| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 08/14/2009 10:19:45 AM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior |
Posted on 08/11/2009 6:54:49 AM PDT by Wife of D
I’m amazed that it took until your post for someone to provide an accurate history.
Very few members of the Moravian sect are actually ethnically Moravian, but instead tend to be German. Ethnic Moravians are for the most part Catholic.
Another side note is that the name Wachovia (as is in the bank) derives from Moravian history.
Lastly, the earliest examples of what we call classical music in the English colonies in Nort America were in the Moravian communities.
Yes, that's silly....they were all born into Roman Catholicism--as was the whole country.
However, since they lived less than 500 years from the first generation of Czech Christians who WERE originally Eastern Orthodox...and only forced into Rome's orbit for political reasons, many historians surmise that there was a generations-old resentment against the Roman Catholic Church, which made them more quickly revolt with Hus' urging.
Even relatively long past history affects peoples' attitudes in the present. Spain for example led the quest for Roman Catholic doctrinal purity with the Inquisition. They had only just finally ejected the Moors (and the Jews) in 1493...(and many thousand we now know were secretly not orthodox Catholics). Hence, the country had something to prove to the rest of Europe that they were loyal Roman Catholics--so they reacted with a strain of fanatical devotion, in the Inquisition.
It's interesting that one of Protestant history's famous heretics at that time (by any Christian measure) was Micheal Servetus. He had been tried and condemned to death twice (in absentia) by Roman Catholic Inquisition courts--but it took Calvin's Geneva to try him a 3rd time and execute this anti-trinitarian.
Different times, and different people. Or perhaps its just different times, and different heresies...
(forgot to add, Micheal Servetus was a Spaniard.)
You wrote:
“Yes, that’s silly....they were all born into Roman Catholicism—as was the whole country. However, since they lived less than 500 years from the first generation of Czech Christians who WERE originally Eastern Orthodox...”
No, actually they were Catholics. Sts. Cyril and Methodius lived before 1054 and the final split between East and West. There was no such thing as the “Eastern Orthodox.” They are all just Catholics. They received the blessing and support of Pope Adrian II, for instance. Western bishops also ordained Cyril and Methodius’ closest Slav followers as priests. This means that the Pope and the Catholic Church of course, considered the mission of Sts. Cyril and Methodius to be entirely Catholic. Also, it is clear to historians that the people whom Sts. Cyril and Methodius preached to, had already been introduced to Christianity as is clear in the letter of King Rastislav of Moravia to Byzantine Emperor Michael III.
“and only forced into Rome’s orbit for political reasons, many historians surmise that there was a generations-old resentment against the Roman Catholic Church, which made them more quickly revolt with Hus’ urging.”
Actually, no, no reputable historian believes there was a centuries old (it would have to be more than 550 years old) grudge against Rome or the Catholic Church which fed into the Hussite revolt. The easiest way to expose that “grudge” as the nutty idea it is is to ask what proof of it there is. The answer, of course, is absolutely none. The exact opposite is the truth. Throughout the Middle Ages, right up until the trials and tribulations of the 14th century, Moravia/Bohemia was extremely loyal to the Church and reaped enormous rewards and blessings from Church membership that would have eluded it otherwise.
“Even relatively long past history affects peoples’ attitudes in the present. Spain for example led the quest for Roman Catholic doctrinal purity with the Inquisition.”
No. 1) There was no such thing as the “Roman Catholic Church”. There was only the Catholic Church. 2) Spain did not lead the way. It was not the first nation to have inquisitorial tribunals set up within its borders. 3) Spain wanted the inquisition for more than religious reasons. The Spanish Inquisition was actually a governmental organ, staffed to a great extent by government bureaucrats, and commissioned to carry out a program of religious integration to help meld a new state - Spain.
“They had only just finally ejected the Moors (and the Jews) in 1493...(and many thousand we now know were secretly not orthodox Catholics). Hence, the country had something to prove to the rest of Europe that they were loyal Roman Catholics—so they reacted with a strain of fanatical devotion, in the Inquisition.”
No. The Spanish Inquisition was not fanatical. It was established to protect Spain - a new nation - from fanaticism and at the same time false Christians. The pogroms of the 14th century and the attacks on New Christians (Jewish converts) as well as attacks FROM New Christians on Old Christians demanded that the issue be resolved to protect Spain from fanaticism on all sides. People often forget about things like the July 21st storming of the Cathedral of Toledo by the New Christian, Fernando de la Torre and his private army of fellow New Christians. A struggle ensued in the Cathedral and it spilled out into the streets. Neighboring towns sent men to aid the Old Christians and De La Torre was hanged. A massacre of New Christians followed. That was in 1467.
That was the sort of fanaticism the inquisition wanted to crush.
The final straw for Isabella - in the city that Isabella made her temporary capitol and which Torquemada (who was of Jewish decent) lived - was a war between New Christians. One New Christian leader decided to attack the other under the guise of an anti-New Christian uprising. The target - the governor of the region - (yes, he was a New Christian), was warned of the coming attack by Cardinal Borgia (who later became Pope Alexander VI). He escaped. The attack was vicious and bloody. Isabella and Ferdinand later thanked the governor for his defense of the New Christians. This was on May 16, 1474. The inquisition was established just four years later.
When Sixtus IV established the inquisition under the control of the monarchs he clearly detailed what the problem was: people were pretending to be Christians and this led to “wars,” “slaughter”, “evident injuries to men”, and “to the peril of souls, and the scandal of many.” The pope went on to praise Ferdinand and Isabella for their “praiseworthy zeal for the safety of souls.”
“It’s interesting that one of Protestant history’s famous heretics at that time (by any Christian measure) was Micheal Servetus. He had been tried and condemned to death twice (in absentia) by Roman Catholic Inquisition courts—but it took Calvin’s Geneva to try him a 3rd time and execute this anti-trinitarian.”
Of course, he was also once tried - in 1538 - by the inquisition for some of his odd beliefs and practices that he had made public - and was acquitted! The inquisition tribunals were much more fair than people give them credit for.
“Different times, and different people. Or perhaps its just different times, and different heresies...”
I see no relationship whatsoever between the ninth century conversion of Moravia, Jews in Spain, Servetus, etc. Nor do other historians.
“I would be surprised if they were connected with the Orthodox but will defer to those who know more about them.”
See some of the other commentors on the history of this group. NO connection with any Orthodox Churches.
I don’t like pacifists in any form and flavor. They are free to practise their peculiar beliefs only because OTHER Americans were willing to die in their place.
As for considering alcohol use equivalent to drug abuse, that is pretty absurd. Moderate alcohol consumption is not deleterious, criminal, or un-American. Pacifism is.
Its a free country and they are of course free to believe whateveer they believe, but presenting themselves as part of the mainstream American religious current is, I think, stretching it.
I’m well aware that the Western Roman Church had had not broken with the Eastern Churches (now known as Eastern Orthodox) in Cyril’s and Methodius’ day... However, the cultural divide between eastern and western Christians was already very evident by the 800s. Cyril and Methodius were from the east, not from the Latin Church—even while given Rome’s approval.
Actually there is a lot of evidence that before Huss, the Bohemian people (what their rulers did is a different matter) did have issues with Roman corruption (the utraquist controversy pre-dates Huss for example)— as did many conscientious Christians throughout Europe.
“The Spanish Inquisition was actually a governmental organ, staffed to a great extent by government bureaucrats, and commissioned to carry out a program of religious integration to help meld a new state - Spain.” Ummm, pretty much that’s exactly what I said—Spain wanted to prove its Roman orthdoxy.
“No. The Spanish Inquisition was not fanatical. It was established to protect Spain - a new nation - from fanaticism and at the same time false Christians.”
I’m of the opinion that any and all punishment, in particular capitol punishment, for religious disagreement, is BY DEFINITION, fanatical. (I’m American.) Don’t you agree?
It sounds very much like you are defending the persecutions by the Inquistion?
And actually I have read the definitive biography of Servetus, by Roland Bainton, and he yes, he really was condemned twice by Roman Catholic courts—for religious offenses. (The 2nd time he was tried, he escaped, before the end of the trial).
I’m a Calvinist....however I’m also happy to say Calvin and Geneva did the wrong thing, when they executed Servetus. It was culturally acceptable—and not uncommon in that day, to execute people just for their religious views, still, it was wrong.
Of course there is no direct connection between the Roman Catholic Spanish Inquisition, the trials and execution of Micheal Servetus, or the severe mistreatment and murders of the Moravians—except that Roman Catholicism—and the long legacy of religious intolerance in Europe—persecuted them all.
As to, “1) There was no such thing as the “Roman Catholic Church“” And I guess there’s no Roman church today, eh? Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Moravians are not now—nor were they originally, pacifists. Quakers and Mennonites are (and always have been)—and have nothing in common with Moravian history(came from completely different parts of Europe)—except that some settled in the same parts of America (Pennsylvania).
I don’t approve of pacifism either, however, unlike some Methodists you mentioned, the Mennonites (I have a couple Mennonite friends from college) have always been that way—and not out of cowardice. They read the New Testament very literally (and don’t properly understand the Old Testament, in my opinion) and hence cannot put “love your enemies” (as Jesus did indeed say) and warfare together. (That Jesus highly complimented a Roman Centurion, and that soldiers were never told to quit their jobs in the NT, they don’t take into account...)
Anabaptists like Mennonites are very sincere however in what they believe their responsibilities as Christians are—and they are willing (and have, often) to suffer for it. That’s not being cowards—mistaken, yes, I believe so—but not cowardly, and not un-American. Mennonites for example were very loyal hard-working, risk-taking Medics in WWII....they helped their country, they just would not kill for it. Although I disagree, I do respect that...and so did Lee and Washington, by the way...
You wrote:
“However, the cultural divide between eastern and western Christians was already very evident by the 800s. Cyril and Methodius were from the east, not from the Latin Church—even while given Rome’s approval.”
It was still ONE Church at that time. That was the point, and it’s irrefutable no matter what cultural divide there was.
“Actually there is a lot of evidence that before Huss, the Bohemian people (what their rulers did is a different matter) did have issues with Roman corruption (the utraquist controversy pre-dates Huss for example)— as did many conscientious Christians throughout Europe.”
You’re creating a straw man. I never said, nor do I doubt, that many people were upset about corrupt members of the Church. Can you name any nation that was not upset about corruption in the Church? No. They all were and they all still are. There are always corrupt people in the Church. Acknowledging the fact that there were Bohemians calling for reform in the 15th century is a world away from saying that there was centuries old antipathy toward Rome because of events in the 9th century. What you’re doing is akin to saying people are upset about health care reform measures because of an antipathy against the Federal Government that stems from Lincoln’s wartime federal seizure of perogatives from the states. Sorry, no go.
“Ummm, pretty much that’s exactly what I said—Spain wanted to prove its Roman orthdoxy.”
No. That is not what I said. Nor is it what happened. Spain was not trying to prove anything about its orthodoxy. Spain was using a new court tribunal to weed out those it viewed as subversive. That’s not about PROVING orthodoxy to someone. Pray tell who was it that was demanding that this PROVING take place and exactly how was the inquisition designed to make it happen?
“I’m of the opinion that any and all punishment, in particular capitol punishment, for religious disagreement, is BY DEFINITION, fanatical. (I’m American.) Don’t you agree?”
No. I do not agree. It is also stupid to insinuate that “I’n American” means someone must agree with your view of things to be an American. I’m a Christian. My roots - like that of all Christians - are Jewish. Jews were not opposed to the death penalty for some religious crimes and I see no reason why - given the circumstances and understandings of the Middle Ages - such standards under Christian auspices should not apply.
“It sounds very much like you are defending the persecutions by the Inquistion?”
Persecutions? No. Rooting out, reconciliation or punishment of heretics in most circumstances in a Christian nation in the Middle Ages? Yes.
“And actually I have read the definitive biography of Servetus, by Roland Bainton, and he yes, he really was condemned twice by Roman Catholic courts—for religious offenses. (The 2nd time he was tried, he escaped, before the end of the trial).”
I never said he was not condemned twice. He was in fact executed in effigy at least once. You seem to have difficulty reading. I never said he was not turned over to the secular arm by the inquisition. I said he was once acquited by an inquisition. And that is irrefutably true. Also, there were no such things as “Roman Catholic courts”. An inquisition is not a “Roman Catholic court” and can be a secular dominated tribunal dependeing on time and place. Also, Bainton’s biography - more than 50 years old now - is a lightweight work compared to the two books authored by Marian Hillar in 1997 and 2003. I can’t say I agree with Hillar on everything but the research depth is amazing. Hillar’s works leave Bainton in the dust quite frankly.
“I’m a Calvinist....however I’m also happy to say Calvin and Geneva did the wrong thing, when they executed Servetus. It was culturally acceptable—and not uncommon in that day, to execute people just for their religious views, still, it was wrong.”
It was wrong - for Calvin and Geneva. They had no authority to do anything that they did to Servetus or anyone else for that matter.
“Of course there is no direct connection between the Roman Catholic Spanish Inquisition, the trials and execution of Micheal Servetus, or the severe mistreatment and murders of the Moravians—except that Roman Catholicism—and the long legacy of religious intolerance in Europe—persecuted them all.”
Incorrect. Servetus was executed by Protestants. There were no murders of Moravians by the Catholic Church. There was no such thing as the “Roman Catholic Spanish Inquisition”. There is the Catholic Church. And there was the Spanish Inquisition.
“As to, “1) There was no such thing as the “Roman Catholic Church“” And I guess there’s no Roman church today, eh? Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.”
No, there is no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church. There is the Roman Church, which is part of the Catholic Church. “Roman Catholic Church” is a phrase largely invented and entirely popularized in English by Protestants. Just check the Oxford English Dictionary and you’ll see what I mean. This is at least the second time (or more likely the fourth time) where you have said one thing was another. Disagree with me all you like, but at least disagree with what I actually said and don’t pretend one thing is another.
You wrote:
“Moravians are not now—nor were they originally, pacifists.”
They were pacifists in the 18th and 19th centuries, however - that is if you believe the Moravians themselves:
“Despite the fact that the 18th century Moravians were pacifists, gunsmithing was a necessary trade.”
http://www.moravianhistoricalsociety.org/education/nazWalkTour-3.php
“Despite the fact that the 18th century Moravians were pacifists, gunsmithing was a necessary trade.”
Guns were a necessary tool in the 1700’s - bears, wolves, cougars were common, so were game animals and making guns back then was not looked upon the same way too many people today do.
One of the earliest extant Pennsylvania Long Rifles, the Edward Marshall Rifle - currently in the Buck’s County PA Museum, was made at Christian Springs, PA - probably by Moravians. But that still doesn’t mean they were not pacifists themselves.
In the mid-ninth century these countries converted to Christianity chiefly through the influence of two Greek Orthodox missionaries, Cyril and Methodius. They translated the Bible into the common language and introduced a national church ritual. In the centuries that followed, Bohemia and Moravia gradually fell under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Rome, but some of the Czech people protested.
The foremost of Czech reformers, John Hus (1369-1415) was a professor of philosophy and rector of the University in Prague. The Bethlehem Chapel in Prague, where Hus preached, became a rallying place for the Czech reformation. Gaining support from students and the common people, he led a protest movement against many practices of the Roman Catholic clergy and hierarchy. Hus was accused of heresy, underwent a long trial at the Council of Constance, and was burned at the stake on July 6, 1415.
While, vladimir998 is correct to say that the Western and Eastern churches were technically still part of a unified Church there were already deep divisions. One of which was that the Greek east allowed the translations of the Bible into the vernacular and allowed for local autonomy and the acceptance of local traditions. The Latin church only allowed Latin - it did relent and allowed Sts. Cyril and Methodius to continue in the Slavic vernacular but then to appease the Germans who were the rulers there at the time, the Pope told St. Methodius he could no longer celebrate liturgy in the Slavic vernacular. Methodius appealed to the Pope and to Rome's credit and was again allowed to used the Slavic vernacular. But within twenty years after his death, And without the brothers to explain their position, use of the vernacular in liturgy was again banned by the Latins.
This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.
You wrote:
“While, vladimir998 is correct to say that the Western and Eastern churches were technically still part of a unified Church there were already deep divisions.”
I can agree with that.
“One of which was that the Greek east allowed the translations of the Bible into the vernacular and allowed for local autonomy and the acceptance of local traditions.”
So did the West. 1) There NEVER was a rule against translating the Bible into the vernacular for all of the West and what local rules came out later came out in the 13th or 14th century. 2) There were plenty of local customs and liturgies that developed and florished in the West: Sarum, Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Gallic, Roman, the various Celtic Rites and several others I can’t even think of at the moment. Someone could easily make the case that the Westerners - at the time period we’re talking about - were much more diverse in liturgy than the Orthodox East ever was.
“The Latin church only allowed Latin - it did relent and allowed Sts. Cyril and Methodius to continue in the Slavic vernacular but then to appease the Germans who were the rulers there at the time, the Pope told St. Methodius he could no longer celebrate liturgy in the Slavic vernacular.”
1) Other than with Sts. C and M, who exactly WANTED a Mass in other than Latin? 2) Take the Irish Rite, for instance, it wasn’t abolished by the Irish bishops until the 12th century - more than 300 years after the time period we’re talking about.
“Methodius appealed to the Pope and to Rome’s credit and was again allowed to used the Slavic vernacular. But within twenty years after his death, And without the brothers to explain their position, use of the vernacular in liturgy was again banned by the Latins.”
So what? How does that mean that John Huss was doing what he did because of the loss of a vernacular liturgy he wouldn’t have necessarily understood anyway? 500 years is a long time.
“This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
Complete nonsense. There was no such resentment nor can anyone apparently document said supposed resentment. Where was that “simmering” resentment for 500 years? You think someone would have written about it at least once wouldn’t you?
By the way, when I say...
“Take the Irish Rite, for instance, it wasn’t abolished by the Irish bishops until the 12th century - more than 300 years after the time period we’re talking about.”
That does not mean that I am saying that the Irish Rite was in the vernacular.
500 years is a long time? Maybe by the modern American MTV generation but 500 years is not a very long time and history shows that people maintain traditions for much longer. As someone who loves history as I do whenever I encounter such statements it makes me shake my head in wonderment.
Lastly, when you write "so what" is your opinion. What you perception of the truth is is not what the Moravians perception of the truth is. I think that is the problem with many discussions. People perceive facts through their own filters.
I posted a link with statement from the Moravian Church's webs site that confirms my statement @ http://www.moravian.org/history/
In the mid-ninth century these countries converted to Christianity chiefly through the influence of two Greek Orthodox missionaries, Cyril and Methodius. They translated the Bible into the common language and introduced a national church ritual. In the centuries that followed, Bohemia and Moravia gradually fell under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Rome, but some of the Czech people protested.
So clearly as the Moravians see it (lit it or not it is their view based on their understanding of events) for those 500 years where the Latin liturgy was imposed over that of the eastern Greek founded vernacular it created resentment over time.
I am not interested in polemics but rather facts. Not liking facts and saying you 'so what' is not how I roll.
So to conclude, a question was raised about the Moravians and the Orthodox. While the Moravians were not an offshoot of the Orthodox church the Moravians tell us (right or wrong - it is their opinion) that their ancestors were once under the guidance of the Greek east through the Sts. Cyril and Methodius who founded a Christian rite in the local Slavic vernacular. The Moravians feel that when the Latin church suppressed this it created long simmering resentment to Rome and thus gave fertile ground for discontent which saw the rise of their new church.
It is a plausible scenario.
You wrote:
“500 years is a long time? Maybe by the modern American MTV generation but 500 years is not a very long time and history shows that people maintain traditions for much longer. As someone who loves history as I do whenever I encounter such statements it makes me shake my head in wonderment.”
Love history? I have a PhD in history. I studied the Middle Ages in detail - and did a good amount of work on Huss, the Hussites, etc. And yes, 500 years is a VERY LONG TIME for an emotion or feeling that you have, thus far, utterly failed to document. If you would at least show SOME EVIDENCE, SOMETHING, ANYTHING that proved your point that might help. Can you?
“Lastly, when you write “so what” is your opinion. What you perception of the truth is is not what the Moravians perception of the truth is.”
Again, so what? So far you have utterly failed to document what the feelings or perceptions of Moravians IN THE MIDDLE AGES were. You have also failed - utterly - to show that those perceptions and feelings OF “RESENTMENT” some how stayed frozen in time for 500 years or changed or even existed in the first place.
“I think that is the problem with many discussions. People perceive facts through their own filters.”
And you’re not? Unlike you (apparently) I studied this on a professional level. I am not saying that to rub it in, or even to bragg. I just can’t believe that you think you’re unbiased, or that only those who disagree with are biased. Again, you have utterly failed to make a case here. You have made baseless assertions. That’s it so far.
“I posted a link with statement from the Moravian Church’s webs site that confirms my statement @ http://www.moravian.org/history/";
Nonsense. 1) Your Moravian website does not confirm your statement in the least. This was your statement:
“This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
1) Your website makes an unsubstantiated claim that in the 9th century “some of the Czech people protested.”
Note, that was UNSUBSTANTIATED. Do I even need to point out that the use of “Czechs” for the 9th century is anachronistic?
2) Even if there were “Czechs” who protested the loss of their vernacular rite in the 9th century, that in no way means that their feelings “laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church” or that that resentment EVER EVEN EXISTED before John Huss.
Again, you have presented NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CLAIM:
“This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
That is what you have to prove. Have you even attempted to do it yet?
“So clearly as the Moravians see it (lit it or not it is their view based on their understanding of events) for those 500 years where the Latin liturgy was imposed over that of the eastern Greek founded vernacular it created resentment over time.”
1) It doesn’t matter what the Moravians say now about events that happened 500 to 1000 years before they put up their website or even came into being as a sect.
2) Anachronism is your difficulty - not to mention that the source you are relying on still doesn’t say what you said. Remember, you said, “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
Are you ever going to offer evidence of that or not? The Moravian website only makes a claim - completely unsubstantiated - that “Czechs” protested something in the 9th century. It says nothing about “simmering” resentment against the Catholic Church.
“I am not interested in polemics but rather facts. Not liking facts and saying you ‘so what’ is not how I roll.”
What? You make a completely baseless, entirely unsubstantiated assertion and you’re surprised I say “So what?” to a completely irrelevant point that in no way substantiates your claim? And you say you’re interested in facts? What FACTS?
The point I made is irrefutable: “So what? How does that mean that John Huss was doing what he did because of the loss of a vernacular liturgy he wouldn’t have necessarily understood anyway? 500 years is a long time.”
1) 500 years is a long time for a feeling - a feeling you’ve utterly failed to document.
2) Your point about Methodius and the loss of the vernacular liturgy after his death PROVES NOTHING ABOUT JOHN HUSS. Nothing at all.
3) When someone makes a completely irrelevant point as you made, then “So what?” is perfectly warranted.
“So to conclude, a question was raised about the Moravians and the Orthodox.”
No. There was no question. It was a statement - in post 28 - and I showed how it was flawed.
“While the Moravians were not an offshoot of the Orthodox church the Moravians tell us (right or wrong - it is their opinion) that their ancestors were once under the guidance of the Greek east through the Sts. Cyril and Methodius who founded a Christian rite in the local Slavic vernacular.”
1) Actually, the Moravians are simply mistaken because - as everyone already knows - Sts. Cyril and Methodius were Catholic. There was no Orthodox Church yet. The saints received the backing of the Catholic Church. Period.
2) Even if the people of Moravia were once Orthodox - and they were not since no such Church yet existed - then that still says EXACTLY NOTHING about laying “the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
That was your assertion. Where’s your evidence? So far you’re presented NONE.
“The Moravians feel that when the Latin church suppressed this it created long simmering resentment to Rome and thus gave fertile ground for discontent which saw the rise of their new church.”
1) Who cares? I can’t believe that I have to point this out, but what a sect thinks in 2009 in no way actually impacts the factuality of events more than 1000 years ago or 500 years ago.
2) Even what you cited from the Moravians DID NOT SAY, “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
3) The Moravians can say the moon is made out cheese. Is it? You can say, “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.” Well, where’s the EVIDENCE? Show me that the “Czechs” in the year 1100 were “simmering” with “resentment” against the Catholic Church. Can you? How about in 1200? How about 1250? Something? Anything? You haven’t been able to document this yet apparently. How about doing that? Care to try?
“It is a plausible scenario.”
Plausible scenario?
So you’ve moved away from baseless assertions: “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
to plausible scenarios? That’s it? Will it be “Wishful thinking” by next week? An “Old wives’ tale” by next month?
Please present some evidence for your claim. Do you have any at all?
You wrote:
“It is not my claim but it is the Moravians own claim.”
You’re now saying that these are not your words: “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.” Look at post #51. Are those your words or not?
“You can take it up with them and prove them wrong.”
Again, are these your words or not?: “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
Your words or not? It’s a simple question. Really... really...simple.
“You don’t like it that is your problem not mine. It is their folk memory not mine or yours.”
Folk memory? 1) History is not based on “folk memory”. 2) Are these YOUR words or not?: “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
“Clearly the seeds of resentment to the Latin church existed on that soil.”
Clearly? According to whom? If it is so clear, wouldn’t you have some evidence of that? Any at all?
“By the way I have to call you on your claim to a PhD - you may have one - but I would like to verify until then your just a guy online.”
No. I say that for two reasons: 1) When you refuse to provide a single scrap of evidence for your own assertions, I certainly owe you NO evidence about my personal accomplishments. 2) When you start claiming your own words are not your own words, then I fail to see why I would owe anything about anything. 3) My professional accomplishments in no way impact the discussion. You say you love history. I KNOW history. Great. Let’s see who is right. You have failed to present any evidence whatsoever to prove your baseless assertion. And you are now claiming your statement was not yours at all. Sorry, buddy, but I owe you NOTHING here.
Again, are these your words?: “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
You wrote:
“Where is your thesis on file?”
The real question is this:
Where is your evidence for this?: “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
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.