THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: talk.euthanasia,alt.pagan.magick,alt.satanism,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.pagan,alt.religion.wicca,alt.evil,talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.christian,alt.christnet
From: kamiensj@gort.canisius.edu (Len )
Subject: Re: Paganism in Catholicism
Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 06:27:20 GMT

tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (lorax) wrote:

>kaliyuga
>49960501 YAB YUM DAY; legalize voluntary necrophilia
>nursblan@mizzou1.missouri.edu (nursblan@mizzou1.missouri.edu):

>|...Catholicism  . . . (1)

>I come down hard on RCatholics for their attempts to distance themselves
>from their administration, but these kinds of alarmist claims I'd refute
>(and have refuted in the case where *I* might make them! ;>)           (2)

>|And let us know forget the burning of millions of mostly women in Europe.  
>|This was one of the Catholics most devious tools.               (3a)

>Your numbers might be somewhat offbase there.  More like between 250,000
>and 1 million (Cavendish; couldn't find it yet in Adler), 2 million tops.       (3b)

>tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com
>lorax of the evul wikkunz

folks -

TIME OUT FOR A MOMENT OR TWO!!!

I have to admit that I have not been following this thread until now.
I realize quite a bit of water has gone under the bridge (or over the
dam - whatever!)

(1)      Concerning the 'overall thrust' of the thread:

A point which seems to have been lost / ignored as the first volleys
were launched:  For the first 10-11 centuries, there was only one
'Church'  -- as much as one can call Christianity during that time a
single institution -- it was more like a loose confederation of
churches centered around a 'leader' (bishop) in most of the larger
population areas  --  these bishops, to (very) varying degrees
followed / gave allegiance to leaders (patriarchs/popes) in the much
larger urban areas (like Antioch, Alexandria, Constantiople, Rome,
etc) .  This 'Church' was the 'one Christian Church'.

By the end of the 1200's, with the Roman Empire divided into East
(Constantinople) & West (Rome), and the West crumbling in the face of
the invasions of peoples from the northern germanic areas, various
cultural (greek vs latin),   political (east vs west), and
doctrinal/religious (trinity, divinity of JC, interior vs exterior
spirituality, etc)  issues gave rise to  (A) the great split between
Orthodox Church in the East and Catholic Church in West,  (B) the vast
uneducated, mostly christian, former Roman empire subjects  --
looking for law / order / protection in the face of the invading
"barbarians" and not finding any political structure left from the
empire  --  turned to the only game in town, ie- 'the Church'; and (C)
the Bishop of Rome took (and the others were more than happy to
surrender) power / authority  that it had not had before.

By the end of the 12th century, the structure of the Catholic Church
was pretty much (in its main strokes) the way it is now.  In the East,
the bishops and partriarchs deferred to the Patriarch of
Constantinople but did not surrender as much power / maintained more
independence.  In the West, the Patriarch of the West took the title
of Pope and consolidated power  -  after all, the Pope/Bishop of Rome
was also  what was to become known as a feudal lord  -  remember,
europe will start to develop monarchies, etc.

By the 16th century, the Catholic Church undergoes another massive
change. The Reformation  - for all sorts of reasons (economic &
political as well as religious)  -  gives rise to the various
Protestant Churches.

Why all this?  (A) one can in no way consider the Roman Catholic
Church as the only 'culprit' responsible for the various things
charged. The RC's may have been responsible for the Inquisition & the
Crusades, but the younger Protestant Churches (C of England, Lutheran,
Puritans, etc.) were no slouches in these areas.    By the way the
Roman Catholic Church had nothing to do with any of the witch burnings
in  America!   And in every case, the arm of the state was not at all
reluctant to use religion as a tool.

(B) To attribute a unified, calculated agenda  for 'World Domination
of All Peoples'  to the Church(es) can not be substantiated by any
evidence from reputable historians!  (It sounds like the hew & cry of
a 'Monolithic Communism Drive for World Domination'  -- if *they*
couldn't do it with today's technology, how could anyone suggest such
at a time when it took ****months**** for messages to get from one
place to another!)

(2)   Unfortunately, I didn't catch the reference  to 'distancing'
and  'alarmist claims' .  But one small side note:  I will not  **
deny **  the role of the Church in the Inquisition (to take one item),
but I refuse to  ** align **  myself with it!  I assume you are an
american citizen. Does that mean that  *you*  totally agree with
everything the present  -  or past  -  governments have done?  What
'alarmist claims'? I don't understand?

(3a) & (3b)  Might I inquire:  what is being referred to here?
(Rather than go over what, I assume, is familiar ground to the rest,
an e-mail response might be more appropriate here.)

There were a few more things I would respond to, but I think I will
pause here.  Thanks for listening / reading.

caio!

Len