Printable View
[/quote]
Anyway, who says Arius is obscure? What about Pelagius,
Nestor, the Donatists, the Bulgars etc. etc.
[/quote]
Nestor was definitely NOT obscure. In fact, a very good
case could be made that Nestorius caused the Dark Ages.
A case of wet noodles to anyone who show why.
This is definitely an interesting one and I think that I will follow up. I always manage to get the heretics mixed up. While we are on it, can you answer this one. There is an area in London known as Blackfriars. In what sense could this be seen as the kennel of God's pooches? If you get that one I will be impressed.
Cheers,
P.
A Dominican Priory was established in the area currently
known as Blackfriars in 1226. The Domincan’s were known as
“God’s Dogs” from a dream by the mother of St. Dominic.
For most people, this would be enough to reference a kennel.
HOWEVER, Paul being the PERVERT that he is, he is most
probably referencing the net server from BlackFriars Hall
of Oxford University: FIDO
The pictures of FIDO show a Boston Bull Terrier on Steriods
with a halo.
The other meaning of God's dog's is the obvious pun Domini Canes = Dominicans...
v. good (knew you'd get it...)
BTW Did you know it or did you look it up?
I've been checking out 5th Century Roman politics to find out why Nestorius may have caused the Dark Ages (perhaps the dual nature of the Christ made writing impossible while pondering the unitos of the logos with man..., then again, maybe not...)
Cheers,
P.
Nestorianism was the first great rallying point of
Monophysitism. They were vehemently opposed to the
theory. The Monphysite Heresy was primarily located in the
southern tier of the Mid-East and Egypt
Nestorianism was codified in the Persian Catholic church,
and as such, was ignored. Until Justinian.
Justinian acceeded to the throne in 527 AD. He signed a
pact of “eternal peace” with the vibrant Persian state to
the east…whose catholic church was Nestorian. Justinian
was primarily orthodox. His wife, Theodora, was
vocivorously Monophysite. This treaty allowed Justinian to
effectively ignore the previously constant threat of the
Persians, freeing up troops and money for his vainglorious
attempt to resurrect the Roman Empire. For the Persians,
it meant an end to the constant attacks of the Eastern
Catholic and Egyptian Catholic churces…followed by attacks
from the Orthodox Emperor’s legions.
The Western Empire was forced to defend itself in Northern
Africa and Southern Spain…to say nothing of incursions
along the Dalmation coast, and the loss of access to the
grain fields of Egypt and the administrative skills of the
Greeeks. It was this defense and the loss of talent that
sucked the resources necessary to the defense of Europe
against the invading barbarians. Thus beginning the
downward cycle of invasion and absorption that eventually
caused what is now known as the Dark Ages.
And it was all Nestor’s fault. Ok, Ok, that’s stretching
it, but it did have an effect.
BTW, the wholesale conversion of the Monophysite monks of
Egypt and Palestine provided the rising star of militant
Islam with the first sophisticated infrastructure and
Command structure. In this manner, Monophysitism could be
considered the cause of the explosion of Islam. Once
again, Nestorianism was the ultimate cause. Monophysitism
would have been FAR more persecuted, and possibly stamped
out without the preoccupation of the Eastern Church with
Nestorianism.
Fascinating, although I might take issue with your conclusion that it was Justinian taht caused the barbarian invasions - they were coming anyway - it was Constantine's fault for setting up a New Rome anyway. Odd how the power centre moves East and then that is the very area that becomes the cradle of the greatest threat to Christendom. Also odd that it was partly started by Nestorius who was the arch-champion of orthodoxy and found himself painted into a corner by the more politically shrewd Cyril!
V. interesting. Have you noticed how this seems to have become a two person dialogue?
Cheers,
P.
OK Next obscure fact will be oriental - give me a few days.
I didn't say that the barbarian invasions weren't coming.
You are correct, they were. What I was implying was that
the absorption of resources by a civilized attack caused
the breakdown of society required to defeat the barbarian
invasions.
It was by no means a foregone conclusion that the Goths,
Germans, Burgunds, etc would be able to defeat the
legions. It was axiomatic (and true) that 1 German was
worth 100 Legionaires. 100 Germans were worth 100
Legionaires. 1000 Germans were worth 100 Legionaires.
10000 Germans were worth 100 Legionaires.
The Legions were comprised of soldiers. The hordes were
comprised of warriors. Warriors are a soldier's meat. In
a standup battle, trained soldiers working in concert will
defeat trained warriors fighting as individuals nearly
every time.
Good point. But do you not think that internal corruption and decadence would have done for the Western Empire anyway?
Certainly in its extra-Italian form anyway.
Cheers,
P.
Maybe, maybe not. Decadence and corruption have a way of
going to the wayside after you hang some ringleaders. It
is a lead pipe cinch that the Roman Emperors would have
changed fast.
It is probable that at least one of the barbarian leaders
would have become, if not emperor, then very influential.
The constant warfare on the periphery of the Western Empire
would have built up a cadre of independent thinkers and
doers, which COULD have lessened the effect of the Church
leadership. Much like what happened in Britain as opposed
to what happened in Burgundy.
Would make a delightful alternative history. Want to try?
We could give it a go...
No U.S though :(
P.