"Judeo-Christianity" is a weird movement that was popularized in the USA in the 20th century and has utterly nothing to do with France or Notre Dame https://t.co/7aGxgaaTmO
— EMPEROR 'KINGFISH' WHITEPILL (@CptBlackPill) April 15, 2019
When I visited #NotreDameCathedral in 2012, its majestic beauty brought me to my knees. I wept and prayed and thanked God for my surroundings. Not just the building, but the artisans His hands formed, the history of Faith on display, the art, the stories of lives changed by God.
— Kristina Ribali (@KristinaRibali) April 16, 2019
Built in 1163.
856 years of history.
— David Santa Carla ? (@TheSantaCarla) April 15, 2019
Ave Maria pic.twitter.com/lb6Y5XV05a
— Ignacio Gil (@Inaki_Gil) April 15, 2019
As I have repeatedly said on this blog, I am a historicist who likes to skip around and hop through history and current events on any given day, and in light of the destruction of Notre Dame yesterday now is an excellent time to take a look back at the culture that created it. It occurred to me long ago that what used to be Christianity is very different from “Christianity” as it exists today.
The men who built Notre Dame Cathedral in France also fought the Muslims in the Crusades. Bernard of Clairvaux, one of my favorite Catholics, is famous for preaching the Second Crusade. I spent the better part of the last year lost in my books studying this period to understand how morality has changed:
“What may appear today to many Christians and perhaps most non-Christians as an irreconcilable paradox between holy war and the doctrines of peace and forgiveness proclaimed in the Lord’s Prayer, the Sermon on the Mount and many other Gospel passages has not always been so obvious or recognized. This was certainly not the case in educated circles around Urban II at the end of the eleventh century.
As it had developed by the beginning of its second millennium in western Christendom, Christianity was only indirectly a scriptural faith. The foundations texts of the Old and New Testaments were mediated even to the educated through the prism of commentaries by the so-called Church Fathers, theologians such as Origen of Alexandria, Ambrose of Milan, Augustine of Hippo and Pope Gregory I who, from the third to the sixth centuries, undertook the often tricky task of translating some inapproriate, obscure, incomplete, contradictory or idealistic apophthegms into an intelligible and satisfying system of thought and action within the context of the institutions of an active religion, a temporal church and the daily lives of believers. The Beatitudes had to be reconciled with human civilization, specifically the Graeco-Roman world, or, to put it crudely, ways found around the Sermon on the Mount. Being extravagantly well versed in the highest traditions of classical learning, the Church Fathers did this rather well. Beside these majestic exercises of the intellect, which extended even to manipulating the wording of some inconvenient biblical texts, Scripture attracted apocryphal additions and spawned a massive literature of imitative hagiography often supported by legends surrounding relics of biblical characters or events. The experience of the church over the centuries provided its own corpus of law, tradition, history, legend and saints that reflected neither the idealism nor experiences of the first century A.D.
The church’s teaching on war early reflected the process of interpretation and exegesis. Negatively, the so-called charity texts of the New Testament that preached pacifism and forgiveness, not retaliation, were firmly defined as applying to the beliefs and behavior of the private person. John the Baptist advised soldiers to remain in the army and draw their wages (Luke 3:14). As citizens, Christ told His followers to pay taxes to Caesar, drawing a clear distinction between political and spiritual obligations (Matthew 22:21). St Paul implied the same fundamental dichotomy of obedience in urging his disciple Timothy and his community at Ephesus to pray ‘for kinds and all that are in authority’ (1 Timothy 2:2). This distinction between the public and the private was reinforced by the Bible’s very language. In St. Jerome’s Latin translation of the Scriptures (finished c.405) known as the Vulgate, which became the standard text of the Bible in the medieval West, the word for enemy in the New Testament is invariably imicus, imply a personal enemy. The Latin for a public enemy, hostis, does not appear in the New Testament. From this it coudl be argued that there was no intrinsic contradiction in a doctrine of personal, individual forgiveness condoning certain forms of necessary public violence to ensure the security in which in St. Paul’s phrase, Christians ‘may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty’ (1 Timothy 2:2).
While theoretically, in a perfect world, individual pacifism could be translated into political pacifism, the main thrust of Christian teaching assumed post-lapsarian sin and imperfection”
Christopher Tyerman, God’s War: A New History of the Crusades (Harvard University Press, 2006), p.29
THIS SOUNDS NOTHING LIKE WHAT I WAS TOLD WAS CHRISTIANITY
Carl Schmitt talked about this at length. I read all his books like The Concept of the Political in college.
So, the New Testament was only talking about loving my personal enemies (people like those who I have petty feuds with online but who basically share my ideological beliefs), not public enemies like people who want to come here and kill me like jihadists?
Pope Francis is nothing like Bernard of Clairvaux or Pope Urban II.
Catholicism has evolved across history. This pathetic man Jorge Bergoglio is breaking with the traditions of his own office in order to impress modern day secular liberals. Even as a Lutheran, I understand this as Luther himself made the same point about how the Catholic Church had become corrupted during the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance. That’s even more true under Bergoglio.
Bernard of Clairvaux was one of the most famous men of the 12th century. Does he sound anything like your modern American Judeo-Christian Boomer Zionist? No, he sounds like someone who is enraptured by the love of his LORD, not the love of beta orbiting the Jews like Charlie Kirk.
If you are a Catholic, I would encourage you to study Bernard of Clairvaux, the Crusades and the Cistercians like I have done. I can assure you that the faith that powered your ancestors through the Second Crusade and which inspired them to build Notre Dame in Paris or Cîteaux Abbey in Burgundy where they went to reject the world and glorify God is not the faith of Bergoglio or the US Catholic bishops who see no problem with flooding the United States with Muslim immigrants.
Liberalism, “Judeo-Christianity,” political correctness and all this other garbage didn’t exist in their times. Ben Shapiro doesn’t know anything about Western civilization.
Note: Just listen to what Bernard of Clairvaux says about virtue and morality.