[Hook]
Popes Mad (x24)
It was kind of a disappointing read. I guess I was expecting broader coverage over all of Christian history and less emphasis on political and legal intrigue because I didn’t look at the summary.
It has a reputation for blood and guts but there isn’t much gore porn, it’s mostly legal back-and-forths, and the persecutions had a strong ethnic undercurrent. Each chapter is the story of some Northwest European priest or minister saying that when the Pope diverges from the gospel, the Pope is the one who’s wrong and not the gospel. Then the Holy See looks into it for a while and some diplomatic letters get sent back and forth regarding extradition.
[Hook]
Popes Mad (x24)
Then there’s the trial where the NW Euro says “prove me wrong” and the SE Euro says “you are wrong because the church says you are wrong”. Then the NW Euro says “you’re not my real church” and the SE Euro says “you don’t mean that son, please take it back so I don’t have to punish you.” It goes on in this vein as the SE Euro escalates threats and the NW Euro stubbornly says “prove it”, because they’re appealing to different value systems. The NW Euro is saying “I belong to the tribe of moral people” and the SE Euro is saying “You belong to the tribe my tribal chief says you do”. The SE Euro then escalates until he eventually executes the NW Euro for insubordination.
[Hook]
Popes Mad (x24)
Basically SE Euros don’t believe in voluntary submission to authority, and NW Euros insist that’s the only kind. For the former, the postmodern argument is sufficient. “The church is the church because the church says so. Amen.” NW Euros insist the hierarchy must justify itself from moral first principles, and if authority deviates from principle then authority becomes null and void. It’s why they have such a different approach to corruption: Rule by unprincipled exception versus rule by principled injustice.
[Hook]
Popes Mad (x24)
Now, that all said, the martyrs themselves were giants among men on whose shoulders we now stand anytime we open a Bible to read it in plain English. We take it for granted that we know what the gospel says. We may disagree on the implications of priests molesting children, but we take it for granted that it’s possible even to disapprove of it. We inherited such things because better men were tortured to death, often turning themselves in to the church willingly for such purpose, because they were driven by conscience to speak out and refused to recant under the harshest pressures the world could contrive.
[Outro: repeat hook 24 times]
Aeoli Pera 
Based. God, I love being White. #PopesMad
`We may disagree on the implications of priests molesting children`
Whats there to disagree on? Burn them at the stake. And they can repent as they burn. Or just tie a millstone around their neck and throw them overboard. Though the latter (i.e. little ones) can also refer to harming a member of The Church.
Either way its time for The Alphas to stop placating our Schizociety.
Im SE Euro and I only submit to Legitimate Authority. Which there are hardly any in the current year.
“Now, that all said, the martyrs themselves were giants among men on whose shoulders we now stand anytime we open a Bible to read it in plain English. We take it for granted that we know what the gospel says.”
The Roman Catholic Church settled the Canon. Saint Jerome translated it into Latin because this was the language of all literate persons in the western Roman empire. It was preserved by the tireless industry of monks for a thousand years. Wycliffe’s Bible was translated directly from the Vulgate. Later English translations of the New Testament were made from Erasmus’ Textus Receptus, itself collated from Byzantine manuscripts.
Why didn’t the RCC comission translations of the Vulgate as Spanish, French, and Italian began to replace Vulgar Latin? Well, they would have created the situation that exists in Protestant nations today: a thousand churches, each despising all of the others, each with its own canon and translation, with most headed by insane and illiterate charlatans (Charles Taze Russell, Ellen G. White, William Miller . . .).
The Bible isn’t a textbook or a novel to be trimmed and reworded (Luther’s translation is both inaccurate and a mutilation) according to the caprice of self-righteous schismatics.
I didn’t write the book, I just read it. You don’t have to get defensive. I agree it disproportionately emphasized Reformation martyrs, says so in the OP.
Sorry, Aeoli. That was unwarranted on my part.
I recently had to revise my opinion of the RCC following a more thorough study of the Reformation (among other things). Since then I’ve felt compelled to defend the legitimacy and honor of the (pre-20th century) RCC.
The bishops should have realized that the spread of the printing press and the subsequent rise in literacy made the publication of common language translations of the Bible inevitable.
You know, I’ve gotten so jaded about internet discourse that I forgot there are other people, however few, who are still in a process of movement from one opinion to another. My assumption going in is everything everyone says is a cope, which is far more often true than not but also uncharitable.
” I forgot there are other people, however few, who are still in a process of movement from one opinion to another.”
Thats Narcissistic Solipism right there. Theres that other people dont exist.
This is why one must avoid others unless they are Geniuses. Other peoples opinions and positions are generally formed from nonsensical things programmed into them by the Teevee, Authority Figures, and our sick and diseased culture.
Nobody wants to admit this of course because they are well narcissists.
Why are you so convinced you’re a genius? When did you begin to believe this?
“No man who claims to be a genius is a genius”
This is one of my heuristics. It rarely fails me.
I get what you mean, but still, not very Christlike. You might simply meditate on how little Asian girls get routinely sold into sex slavery, and how then your burden of listening to the continuous droning of NPCs is the lighter part of the evil in this world.
Though there’s a constant stream of people who fall from grace and start having thoughts. Rao describes it succintly in his Gervais series: “Direct Clueless-to-Sociopath transitions, without time spent in Loserdom, is unlikely.” I. e. live like James LaFond and you’ll meet interesting people.
“My assumption going in is everything everyone says is a cope, which is far more often true than not but also uncharitable.”
Virtually all internet discourse is fake, gay, and retarded.
Herr Rosenberg’s book also has the theme of northern or aryan Folk, looking for purity of pursuit, rather than incidentals of the exterior, a sort of north vs south dichotomy.
A thought, judge it by its fruits; judge Christianity not by how Europeans, especially Fair Folk have done with it(for one may confuse the effect of race with religion or vice a verse), but other groups such as copts, arabs, negros, indians, chinese, japs, south american indians, etc…
Only fair if you limit Christianity’s responsibility to its own territory, and use as baseline the local cults it displaced. For example, in practice, the roman church shared what would become France with the synagogue. The north was a base of Baal cultists, as Otté mentioned in passing. The horned helmets are a clue, and Mathis nooticed how that little fact is being memory-holed today. Remember Herrou Aragon: horns are a symbol of gnostic initiation.
Does that mean Christianity is only a layer to the sediment of religous, cultural, and spiritual fruit? Not the bedrock?
I don’t recall much of Rosenberg’s work beyond his anti-Catholicism and his contention that Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were Aryan.
There do seem to be pro-Aryan themes in the Gospels: sympathetically depicted gentiles (multiple Romans, the magi, etc.), Galilee of the Gentiles vs Judea of . . . the Jews, etc.. Hellenism is inseparable from the early church.
“Herr Rosenberg’s book also has the theme of northern or aryan Folk, looking for purity of pursuit, rather than incidentals of the exterior, a sort of north vs south dichotomy.”
The Quakers have no sacraments, no priesthood, and no dogmas. Do they really constitute a church? The ‘incidentals’ of religion aren’t always so incidental.
Never go full jew, ala Quakers.
Incidentals I refer more to letter of law ratger than spirit theorof.
How are the Quakers judaizers? I can’t think of another contemporary Christian sect which makes such a clean break with Judaism from the standpoint of practice.
Pacifism or get others to fight for you and “progressive” humanistic equality cult they were particulary early stars in.
Are Quakers opposed even to wars of self-defense?
Pingback: Personality number 2 in “Darkness at Noon” | Aeoli Pera
Pingback: 2022 goals retrospective | Aeoli Pera