Medieval Crossbow
The Medieval Crossbow Was Banned By Pope Innocent III At The Second Lateran Council (1139 A.D.)
Canons
| 29. We prohibit under anathema that murderous art of crossbowmen and archers, which is hateful to God, to be employed against Christians and Catholics from now on. |
Victory often involved the capture of a castle following siege, or the capture of enemy knights and other aristocracy for ransom.
With the crossbow and longbow, and later, gunpowder, victory came in the wake of far more killing.
Sound theologians hold that the proscription of the crossbow and the longbow also condemns subsequent "advances" in "engines of mass slaughter" although the idiotically-argumentative contend that The Second Lateran Council chose to condemn only bows and arrows.
The Council's intent was to reduce casualties, and to this end the Church tried to outlaw methods of "facilitated killing," also implementing policies like the Peace of God and the Truce of God which specified no fighting on Church property or on Holy days.
These proscriptions were not particularly effective and, notably, Richard the Lionheart - perhaps the best known warrior in the heyday of Christendom was killed by a crossbow.
Consider:
Brief History of the Crossbow: http://www.ancientfortresses.org/medieval-crossbow.htm
Online Catholic Discussion of Pope Innocent's Proscription of Crossbows: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=748562
It is true that the Second Lateran Council made its pronouncement just as firearms -- specifically, the so-called "fire lance" -- were first coming into use but if the Council pronounced "archery" hateful... would it not, by extension, condemn the hateful nature of firearms under the same rubric?
History Of The Firearm
As happened with other "odious behaviors" -- usury among them -- normalization followed widespread usage. (Try to find a nun or priest who does not carry a credit card charging a usurious rate of interest.)
Perhaps most significantly, we see analagous migration from the norm of pacifism in the early Christian church to widespread acceptance of "Christian warfare," and - as illustrated in the following graph - the towering enormity of "justifiable" Christian warfare in the 20th century.
The above pie chart is taken from University of Michigan History Professor, Juan Cole's article, "Terror And The Other Religions." http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2014/04/terrorism-and-other-religions-juan-cole.html
Not surprisingly, Christianity's mounting passion for belligerence was propelled by Constantine's declaration of Christianity as the state religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_pacifism
Speaking of Constantine, read up on the "happy family" murderousness which he and his mother, the most holy Saint Helena, visited on their own family members.
Read more about "Saint" Constantine the Great at Catholic Online: http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=2731
Interestingly, this Catholic Online account makes no attempt to cover up Constantine and Helena's brutal murders of son, Crispus and Empress-Wife Fausta.
Who needs divorce when one can resort to assassination and confession?
Notably, Constantine refused to be baptized until his deathbed when -- in the absence of the Sacrament of Penance -- many nominal Christians engaged a practice called "clinical baptism" which, quite conveniently, washed away sin at the very moment of shuffling off the mortal coil. http://searchforbiblicaltruth.com/library/text/carl/HowSprinklingReplacedImmersionAsBatismalForm.pdf
Interestingly, this Catholic Online account makes no attempt to cover up Constantine and Helena's brutal murders of son, Crispus and Empress-Wife Fausta.
Who needs divorce when one can resort to assassination and confession?
Notably, Constantine refused to be baptized until his deathbed when -- in the absence of the Sacrament of Penance -- many nominal Christians engaged a practice called "clinical baptism" which, quite conveniently, washed away sin at the very moment of shuffling off the mortal coil. http://searchforbiblicaltruth.com/library/text/carl/HowSprinklingReplacedImmersionAsBatismalForm.pdf
Executions of Constantine's Son Crispus and his wife, the Empress Fausta
On some date between 15 May and 17 June 326, Constantine had his eldest son Crispus, by Minervina, seized and put to death by "cold poison" at Pola (Pula, Croatia).[235] In July, Constantine had his wife, the Empress Fausta, killed at the behest of his mother, Helena. Fausta was left to die in an over-heated bath.[236] Their names were wiped from the face of many inscriptions, references to their lives in the literary record were erased, and the memory of both was condemned. Eusebius, for example, edited praise of Crispus out of later copies of his Historia Ecclesiastica, and his Vita Constantini contains no mention of Fausta or Crispus at all.[237] Few ancient sources are willing to discuss possible motives for the events; those few that do, offer unconvincing rationales, are of later provenance, and are generally unreliable.[238] At the time of the executions, it was commonly believed that the Empress Fausta was either in an illicit relationship with Crispus, or was spreading rumors to that effect. A popular myth arose, modified to allude to Hippolytus–Phaedralegend, with the suggestion that Constantine killed Crispus and Fausta for their immoralities.[239] One source, the largely fictional Passion of Artemius, probably penned in the eighth century by John of Damascus, makes the legendary connection explicit.[240] As an interpretation of the executions, the myth rests on only "the slimmest of evidence": sources that allude to the relationship between Crispus and Fausta are late and unreliable, and the modern suggestion that Constantine's "godly" edicts of 326 and the irregularities of Crispus are somehow connected rests on no evidence at all.[239] Although Constantine created his apparent heirs "Caesars", following a pattern established by Diocletian, he gave his creations a hereditary character, alien to the tetrarchic system: Constantine's Caesars were to be kept in the hope of ascending to Empire, and entirely subordinated to their Augustus, as long as he was alive.[241] Therefore, an alternative explanation for the execution of Crispus was, perhaps, Constantine's desire to keep a firm grip on his prospective heirs, this — and Fausta's desire for having her sons inheriting instead of their half-brother — being reason enough for killing Crispus; the subsequent execution of Fausta, however, was probably meant as a reminder to her children that Constantine would not hesitate in "killing his own relatives when he felt this was necessary".[242]
Alan: The above carnage took place one year after Saint Constantine the Great sponsored the decisive Council of Nicaea which formalized-codified-rigidified many Christian beliefs that had previously been latitudinarian and accommodating.
Church councils end up in the hands of bureaucrats whose job it is to codify words, without even a nod in the direction that an ounce of spirit is worth a hundredweight of verbiage.
Why don't we proclaim that generous, open-handed, always-giving, kind, spirited people point the way to the Truth of God's love, more than credos that ring less truth with each passing day.
I mean, really! "And he is seated at the right-hand of God."
Or take the supposed inerrancy of Scripture:
Biblical "Literalism" And The Cultivation Of Hatred
If you belief this quintessentially cruel nonsense, your nuts.
And if you're Catholic, you're a Catholic cultists, as astray as all the QAnon people, bowing before Malignant Messiah.
Furthermore, if your church teaches you that the bible is inerrant with such irrevocability that you feel justified in applauding this passage from Deuteronomy as "The Word of God," then your Church is, at least occasionally on Satan's side.
Of course, the "scribes" and the verbose theologians will never tell you this.
Their lips are sealed because their job -- their place on the ecclesiastical "career ladder" obliges them to parrot the party line which establishes credal orthodoxy as inerrant, if not infallible.
To be clear, such "orthodoxy" is bullshit.
However, as nonsensical as it is, nabbing "the scribes" and "other career-climbing bureaucrats" -- catching these officious mousy "authorities" in their anti-Christ "orthodoxy" is like trying to catch Trump and convict him of just one felony after a lifetime of non-stop feloniousness.
The God Of The Bible Commands All Men To Stone Rebellious Children To Death
Deuteronomy
Instead, we have this bias favoring scribes and bureaucrats because they're the ones who keep the records, and most people -- at least most unspirited, un-soulful people -- bet their souls on pronouncements rather than the juiciness of a life lived exuberantly, a life eager to embrace everybody, to call everyone to "the table."
"Hey, y'all! It's time to eat. We're serving up the bread of life - with an endless lazy Susan of cake, candy and pastries."
Consider what happened to Thomas Aquinas three months before his death:
On the feast of St. Nicholas [in 1273, Aquinas] was celebrating Mass when he received a revelation that so affected him that he wrote and dictated no more, leaving his great work the Summa Theologiae unfinished. To Brother Reginald’s (his secretary and friend) expostulations he replied, “The end of my labors has come. All that I have written appears to be as so much straw after the things that have been revealed to me.” When later asked by Reginald to return to writing, Aquinas said, “I can write no more. I have seen things that make my writings like straw.” www.catholic-forum.com/saintS/stt03002.htm
For an expanded version of Thomas' late life epiphany, see: https://www.catholic.com/qa/when-st-thomas-aquinas-likened-his-work-to-straw-was-that-a-retraction-of-what-he-wrote
By a similar process, the Eastern Orthodox Church (which is in semi-communion with Rome) has normalized divorced.
The process of divorce-normalization began with the second and third synoptic gospels (Matthew and Luke) despite the fact that the earliest gospel (Mark) expressed categorical condemnation of divorce, going on to say that any divorced husband or wife who re-married was guilty of adultery.
Divorce in the Eastern Orthodox Church
No comments:
Post a Comment