontier that accounts for the outbreak of anti-Jewish riots in Latin Christian Europe shortly after the same phenomenon in Muslim Spain, for the establishment of special tribunals for rooting out heresy in Latin Europe just a few decades after the same happened in Muslim Spain, for the notion of holy war being embraced by the Latins when it was unknown among Christian prior, for the adoption of the notorious kill-them-all attitude when reducing towns held by religious opponents by the Latins when prior precedent had existed only among the Muslims: the same demons were afflicting all the religious leaders in Western Europe who lacked of the light of the Holy Orthodox Faith, both Muslim and Latin alike. (You are doubtless already aware that your assertion that there were no heresies in Western Europe from the Lombard repudiation of Arianism until the 11th century is risible among us Orthodox, and that however much you may discount the late Fr. John Romanides' scholarship and views, the Frankish court were the champions of the erroneous doctrine of the dual procession of the Holy Spirit through centuries when the Popes of Rome continued in the Orthodox Faith -- I simply had had the civility not to point it out in a thread labeled "Ecumenical".)
(And no, the "religous wars" of the Christian Romans were not holy wars in the same sense as jihad or the Crusades.)
I am pleased to see that you can post civilly. Still, you prior behavior -- going to the trouble of following the breadcrumbs I've left in cyberspace to find the real identity of The_Reader_David so as to include ad hominem attacks in your prior posts, and your posting style -- great long swaths of text that your correspondents must wade through to reply -- makes me wonder about your motivation.
It cannot be to persuade me: the ad hominem attacks on K-State, picking on a misremembered spelling, and "moron influenced by the sciolist Fr. John Romanides'" were highly counter-productive.
It cannot be apologetics on behalf of Latin Christianity. Again ad hominem attacks make you seem uncharitable and your substantive argument seem weak and thus would fail in that purpose. Worse, your overall approach, not merely to deny cultural transmission across the Muslim-Christan frontier in Spain, but to attempt to justify as properly Christian the execution of heretics (albeit with qualifiers like "secret" or "violent") when this behavior by your spiritual forebearers has become an impediment to modern folk embracing any variant of Christianity, is counter-productive as apologetics.
I can only conclude that your regard FR discussion threads as a verbal blood-sport akin to high school national topic policy debates, and when either your ad hominem attacks or your posting great swaths of text to which others haven't the patience to reply drives your "opponents" from the field, you take satisfaction from flow-charting the "debate" and scoring it on points. Well, be happy: Since my refutation of your "no heresies" claim came only in my final rebuttal, you can ignore it and "pull that through your flow" as the Georgetown jargon put it, since new arguments can't be made in rebuttals. Congratulations. You won the thread.
I commend to your attention a piece that appeared in The New Yorker' "Shouts and Murmers" feature last year, which avered that "every conversation has a winner and a loser" and gave strategies for winning conversations, which if used "will have you winning conversations so consistently no one will ever dare to challenge you to one again." You can doubtless adapt them for use here at FR.