Catholic Thought discussion

Gang, please bear with me. I had a split in the pipe leading into the turbo of my car and I work in another state from where I live, so this has been a very rough week! I'm catching up, but want to post the heading for those of you who are completely caught up. I know this section isn't too long and there's so relief coming in the schedule so I'll be with you soon. :-) Please feel free to post your thoughts and I'll chime in soon!

Thanks.

Chapter 7: “Bridge Over the Abyss” (565-610)

We have a very impressive quote from Pope St. Gregory the Great at the heading of the chapter.

There is general violence and warfare in the West from Italy where the Lombards invade to Spain and the Frankish lands, as well as in Britain. This is after the death of Justinian and the next emperor, the mad Justin II.
Heresies multiply in all directions-some absurd-especially in Egypt and Persia and the East. Carroll describes it as “world in ruins . . . darkness and the deep”. This period used to be referred as the “Dark Ages”, a term started by Petrarch. This label has in recent times disappeared from histories. I wonder though if indeed the term Dark Age does not rightfully apply. Reading histories of this era should perhaps be prefaced with a warning such as we use here in goodreads: **spoiler alert***. Carroll himself refers to it by the old name in this chapter:

“here in the very abyss of the Dark Ages, is a profoundly impressive demonstration of the Church’s essential independence of the time and culture in which it is placed at any particular moment in history.” (p. 196)

The absurdity of the heretical offshoots is demonstrated by an incident when Pope Pelagius II sends future pope Gregory to Constantinople to get help against invading Lombards and instead is involved in theological arguments with the Patriarch Eutyches whether Christ had real flesh after the Resurrection. (p. 191)
These theological arguments bring violence in large numbers as told in the stories that a bishop from Spain tells Gregory in Constantinople. We have seen enough murders already over Arianism and the argument over equality in the Holy Trinity. Carroll describes a Gothic stepmother of a king of Spain as “fanatical Arian” (p. 192). An Arian father fights a war against his orthodox son in Seville. The son, Hermenegild, is eventually held in confinement and killed.

The Church is fortified by having a far-reaching shepherd in Pope Gregory the Great at this time but he died in the midst of the dark times in 604.

Carroll gives a good and accurate introduction to the oncoming onslaught of Islam that he will deal with in the next chapter.

There were seven popes during the period covered by this chapter about two of whom almost nothing is known. Two others, Carroll writes, accomplished little.

Galicius, thank you for the very nice summation. As I view the most recent chapters I am more and more convinced that the leaders of the various heresies are not at all concerned with Theology but only in gaining and keeping the emperor’s ear in order to increase their personal power. In each case of heresy there were church members who professed the truth, sometimes at personal risk, popes were frequently the ones taking these positions.

Of these popes who were recognized as leaders the greatest was Pope Gregory I, also called the “Great”. He was our 64th Pope and only the second one to be called the “Great” after Leo I.

Pope Gregory was a very active churchman who never sought position or power. An Abbot who tried to avoid appointment to diplomatic positions by Pope Pelagius II and finally strenuously resisted election to the Papacy; he was happiest as a monk but once given the job he attacked it with vigor.

He was very active in the liturgy. Today, we still say the “Our Father” prior to the consecration, he put that in place. The Gregorian Chant is still, according to Vatican II, the music to be given pride of place during the Roman Mass; this of course is ignored in the “spirit” of Vatican II but it is what is written in the Vatican II documents. He sponsored and helped to write a very early catechism. He also instituted the “stations of the cross” a small portion of liturgy still in use today.

Mike wrote: "Galicius, thank you for the very nice summation. ..."

Thank you Mike for your always-valuable contribution. It’s clear that you know these histories best in this group. I much appreciate your remarks. Please feel free to correct anything I read or understand incorrectly.

Chapter 8: “Red Whirlwind of the Desert” (610-642)

This chapter is very well organized. It’s easy to follow through and is interesting though it deals with some frightening events.

I was not much familiar with the history of Islam/Mohammedanism until I read Gibbon’s volume which deals with it quite extensively, minus the role of the Church. The history in Gibbon is striking in how rapidly the desert menace overruns the Southern world all the way to Spain. When I told a friend who knows more about Islam about the heavenly reward that Gibbon wrote about that 72 black virgins would greet dead Moslem men in paradise he corrected me. Apparently it only applies to those men who die fighting for Allah. Carroll gives only the figure of 2. Someone is wrong.

I like Carroll’s presentation of the political situation in the greater area of the known world before Mohammed appeared. It’s significant to know the state of affairs in Persia and Constantinople to better appreciate what happens in their immediate future. He then proceeds with almost year-by-year events in the different geographical areas as they are happening. We know what is going on in Constantinople, in Persia, as the frenzy of Mohammed rolls.

We have a history of a great struggle between Persia and Constantinople, which ends in a reconciliation under Heraclius. Carroll warns that what follows Eastern Emperor Haraclius’ life was “one of the bitterest personal tragedies recorded in all of history” (p. 222). He is no doubt referring to the onslaught of Islam forces out of the desert. They destroy the army hat he assembled and sent against them in a battle to retake Damascus.

Heraclius is also involved in a curious theological argument that attempted to reconcile Monophysites and the Church. This leads later to the Church condemning Pope Honorius I for misunderstanding the issue and failing to act on it when an opportunity came up. This argument to me is another example that astounds me by petty thinking that caused much physical harm. It was more politics than ideology and to me is best left dead in past history.

Carroll writes that “hardly a Muslim has ever lived north of 45 degrees north latitude” (p. 231) This means a line that runs across Europe at about Bordeux, France, Torino, Italy with most of France, all of Germany, and Northern Italy north of the line. Carroll’s history was published in 1987. I think the demographics in the area have changed radically in the last 30 years and continue to change. Germany accepted between three and four million refugees within the last few years that is mostly Moslem. France has a 5-10% minority professing Islam. We must never forget of course the four coordinated Islamic terror attacks on New York, Washington, and Shanksville on 9-11.

Hillaire Belloc explained the appeal that Mohammed had with his heresy in a chapter on Islam in his “The Great Heresies”. He explains that Mohammedanism attracted large groups of men to its ranks by offering them a simple religion, freedom from slavery and relief from debt. There is a huge class of young men in the Moslem countries now—ravaged by violence—men without meaningful employment, education, seizing on the call to arms or else seeking opportunity elsewhere preferably in Europe.

Carroll concludes the chapter on the brighter side. While Islam was obliterating Christianity in areas that have been faithful for centuries Christianity was making wonderful inroads in Northwest Europe and even reached and was welcomed by the Chinese emperor.

There were six popes during the period covered by this chapter about three of whom almost nothing is known.

Gang, I finally finished my chapters last night! I'm so sorry for the delay and I'm happy to see your comments. So, here's my belated fill in. :-)

Chapter 7 really helped to fill me in on the history of modern Europe - especially France, Britain, and Spain. To be honest, I read the chapter twice because I had so much going on between work and forest fires in the state causing smoke to enter my car, home, etc. It's been a stressful two weeks and I couldn't remember all of these heretics, rulers, and their philosophies. But when I pulled back, it was so much easier. Again, there is this sinking feeling in reading it all. And, it's hard knowing the Roman Empire faded out of existence, so you know where the story is going.

The Spanish history was particularly interesting to me and, if anything, I wish we had had more background on that region. It's as if suddenly Spain appears. Already it was well settled and we really had not heard much of it's background other than to assume that each of these regions had been under pagan rule and/or barbarian rule. I laughed as I read about Brunhilda. My grandmother always joked about Brunhilda growing up and I remember her appearance in the Hagar the Horrible Sunday cartoons in the newspaper.

As I read I thought of a thousand musicals, operas, poems, works of art about these regions and these people. I wish there were room to share more of these.

I was completely unfamiliar with Ingunthis. That's what I love about Dr. Carroll's books. I love learning about the lives of St. Cloud, etc. And, I definitely had not heard of the vision of St. Michael the Archangel over the Mausoleum of Hadrian, Castel Sant'Angelo, and it's role as a refuge to Popes in danger. It made me think of the power of prayer and heartfelt intention.

And, one can certainly see why Pope Gregory looked around and expected the apocalypse. It's funny how throughout time, people looked and expected, but somehow came through. Perhaps it was not a very successful coming through if the civilization became extinct.

The choice of using slaves to evangelize seems rather interesting. Certainly that is how St. Patrick made his way to Ireland. You have to wonder how that became acceptable, or maybe when it stopped becoming acceptable. I got a chill when I read that on Christmas Day 597, 10,000 converted in Britain. I hope that wasn't by force. It's heartbreaking to read in these chapters of the way in which religion was forced upon people, their lives completely redirected without concern. And then we head into Chapter 8 OMG!!!!

For me, some of the Muslim history was quite familiar and other parts were completely unknown to me. I know that I will have to re-read this entire book and I know that I will need at least 1-2 more books on the history of the Islamic faith to even begin to make sense of this.

There are so many parallels, and yet some run in complete opposition, to the Christian experience of Jesus. From our reading, Muhammad preached a fierce "my way or the highway" kind of faith in God whereas Jesus seemed to win hearts and minds, but, to be fair, he was fierce in his warnings. Certainly, Jesus completely spoke out against violence, so this new messenger is at complete odds. I know many criticize him for not bringing forth miracles. Should we demand this as proof of one's closeness to God?

It's interesting that his own people wished to come after him and shut him down. Jesus said it was hardest (greatly paraphrased) to convert the hearts of those closest to you. His own neighbors were his greatest critics as well. Muhammad's people did turn towards him and many of Jesus's neighbors and family did as well, but both lost so many by violence in anger over faith and the messages from God.

It seems odd how people converted on a dime with Muhammad but I attribute that to the violent culture of the region. When I think about it, God speaks to us in ways that we can understand. Is it surprising that a violent culture would have a violent messenger? I think he became respected for it in a way that perhaps a non-violent never would. And, I felt similarly surprised at times at the way in which Jesus was readily accepted except for one important difference. Jesus' birth was foretold by many, many prophets and far in advance. This has been another criticism about the validity of Muhammad. He was not predicted as God's messenger and this is another sticking point for many Christians.

Jesus and Muhammad are followed post mortem by writings of their lives and sayings. Both works have been highly criticized for what was included and what was excluded. Both have incited peace and, arguably, even greater levels of violence. God spoke to both and this experience was believable by many.

Interestingly, Muslims respect Mary, but seem to completely down play Jesus' divine birth, perhaps because this would put him in direct opposition to their own leader. But, given their culture, it seems odd that Mary would be so highly respected. I think it is because of her devoutness to God, which they highly cherish. Cherish is not the word. To call apostasy if one changes their religious course to the point of certain death is not really saying we "cherish" this faith. So, it is surprising how quickly the Middle East took to the faith and never waivered? If religious tolerance were allowed, one wonders what their demographics would look like. Certainly Christianity was already present.

One wonders what they would look and live like if their faith were non-violent and/or if creation were honored. Why didn't Muhammad teach about the need to tend for all of Creation? Perhaps he did and those writings didn't make the cut. It has always bothered me that Christianity seems to be the only faith that considers stewardship of our natural resources. I think these are the issues that make coexistence so difficult for these two religions. I think they feel annoyed at the seeming hypocrisy of Christians that make them speak out against violence, yet they are quick to rage wars, sponsor abortions and death penalty sentences. We speak our faith, but I think in their eyes we are less devout.

In summary, I feel like many people prayed for God to become known to the world and God sent a variety of messengers to assist with this. God speaks to us in ways that we can understand. Some messages are straight forward, others challenge us to think about our own rigid ways of thinking. Remember Abraham ready to sacrifice his firstborn. God was helping him understand and question the people's perceived need to sacrifice to God. I have always felt like God has been speaking in these passages and we need to read between the lines and look within. I think God sent Muhammad to a violent culture and gave them one of their own, and yet challenged them as well to consider the violence and other issues.

Gotta run! Work meeting. I'll get the next two chapters up soon!

Mike - Thank you so much for your comments about Pope Gregory the Great. I can't remember where it is found in these chapters, but I remember reaching a point where the Nicene Creed starts to appear in our daily mass as well. :-) It's always nice to re-learn the building blocks of our mass and their appearance in time.

Galicius - I loved your comments. Thank you so much. I wonder too why we stopped calling this the Dark Ages. Certainly it is worthy of the name!

The difference between the historical figures described in chapters seven and eight are like day and night. In Chapter seven Pope Gregory is sending missionaries to England, advocating care for the poor, and resolving theological issues, and Heraclius is desperately trying to hang on to the empire. And then we come to chapter 8 where Muhammad, the founder of Islam, is busy unleashing hell upon neighboring Arab tribes. It is amazing how quickly Muhammad’s religion spread and how his armies were able to take over Christian countries while incurring few defeats. It seems that Islam was violent at the very start of its beginnings.

I also found it a rather quick spread for a new religion, to say the least. I have really been pondering this faith. It occurred to me....just a personal opinnion here...I honestly believe that there's truth in God in each of the world's religions. I honestly think that God speaks to us in ways that we can understand. The basis for my thought here is Mary's apparitions. She appears dark skinned when she needs to speak to people with dark skin so that they can identify with her. She appears with light skin in France, etc. In our own faith, God worked consistently through people that were identifiable. I think....God needed to reach out to the Muslims. They were already violent. God always seems to have something that feels right in the faith, and a few things that challenge us. For example, the Jewish faith was new following paganism. Pagans often sacrificed....all kinds of things. Early Jews believed in the need to sacrifice and the early "church leaders" were "told" to. Yet, with Abraham we get a break of sorts....we don't need to sacrifice the boy. In Christianity, we change over to bread and wine. Islam believes in the need to go after Christians - or rather some sects take that one serious line of thinking and others are more moderate.

I think we are challenged about our believe in the need to do something this physical to come close to God. Certainly other faiths walk both sides of this. I think the sacrifice of Catholicism is about staying focused on the big picture. God redirects us in our prayers, our way of showing respect, in our celebration.

The Arab world understood violence. They understood conquest and multiple wives. And yet, there are so many parallels between our faiths it's aggravating when we collide. They honor Mary in a way that makes you scratch your head when you hear some of the other stuff.

And, yes, we look on them and think....he sure didn't waste any time taking over the Middle East and surrounding areas - said from a place of shock and with frustration over the violence. Yet, the Roman Empire was no small thing and was not won ever with kindness. They were not Jewish in totality by any means, but our history has not been peaceful. I keep thinking about the Israelites coming to the edge of the wilderness and what do they do? Conquer everyone living in the Promised Land, destroy their places of worship, tell them my way or the highway. We showed zero tolerance for pagans. Our God said....no pagan worship. The Muslim Allah said no Christians. I honestly think it's meant to make us draw up deep and say....we each come to understand God in our own way. In a way that fits our unique experience. There is shared ground and that is what should be our foundation.