"Dark Ages" video reviewed

Know Your Enemy (Part 30 - The Dark Ages)
TheFuelProject | 14.II.2011
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-6rnllKY6w

I

0:49 As I will probably soon disagree with you on this video, I agree yin and yang is a bad concept.

Would you agree Jediism is Stoicism + Yin and Yang Pantheism?

1:44 East India Trading company ... can Sikhism have been involved with Enlightenment?

1:59 Feng Shui = Pythagorean ideas ...

II

2:14 Here are some disagreements and questions on your checklist:

"Hypnosis" - why occult (obviously, past lives regression is, since involving reincarnation ideology)?
"Self hypnosis" - rarely has to do with past lives regression, so, why occult?

"Mysticism" - too vague
"Numerical symbolism / Numerology" - even if Biblical? "Kabbala (Occult Lore)" - even if leading a man to Christ? (Isaac Kaduri)
"Metaphysics (study of spirit world)" - studying how spirit differs from matter by rational means is clearly NOT occult!

"Apparitions - occultic" - I definitely hope you don't mean Marian ones, recognised by the Catholic Church!

"Divining rod or twig or pendulum (Hosea 4:12)" - Not sure pendulum belongs here, though Pius XII thought otherwise.
"Rhabdomancy (casting sticks into the air for interpreting omens)" - I think this is what Hosea 4:12 refers to?

"Dungeons and dragons" "Gothic rock music" "Punk rock music" - over the top.

Däniken and Cayce? It would be wrong to agree with them, in their major points (ancient alien astronauts being once taken for gods or Mu, Lemuria and Atlantis being part of a spiritual ascension of mankind) or to keep them where children could get them (at home), but what if one disagrees with what they are saying?

"Yoga (involves Eastern demon worship)" "Mantras" - in original form, certainly. Reapplied in a secular way (not reusing Hindoo mantras) or using Christian prayers "as mantras" is sth else.

"Martial arts (Aikido, Judo, Karate, Kung fu, Tae Kwan Do, Tai Chi etc)" - why? "is muay thai occult too?" someone asked. Is wearing Haori and Hakama for men, or Kimono for women occult too?

III

2:39 "Europe entered the Dark Ages, the Catholic Church stepped into power."

Technically both statements are true.

Dark Ages = Western Part of Roman Empire was multiply defeated and occupied by Barbarian not just rulers but dynasties (in which latter case they did not stay really Barbarian unless staying non-Catholic).

In some places precisely men of the Church helped when civil servants had failed. St Severin in Austria (parts of modern Austria), before he made a deal with Odoacar on peaceful march through and evacuation (Austrian Romans largely evacuated to Naples, where his biography was written). And Rome's only authority when Attila came was Pope St Leo I. And Paris region, after death of Syagrius, opposed the Pagan invader Clovis until he converted, and that under the bishop St Remigius.

Sure, where the Church was not persecuted by Arians, she stepped into power.

2:47 "and it quickly became the most powerful spiritual and political entity in the world"

Byzantium? China?

2:53 I am not certain that Donatio Constantini was a forgery.

"although it was found it was fraudulent in the 15th C"

Know what? Darwin and Lyell "found" that Genesis was inaccurate. Valla "found" that Donatio Constantini was a fraud.

I have not read his work on that question, but one part of the trouble might be, he was expecting Constantine's Roman times to be near identical to Julius Caesar's or Cicero's (except for Edict of Milan of course) and so was debunking things which might be genuine in it.

3:08 "legal authority over the kings of Europe was already in the hands of the Pope"

• 1) This has to do with God's law, as per Matthew 28:16-20. Converting one whole nation involves converting its king. Teaching one whole nation involves teaching its king. Converting or teaching a nation which has a king unconverted and untaught is risky business, so, popes and bishops have power to depose kings disobedient to God (see thereon Samuel deposing Saul).
• 2) This also has to do with the role of the Church as a solid anchor during the Dark Ages (which ended around 800).

3:29 Would you mind telling us the words and documents in which Pepin was "bribed"?

Also, yes, the Lombards were attacking Papal territories, and this was a bad thing. If people have been used to obeying a Christian bishop (including the universal one, that of Rome) as their civil authority, why should they be forced to accept another one which hates that bishop instead?

3:44 The reason why the Pope could crown an emperor other than the one in Constantinople was:

• possibly Donatio Constantini (it was thought so at the time)
• certainly the precedent of St Remigius crowning Clovis
• the then ineptitude and Barbarism of Byzantine Empire, where recently Iconoclasm had prevailed, where the Orthodox party were defended by an Empress (technically Emperor, since basilissa meant sth other then basileus, basilissa meant empress consort) who punished her son by gouging his eyes (a kind of punishment which had been abolished or not successfully even introduced among Franks)
• the necessity to continue the dignity of Emperor, since that dignity is what was holding back the mystery of iniquity.

II Thess 2:6-7
[6] And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. [7] For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.

And "he that now holdeth" = Roman Emperor. Yes, even with Nero (but the words could be from when Claudius was emperor) the Emperor held back the "fourth beast" (as Roman Republic had been when Antiochus Epiphanes represented it in Holy Land) from as yet producing the revolt and the man of sin.

Hence, putting off the end time tribulations = perpetuating Imperial Dignity of Rome.

This is one reason why St Remigius had not simply accepted whoever invaded as the new power, but tried to perpetuate a corner of Rome and insofar succeeded as Clovis could only step in when he became Catholic enough to be somewhat Roman.

Hence, even if Donatio Constantini was a fraud, which could be, the Pope Leo III had good reason to crown Charlemagne as Emperor.

IV

3:57 "who claimed the authority to do so because of the forged donation of Constantine"

Not exclusively.

V

4:04 If you are looking for a confirmation of the quote you just gave as coming from "the Catholic historian Tertullian" - you get an error 404.

Now, you were just being a bit moralistic on frauds involved in Donatio Constantini, and now you forward a fraudulent claim yourself.

Oh, you took it on good faith? Well, then Pope Leo III perhaps also took Donatio Constantini on good faith too.

Here is a passage I did find with the words:

When Tetzel entered a city, he made his way directly to the cathedral. A cross was set up in front of the altar and a strong, iron box was placed beside it. Tetzel, mounting the pulpit, would expound on the incomparable merit of his wares. Never before had the gates of Paradise opened so wide. “’Indulgences,’ he said, ‘are the most precious and most noble of God’s gifts. . . . Come, and I will give you letters all properly sealed, by which even the sins you intend to commit may be pardoned. I would not change my privileges for those of St. Peter in heaven, for I have saved more souls by my indulgences than the apostle did by his sermons. . . . But more than this . . . indulgences avail not only for the living, but for the dead. Priest, noble, merchant, wife, youth, maiden, do you not hear your parents and your other friends who are dead, and who cry from the bottom of the abyss: “We are suffering horrible torments! A trifling alms would deliver us; you can give it and you will not.”?

‘At the very instant,’ continues Tetzel, ‘that the money rattles at the bottom of the chest, the soul escapes from purgatory, and flies liberated to heaven. Now you can ransom so many souls, stiff-necked and thoughtless man; with twelve groats you can deliver your father from purgatory, and you are ungrateful enough not to save him! I shall be satisfied in the Day of Judgment; but you—you will be punished so much the more severely for having neglected so great salvation. I declare to you, though you have a single coat, you ought to strip it off and sell it, in order to obtain this grace. . . . The Lord our God no longer reigns; He has resigned all power to the pope.’” Wylie, History of Protestantism, vol. 1, 57.

Now, Wylie's History of Protestantism vol 1 (chapter or page?) 57 is cited on this page:

https://www.stepstolife.org/article/martin-luther-part2-indulgences/

And I would NOT take Wylie's words that even Tetzel actually said those words.

Here I come across some "Papal claims of divinity", and I will after deal with each one:

“The Lord our God no longer reigns: He has resigned all power to the Pope.”
TETZEL, Vendor of Indulgences to obtain money for the repair of St. Peters Basilica: Cited in “THE HISTORY OF PROTESTANTISM”, Vol. I pages 255-260

“The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ himself hidden under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ who speaks...”
Pope Pius X, when Archbishop of Venice; Quoted by “Catholique Nationale”, July 13, 1895

“It is certain that the Pontiff was called a God by the Pious Prince Constantine.”
Canon Law, published by Gratianus, 12th Century

“The Most Holy and Most Blessed One, who hath Divine Judgment, who is Lord on Earth, successor of Peter, the Lord’s Christ, Lord of the Universe, Father of Kings, Light of the World, the Chief Pontiff Pope Martin.”
Annunciation of Pope Martin at the Court of the Greek Emperor. 13th Century.

http://www.christadelphianbooks.org/croconnor/tokan/tokan07.html

“The Lord our God no longer reigns: He has resigned all power to the Pope.”
TETZEL, Vendor of Indulgences to obtain money for the repair of St. Peters Basilica: Cited in “THE HISTORY OF PROTESTANTISM”, Vol. I pages 255-260

So, the quote is not from any Catholic historian "Tertullian" (there is one known Tertullian, he is kind of a Church Father, but before Constantine, and ended a schismatic Montanist)

“The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ himself hidden under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ who speaks...”
Pope Pius X, when Archbishop of Venice; Quoted by “Catholique Nationale”, July 13, 1895

Now, thank you VERY much for the actual reference to Pius X saying so.

Sarto, who was patriarch of Venice from 1893 (later Pope Pius X, the name under which he is best known) is quoted as saying so in "Catholique Nationale"

Now, I did a search on "Catholique nationale" AND "13 juillet 1895"

I get this:

Full text of "Recueil de jugements du Tribunal cantonal de la ...
https://archive.org/stream/.../recueildejugeme00unkngoog_djvu.txt
Le 13 juillet 1895, Aloide Morel se fit inscrire au registre du commerce sous la ...... 13,000 conclu par la paroisse catholique nationale, suivant acte reçu Jules ...

This might be a better format:

https://archive.org/details/recueildejugeme00unkngoog

In other words, the words atttributed to Giuseppe Sarto from before he became Pope Pius X are given in the book(s) by Rick O'Connor The Things Of The Kingdom And The Things Of The Name / The Bible: The Only Source Of Authority and attributed to a non-extant source.

“It is certain that the Pontiff was called a God by the Pious Prince Constantine.”
Canon Law, published by Gratianus, 12th Century

I may ask a canonist on this one, but I suspect it is a fraud.

“The Most Holy and Most Blessed One, who hath Divine Judgment, who is Lord on Earth, successor of Peter, the Lord’s Christ, Lord of the
Universe, Father of Kings, Light of the World, the Chief Pontiff Pope Martin.” Annunciation of Pope Martin at the Court of the Greek Emperor. 13th Century.

There is indeed a Pope Martin during the 13th C. Pope Martin IV.

Wikipedia has a thing to say on his relation with the Court of the Greek Emperor:

"Dependent on Charles of Anjou in nearly everything, the new Pope quickly appointed him to the position of Senator of Rome.[42] At the insistence of Charles, Martin IV excommunicated the Eastern Roman Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus, who stood in the way of Charles's plans to restore the Latin Empire of the East that had been established in the aftermath of the Fourth Crusade. He thus broke the tenuous union which had been reached between the Greek and the Latin Churches at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274 and further compromise was rendered impossible."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Martin

Ah, sounds like he came as a guest and was honoured in the court of Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus (the Greek Emperor in 1281, the Latin one, the successor to Charlemagne being Rudolph I, King of the Romans). [Irony!]

So, no, this is also a fake quote. At best, Palaeologus may have made a mock ceremony of receiving "him" and made an announcement calculated to sound blasphemous - but that does not make Pope Martin IV such.

VI

4:38 "anyone who did not willingly submit to the authority of the church was persecuted and killed for heresy"

In the Dark Ages? (400/500 - 800/1000)?

In the Carolingian Renaissance (800)?

Really?

All over the Catholic world, even when death penalty for heresy was approved by the Church as late as in ... I was going to say 1215, but in fact the canon 3 of IV Lateran council speaks of expelling heretics, does not officially approve of, still less demand, killing them:

"Canon 3: Procedure and penalties against heretics and their protectors. If those suspected of heresy should neglect to prove themselves innocent, they are excommunicated. If they continue in the excommunication for twelve months they are to be condemned as heretics. Princes are to be admonished to swear that they will banish all whom the Church points out as heretics. This canon mandates that those pointed by the Church as heretics shall be expelled by the secular authorities or they will be excommunicated if failing to do so."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Council_of_the_Lateran

Note, theologians did argue death penalty for heresy was OK, St Thomas Aquinas being one of them.

But you are vastly exaggerating the time period and the geographic area in which heretics were likely to be killed.

VII

4:45 "European citizens were taxed heavily and were expected to spend their lives in the service of the Church"

No. 10 % of income is not heavy taxation.

THAT is the taxation asked by the Church (+ Peter's penny to Rome, a far smaller proportion).

VIII

5:20 "the Church taught the ignorant masses:
'as soon as the coin in the coffer springs, the troubled soul from purgatory springs!' "

I have heard Tetzel used to say so. [But see above, comment on Wylie]

If so, it is an oversimplification of what the Church really teaches on indulgences.

Yes, the moment you gain a plenary indulgence (for which giving money in alms is just one of the ways, there are other ones which are not costly in money), if you intended it to be applied to a soul in purgatory, the soul does spring from purgatory - but only if you managed to gain a plenary indulgence.

That depends not only on the work as such, but on your disposition when trying to gain one : no affection for mortal sin and not even affection for venial sins. Praying for the Holy Fathers intentions (not just your own).

And no, the invention of purgatory is God's.

Nothing impure can enter heaven = some who are saved when they die still need some extra cleaning.

IX

5:28 "the fable of Christ" quote attributed to "Pope Leo X"

You know this historiography is from Bilious Bale?

I found this out years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bale

If you want to identify papacy with Apocalyptic Antichrist, it pays to show some blasphemous words in papal mouths. If none are available, you can also invent them ... which it seems John Bale did on this one.

He was, on the RC view, sacrilegious as "bishop" not consecrated according to a real Catholic rite (invalidly "consecrated" bishop) and not in communion with Rome (therefore schismatic).

He was also sacrilegious by abandoning his eternal vows as a Carmelite friar. Like Luther, he had good reason to accuse his accusers. Tactically and socially, that is. Not sub specie aeternitatis.

X

5:33 "as a result of such corrupt behaviour, the Church became [exceedingly rich]"

Image doesn't show any bishop as a billionaire. Image does show a Church building richly decorated.

The objection to this one reminds me of Judas' objection to the precious oil.

Someone said "Judas Ischariot was the first Commie" but he was also the first of this crew of Protestants.

XI

5:40 "they played on fear"

That is told people to think of eternity.

"to control and dominate"

Less than you control and dominate your sectarians, after seeing your checklist on the occult.

"and increase their wealth in the process"

Oh, you don't live by donations, don't you? You don't sell books, you don't receive collections, your ministry is financed by your full time day job or night job, you do all this on evenings and weekends ...?

Or you are giving atheists excuses to object to your finances.

XII

5:40 - 5:49 "before long the Church dominated the political and cultural landscape .... [powerful institution in the] world and the Pope the most powerful man"

Christ is, both as God and as Man the most powerful.

Guess what he told His Church to do?

Matthew 28: [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: ...

Sounds like a command to dominate the political and cultural landscape to me ...

Btw, you know the sequence to the end of the last verse? Where in that day/those days do you consider the true Church of Christ was, if you dismiss the Catholic Church from being that?

You know, your sentiments about a Church being powerful (apart from your complaint this one wasn't faithful) remind me of the ideals of Otto von Bismarck in Prussia. In his days, Markan priority was touted among Protestants - because admitting Matthew was the first Gospel and therefore had even humanly a good chance of being true to the facts, the real words of Christ, was totally against what Otto wanted for his Kulturkampf.

He didn't like papacy, and he didn't like a powerful Church. He wanted a poor Church led by Germans without Italian interference.

XIII

6:11 Excommunication does not equal eternity in Hell. It means lacking the Communion of Christ's Church.

God can in eternity overrule an excommunication that is unjust.

However, when Popes excommunicated rulers, they excommunications were usually very just.

Image here is about Pope Gregory IX.

"At the coronation of Frederick II in Rome, 22 November 1220, the emperor made a vow to embark for the Holy Land in August 1221. Gregory IX began his pontificate by suspending the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, for dilatoriness in carrying out the promised Sixth Crusade. Frederick II appealed to the sovereigns of Europe complaining of his treatment. The suspension was followed by excommunication and threats of deposition, as deeper rifts appeared. Frederick II went to the Holy Land and in fact managed to take possession of Jerusalem. Gregory IX distrusted the emperor, since Rainald, the imperial Governor of Spoleto, had invaded the Pontifical States during the emperor's absence.[1] In June 1229, Frederick II returned from the Holy Land, routed the papal army which Gregory IX had sent to invade Sicily, and made new overtures of peace to the pope.

"Gregory IX and Frederick came to a truce, but when Frederick defeated the Lombard League in 1239, the possibility that he might dominate all of Italy, surrounding the Papal States, became a very real threat. A new outbreak of hostilities led to a fresh excommunication of the emperor in 1239 and to a prolonged war. Gregory denounced Frederick II as a heretic and summoned a council at Rome to give point to his anathema. Frederick responded by trying to capture or sink as many ships carrying prelates to the synod as he could."

Sounds like Frederick II acted like a robber ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Gregory_IX#Struggle_with_Frederick_II

"Eberhard II von Truchsees, Prince-Archbishop of Salzburg, in 1241 at the Council of Regensburg declared that Gregory IX was "that man of perdition, whom they call Antichrist, who in his extravagant boasting says, 'I am God, I cannot err'."[12] He argued that the Pope was the "little horn" of Daniel 7:8

'A little horn has grown up with eyes and mouth speaking great things, which is reducing three of these kingdoms—i.e. Sicily, Italy, and Germany—to subserviency, is persecuting the people of Christ and the saints of God with intolerable opposition, is confounding things human and divine, and is attempting things unutterable, execrable.'

"The struggle was only terminated by the death of Gregory IX on 22 August 1241. He died before events could reach their climax; it was his successor Pope Innocent IV who declared a crusade in 1245 that would finish the Hohenstaufen threat."

Sounds like Eberhart II was promoting the Protestant accusation against papacy in order to serve his worldly ruler Frederick II ... in other words, he was what certain Protestants usually accuse papacy in the time of Constantine of. However, he did not say so about papacy as such, only about that particular Pope.

XIV

6:29 "endeavoured to block all independent learning and scientific progress"

Copy-pasted from some Atheist propaganda site, right ...

The Church secured learning and secured scientific progress. The Albigensians and Waldensians didn't.

"in that way the people would be forced to depend on the church's hierarchy [for information]" 6:34

Much less than people just before internet were depending on certain institutions like universities for information.

These, btw, were founded by either the Church or a State with good relations to Her (usually, not counting the Hohenstaufer era in HRE).

XV

6:47 "This is primarily why the era has become known as the Dark Ages."

No. Petrarca called certain ages dark bc they wrote a Latin which was too close to their spoken language and therefore hard to understand 800 years later, when Latin was already an artificial language.

That is the primary reason.

"The concept of a "Dark Age" originated in the 1330s with the Italian scholar Petrarch, who regarded the post-Roman centuries as "dark" compared to the light of classical antiquity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)

If the link doesn't work, add a closing parenthesis, or use instead http://tiny.cc/h4u8xy

XVI

6:55 "By 500 the Bible was accessible in 500 languages, by 600 the Catholic Church had restricted it to just one language, and that was Latin"

A very stupid claim.

• 1) There were not 500 languages around the Roman world, especially not as used beyond lower class everyday communications, so it is certain there were not 500 languages to translate it to;
• 2) The translations did not disappear by 600, neither Coptic which was used in liturgy nor Anglo-Saxon which was used in sermons translating the Latin liturgy;
• 3) The restrictions for liturgic language were in fact to 3 such : Hebrew, Greek and Latin, but this restriction was not applied to stop Coptic or Syriac liturgy, and it was not remembered when a Slavic one was began by Sts Cyril and Method;
• 4) In 600 Visigoths in Spain were still using Gothic as liturgic language for Arian liturgy;
• 5) But above all, Latin in 600 in most parts of Western Roman Empire was a vernacular language.

Only later, around 800 for Franks and after 1000 for Spain, did Latin in what is now France or Spain come to be pronounced in a non-vernacular way, so that learning Latin became learning a foreign language instead of learning to write.

7:00 "dead by this time, understood only by priests"

False for 600.

In 800 Alcuin came from York to Tours, so that monks in Tours should be able to say Latin so that monks from York or Rome should be able to understand it when hearing. In 813 they discovered as a result that the people no longer understood it, and promptly ordered that the Latin gospel reading which just last decade had become unintelligible to people, should be followed by a sermon translating or explaining what had been read in the Gospel, on the days when the people were required to go to Mass (Sundays and Holidays).

Obviously, 800 is 200 years later than 600.

Even after 800, "only by priests" is an exaggeration, since"education" (Learning Latin) was never formally restricted to priests and generously offered even to poor laymen.

This is reading back into 600 a problem concerning English RC bishops and Lollards like the Coventry case in 1511 (if I recall the date correctly). [I checked, that is when procutions started.]

XVII

7:05 or 7:10 sth "people became utterly reliant on the Church for information about God"

But as long as the Church is faithful, this is as it should be.

"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
[1 Timothy 3:15]

XVIII

7:31 on screen:

"Hierarchies make some people dépendent on others, blame the dépendent for their dependency, and then use that dependency as a justification for further exercise of authority." - Martha Ackelsberg

I believe, this is a correct quote.

Ackelsberg, Martha (2005). Free Women of Spain. Cited in the article:

Institute for Anarchist Studies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Anarchist_Studies

I also believe, the idea may be correct about some hierarchies, but not of others. The Church was made a hierarchy by Christ.

XIX

7:52 Your accusations of devotion to Mary, idea of sacraments, mandatory celibacy as pre-requisite for priesthood or monasticism being corruptions are really an enumeration without argument. As if nouns were by themselves arguments ... in this case each noun is a disputed one.