Christian Forums

Ryan2010 can you post what the point is to all the youtube comments. I watched and listened to up to three. I started this thread because it was taking forever for the other thread to load with all the videos.

Most I got from the vids was that everything was Greek until those Franks came along.

I am a history buff. And I am a descendant of the Frankish people (have a full history and genealogy from the seventh century onward).

The Franks and/or the Germanic people are usually poorly understood and portrayed, in texts written by scholars of history. I sometimes call it 'inventing the middle ages".  Which is strange since the Germanic people were the first to keep extensive records of their history which still exists to date.

Quote from: Macrina on Thu May 13, 2010 - 18:29:35
Ryan2010 can you post what the point is to all the youtube comments. I watched and listened to up to three. I started this thread because it was taking forever for the other thread to load with all the videos.

Most I got from the vids was that everything was Greek until those Franks came along.

I am a history buff. And I am a descendant of the Frankish people (have a full history and genealogy from the seventh century onward).

The Franks and/or the Germanic people are usually poorly understood and portrayed, in texts written by scholars of history. I sometimes call it 'inventing the middle ages".  Which is strange since the Germanic people were the first to keep extensive records of their history which still exists to date.

If you want to read what they were talking about it's found online here:

http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.01.htm

http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.02.htm

http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.03.htm



And it's not that everyone was "Greek" but that to be Greek was to be Roman and to be Roman was to be Greek.  I don't think that they were talking exclusively.  I mean, there are Churches in Africa and Egypt and Asia and who knows where else prior to to the Frankish invasion. 

I found the talk on the calendar interesting and then also the idea of a "Latin" west and a "Greek" east.  I mean even Luther referred to the Orthodox as "the Greek Church" and that stigma is still around. 

*shrug


God bless


Not sure what you want to talk about.   
 

Let me read some and I'll get back to the subject. 

Alright, most of what I've been reading is quite confusing given the fact that a lot of information is not supplied, and some of the references given are really just plain bad. ie. refuting Einhard's letter (ref.6)

AND, why are so many who refer to history inclined to begin with Charlemagne. While Charlemagne was a great historical figure, he merely followed what he was taught by his father and grandfather. None of which were kings btw.

It probably isn't to appealing to the church to begin with Charles Martel, Charlemagne's grandfather whom the church called to for aid. And this is perhaps because his loyalty and honesty to his king and his people came before his allegiance to the church.
At least he kept his politics and religion separate, which is something Constantinople had a problem with.

Charles Martel and all of his descendants were excommunicated from the church (geographically Constantinople and Rome). Apparently from history, this didn't mean much, especially to the Roman popes (I mean the ones in Italy's Rome. Don't want to be confusing as " Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine" text is.) which sought to use politics as a means for their own gain. Constantinople had schooled them well.

I could go on, but rather let's take this in small bites and see if we can swallow it. First bite,

Quote
From the time of St. Gregory the Great, the popes of Old Rome tried to convince the Frankish kings to allow the election of bishops according to canon law by the clergy and people. Of course, the Frankish kings knew very well that what the popes wanted was the election of bishops by the overwhelming Roman majority. However, once the Franks replaced the Roman bishops and reduced the populus Romanorum to serfdom as villeins, there was no longer any reason why the canons should not apply. Thus Charlemagne issued his capitulary of 803, which restored the free election of bishops by the clergy and people secunda statuta canonum. Charlemagne restored the letter of the law, but both its purpose and that of the popes were frustrated.

Now remember as I stated Charles Martel is the forerunner here. Martel, who was the Mayor of the Palace and the most trusted chief official of the Merovingian King, a true "Pippin" in honor and loyalty to the Merovingian line, Charles Martel was immediately called to defend the kingdom against King Redbad of the Frisians (Netherlands) in the North and the militia army of Savaric, the Byzantine appointed christian bishop of Auxerre (Burgundy, Eastern France). The militia of Bishop Savaric of Auxerre briefly took the cities Orléans, Nevers, Avallon, and Tonnerre until he was killed in battle at Lyon in the same year.

Basically this threw the Frankish kingdom into civil war, then add to that the Muslims who thought they had an opportunity to seize the kingdom at this point. As the king, now, from the Merovingian line, was a mere boy named Theuderic, and so Martel returned to Paris to protect him.

Similarly, Martel demonstrated his devotion to the Holy Christian Church centered from Constantinople by granting both land, wealth and titles to the Byzantine appointed christian bishops gaining him the deepest of praise from both Holy Roman Emperor Leo III and the Primate Patriarch Germanus I of Constantinople. The claim that Martel supported Popes in Rome is a complete fiction as Rome didn't even have a christian bishop at the time. 721 AD

And then things took a turn. The Byzantines called for aid from Martel as the Umayyad Muslims restarted their invasions of Byzantine territory, offering to make him Consul and commander of Imperial forces, and he refused. His refusal caused his excommunication. Patriarch Germanus I chose to resign rather than issue the extraordinary excommunication decree. But of course Leo found someone else to do it.

Martel cut all ties to Byzantine as they had done to him. And so he cultivated the Frankish church. One of his finest scholars being St Benedict.
This was also the time when English was being developed. Greek was no longer prominent.

Now who really started the modern concept/understanding of feudalism?

Feudalism was a cultural development of that era. And btw, those land laws still stand in Germany. For instance, in my family we have descendants of a Fischers Guild which is/was on the Maine River there in Germany. If any of our family members are still living there, Germany must pay them a stipend for use of the Maine River.  The Frankish/Germanic peoples are loyal and honest now as they were then.

Now let me get back to the article, because I can't wait to read what is said about doctrine. I mean, did the monastics teach incorrect doctrine or dogma?

Interesting.  Yes, please do read on and reply. 

I always put a flag up when one of histories characters is portrayed too "dark" or too "light".  We folks are rarely black and white. 

For me the essay is interesting as it showed me layers I hadn't really considered before and of course I don't put them in stone.  And I'm by no means an apologist for the mixing of church and state back in the day and wrestle with the role of emperors and others in Christian history. 


Thanks for the reply.  I look forward to others. 


God bless, Macrina

Thank you Ryan. I believe at times there needs to be some clarification when there are gaps left in remarks.  Such as "popes of Old Rome tried to convince the Frankish kings ".  "Pope's" are bishops, and any "popes of Old Rome" would have been in Byzantine Constantinople.

See in the beginning of Christianizing the barbarian clans/tribes there were no bishops given to them (they had monasteries with abbots for their education). Rather Constantinople was acting as the modern age bishop/pope of Rome does, in declaring all of the empire for themselves. So historically speaking, Martel isn't to blame for the papacy coming about. The Byzantines brought that about themselves when they appointed one bishop to the west.

Charlemagne comes into history as a peacemaker so to speak. Even in trying to reconcile the schism brought about by his grandfather between Constantinople. One of the things he agreed to do was to marry their empress. This did not come about because she refused, and this after he had prepared putting his then wife away, and so he became angry with them as they had dealt treacherously with the Franks again. He did not however, recognize any authority of the bishop in Rome to "crown" anyone (form the era of Charles Martel only the Byzantine was recognized in reference to matters of royalty). Which is why I said the ref. in the article is ridiculous. Einhard was being truthful in what he wrote, he was after all an abbot and rector of the later Einhard Bascillica in Sleigenstadt (meaning "city of the blessed") it's name having been changed from the former Mulheim after the people becoming Christians. Factually, Charlemagne only made three trips to Rome in his lifetime. None of which was to be "crowned".

I know this because my grandmothers family, the Burkhards of the Fischers Guild in Sleigenstadt gave land to the Benedictine fathers to build a monastery which was also a school for a thousand years there. It still stands there as does the bascillica. And on one of the walls are the pictures of the first abbots there and then the later bishops. One of the abbots was from the family Burkhard.

And so, part 1 is more about how Rome?Byzantine/Constantinople could not make the Franks conform to their style of government. To this day they have never understood the Frankish/Germanic culture. Descendants still hold their ground on this as well, forbidding marriage to Spanish/Latin, Italians (especially Scillians), and Africans. While the Greek church of the "east" still considers all of the west to be "Franks".
A sad mess considering that some 80-90 percent of America was first populated by Germanic people who looked to escape the governmental mess created by church and state unions. Germany eventually developed a more complex government of democracy with some 12 diverse parties (unlike the US with only two prominent ones).

To be continued.......

I suppose there is no need to continue on this subject since this document begins after the facts I've presented. In other words one can't say that the Frank's appointed their own bishops, as if saying that they were not Orthodox to begin with. Such would not be wholly true as in the beginnings the Byzantines sent monastics to teach the Franks.

To write such a history as to show that there was never any Orthodox Christianity in Frankish territory would be misleading to the reader.

Such a thing would actually support what is not canonical. That being, that all of the clergy sent to the Franks became invalid because of the excommunication of Charles Martel.
And I believe we all know that could not happen with God.