It's quite remarkable that without fail, a country that transitions from monarchy to a republic immediately goes from male imagery to female imagery in it's spiritual expression.
This is all very good information and does lay a fundamental understanding for the next video on the modern era. However there is one slight clarification. The Russian patriarchate was actually re-established in 1917 in the brief period of the free Russian republic. A certain bishop who had actually served in America as the Russian bishop, had returned to Russia and he was elected as patriarch in that year which of course ended with the communist take-over by Lenin and his band. The elected patriarch Tikhon was imprisoned and then released only to die shortly afterwards. The Soviet government proceeded with a furious persecution of the church in general and did not allow for the election of a new patriarch. Most churches were closed and many bishops, priests and nuns were executed. One of the surviving bishop, Sergius, began to court Soviet favour as a means of survival. In 1927 he declared his loyalty to the Soviet state. During the WWII he was actually elected by a synod of a sort as patriarch of Moscow. This event in 1943 was part of an effort by Stalin and the communists to solidify the war effort against Germany. Part of the effort was to bring the Orthodox believers on side with the government despite the legacy of persecution. This also allowed the church for a short period of worship and revival. Unfortunately this situation would not last for long and afterwards a new persecution started when the war had ended with Soviet victory. Interestingly. the Soviet leader who actually closed the highest amount of churches was said to be Khrushchev because he closed most of the churches that had been reopened by Stalin and his cronies as well as the churches that had been acquired with the conquest of what is today western Ukraine. Many of these churches would have been Ukrainian Catholic in the inter-war period, although not all. The Ukrainian Catholic church all but disappeared in the persecution. However a few bishops, priests, nuns and laity were able to function underground either in the incorporated territories or in the gulags of the north and of Siberia.
@@smokeydapot You are welcome. Here is some other information that might interest you. Lenin was wise enough to realize that he should not make everyone his enemy at the same time. He actually allowed the Baptists to continue their missionary work in the Soviet Union until the late 1920's. There was even a Baptist conference in Moscow in around 1922 and Lenin met with some of their leaders in the Kremlin. Of course, once the communists had dealt with the Orthodox, the Baptists were met with the same. I would like to find out more about the RC minorities (mostly Poles and Germans) during that period, but not much seems to be available. Possibly they were persecuted for being Poles and Germans, but not necessarily Catholics. I do not know.
The Holy Spirit totally removed from my mind when you said Pope Leo the Great instead of Leo XIII When you brought up the encyclical😂 You are almost perfect. Still a great video I'm really enjoying this series
Great video! When you mentioned Adam Smith and his contribution to the development of economic theory, I would have also pointed out the contributions pioneered by the Catholic theologians (Francisco de Vitoria, etc.) from the School of Salamanca. In the 1500s (the Spanish Golden Age), they arrived at many conclusions often misattributed to Smith (who was born two centuries later). I generally feel they are not very known and credited in the English speaking world (presumably because of an anti-Catholic/Spanish bias which was always present in England and countries culturally alike).
Thank you for this. I am torn. I remember Chesterton’s and Belloc’s praise of the French revolution. Was it all bad? Are not the principles of human rights consonant with Catholic teachings (did not John Paul II say as much)? Was Maritain wrong about human rights, and was he wrong to stand against Franco? And Bernanos? Were Pearse and de Valera wrong in trying to establish a Catholic republic in Ireland (I know they failed in the long term)?
B@@ChrisAthanas good question.I agree. if we admit a right, we admit a responsibility. You can’t have one without the other. I think the valid rights can be deduced from the 10 commandments. ‘Thou shalt not kill’ = the right to life. ‘Thou shalt not steal’ = the right to property. I think there was a big problem with the stealing of the property of the poorest (enclosures, expropriation of Church lands by the state, suppression of the guilds) which lead to a justified rebellion but, afterwards, to new misunderstandings and new injustices. The International Declaration of Human Rights was an attempt to ensure that the Nazi refusal of basic decency would not succeed again. I also think it is a diabolical inversion of human rights to say that anyone has a right to an abortion (= the right to kill the most helpless) or to force other people to pretend that someone belongs to the opposite sex, let alone pay for that person’s self-mutilation.
You’ve been doing your research bro! Huge how central banking shaped England and vis a vis England shaped the world, truly like a later day Canaan. Blessings and Vivat Cristus Rex
America IS defending under OATH or allegiance (inversion of principle/s, see Pope Leo and by systematic fractionalization to maintain the social order (oligarch) without a moral structure (Federalist Papers - Madison). It also defends the epochs of man since 70AD, Judaism/Islam - Anglo/Protestant - Freemasonry/Enlightenment. Including paganism. It is political/social usury. It is also maintained by a usurious financial structure and engineered consent (propaganda). I would say that is all in according to its underlying structure/s because identity trumps ideas. US functions as designed. Expressing Catholic or sympathizing with Catholic is not equal to being Catholic. I'll stand with Peter.
@@mayachico9766Being that Britain encouraged colonialism for the purpose of opening forced markets to buy products manufactured by British peasants-cum-factory workers, it shouldn't be a surprise that capital from banks was embraced as the means to conduct trade. And being that British Christians were forbidden to practice usury, because it was understood to be a sin (an inheritance from the days before the Protestant Revolt), it was only natural that the British merchants would lobby the government to allow them to seek funding from the Jewish bankers who were permitted to practice usury when lending cash to Gentiles. And being that Christ Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead after the Gospel is preached to the whole world and the Jews convert (en masse), any effort to stymie the upcoming conversion is from Satan, because Satan knows he'll be contained in the pit forever after Christ returns.
Very good videos, but i would object to the US Civil War. While the CSA were not perfect, neither were the motivations of the North. Lincoln was hardly a principled abolitionist, he was practically content with any course of action so long as it stopped the CSA from seceding. There was a seriously considered amendment to perpetually secure the "right" of slavery prior to the war. Lincoln's attitude after the war's start is just typical political posturing.
The Republicans may have been founded by abolitionists, but by the 1860 election they were content with merely stopping the expansion of slavery into new territories.
Dan, have you heard of the concept that there is a difference between patriotism (being a good virtue) and nationalism (being something that can be a negative concept leading to conflict)? I am not sure if this is a Catholic view point. Possibly it is.
Hello, just found your channel and I really liked this video, I will watch some of your older ones too in the near future! I have a question though, maybe you answered it in the video and I didn't keep attention or it's just my lack of understanding, but: At 45:48 you say that the desire to have a state to defend one spirit/nationality is an enlightenment based thought. Could you explain why that is?
@@moe676 Hello, thank you. The principle you described of the state existing to defend and promote the volksgeist emerges from the German Enlightenment - video 1 in this series gives a specific look at the development of that school of thought. Nationalism as an element of state craft is older than the Enlightenment, of course, but it was given central importance during the Enlightenment.
Aquinas is a huge step along with other nominalists in laying the groundwork for the modern world. Why? Because Aristotelian pragmatism supplanted Platonic philosophy. Catholic Church planted seeds of its own demise.
I don't think Aquinas was a nominalist. Nominalism is about rejecting abstract concepts as unreal. Aquinas was what is called a Moderate Realist. It's sort of halfway between Platonic Idealism and the anti-metaphysical tendencies of Nominalism. Nominalists believed that abstract concepts were just "names" we apply to categorize things. It was pure invention. This is really a step towards modern science and a rejection of philosophy. This is the opposite of Aquinas's Scholasticism which is still very much in the tradition of ancient philosophy. The error that led to modernism was not rejecting Plato for Aristotle, it was rejecting philosophy for empiricism.
Yes, because the 30 years' war, which saw the population of what is today modern Germany reduced by from 1/4 to 1/3 due to the wars of religion was a veritable age of peace, righit guise? LOL
You mean the 30 Years' War which was a fruit of the Lutheran Schism? That 30 Years' War? You do realize this is a Catholic channel, right? The only response you'll get is that the peace of Christendom was compromised by heretics and rebels.
It's quite remarkable that without fail, a country that transitions from monarchy to a republic immediately goes from male imagery to female imagery in it's spiritual expression.
This is all very good information and does lay a fundamental understanding for the next video on the modern era. However there is one slight clarification. The Russian patriarchate was actually re-established in 1917 in the brief period of the free Russian republic. A certain bishop who had actually served in America as the Russian bishop, had returned to Russia and he was elected as patriarch in that year which of course ended with the communist take-over by Lenin and his band. The elected patriarch Tikhon was imprisoned and then released only to die shortly afterwards. The Soviet government proceeded with a furious persecution of the church in general and did not allow for the election of a new patriarch. Most churches were closed and many bishops, priests and nuns were executed. One of the surviving bishop, Sergius, began to court Soviet favour as a means of survival. In 1927 he declared his loyalty to the Soviet state. During the WWII he was actually elected by a synod of a sort as patriarch of Moscow. This event in 1943 was part of an effort by Stalin and the communists to solidify the war effort against Germany. Part of the effort was to bring the Orthodox believers on side with the government despite the legacy of persecution. This also allowed the church for a short period of worship and revival. Unfortunately this situation would not last for long and afterwards a new persecution started when the war had ended with Soviet victory. Interestingly. the Soviet leader who actually closed the highest amount of churches was said to be Khrushchev because he closed most of the churches that had been reopened by Stalin and his cronies as well as the churches that had been acquired with the conquest of what is today western Ukraine. Many of these churches would have been Ukrainian Catholic in the inter-war period, although not all. The Ukrainian Catholic church all but disappeared in the persecution. However a few bishops, priests, nuns and laity were able to function underground either in the incorporated territories or in the gulags of the north and of Siberia.
“Slight” clarification 😂 Interesting info, thank you for posting!
@@smokeydapot You are welcome. Here is some other information that might interest you. Lenin was wise enough to realize that he should not make everyone his enemy at the same time. He actually allowed the Baptists to continue their missionary work in the Soviet Union until the late 1920's. There was even a Baptist conference in Moscow in around 1922 and Lenin met with some of their leaders in the Kremlin. Of course, once the communists had dealt with the Orthodox, the Baptists were met with the same. I would like to find out more about the RC minorities (mostly Poles and Germans) during that period, but not much seems to be available. Possibly they were persecuted for being Poles and Germans, but not necessarily Catholics. I do not know.
The Holy Spirit totally removed from my mind when you said Pope Leo the Great instead of Leo XIII
When you brought up the encyclical😂
You are almost perfect.
Still a great video I'm really enjoying this series
@@ealdorman5053 ha!
Great video! When you mentioned Adam Smith and his contribution to the development of economic theory, I would have also pointed out the contributions pioneered by the Catholic theologians (Francisco de Vitoria, etc.) from the School of Salamanca. In the 1500s (the Spanish Golden Age), they arrived at many conclusions often misattributed to Smith (who was born two centuries later).
I generally feel they are not very known and credited in the English speaking world (presumably because of an anti-Catholic/Spanish bias which was always present in England and countries culturally alike).
I’m really enjoying these videos. Nice work!
Your videos are well explained and well put. God bless you
the Lord has BLESSED me with your channel! Te Deum!
Thank you for this. I am torn. I remember Chesterton’s and Belloc’s praise of the French revolution. Was it all bad? Are not the principles of human rights consonant with Catholic teachings (did not John Paul II say as much)? Was Maritain wrong about human rights, and was he wrong to stand against Franco? And Bernanos? Were Pearse and de Valera wrong in trying to establish a Catholic republic in Ireland (I know they failed in the long term)?
Which rights tho? And what about responsibilities?
B@@ChrisAthanas good question.I agree. if we admit a right, we admit a responsibility. You can’t have one without the other. I think the valid rights can be deduced from the 10 commandments. ‘Thou shalt not kill’ = the right to life. ‘Thou shalt not steal’ = the right to property. I think there was a big problem with the stealing of the property of the poorest (enclosures, expropriation of Church lands by the state, suppression of the guilds) which lead to a justified rebellion but, afterwards, to new misunderstandings and new injustices. The International Declaration of Human Rights was an attempt to ensure that the Nazi refusal of basic decency would not succeed again.
I also think it is a diabolical inversion of human rights to say that anyone has a right to an abortion (= the right to kill the most helpless) or to force other people to pretend that someone belongs to the opposite sex, let alone pay for that person’s self-mutilation.
Any comments on capital from the juice and how that shaped British foreign policy ?
You’ve been doing your research bro! Huge how central banking shaped England and vis a vis England shaped the world, truly like a later day Canaan. Blessings and Vivat Cristus Rex
@@pierceh.5670 it would be easier, but we are not allowed to say things like this in public, so it's hard to find people who will discuss the matter.
America IS defending under OATH or allegiance (inversion of principle/s, see Pope Leo and by systematic fractionalization to maintain the social order (oligarch) without a moral structure (Federalist Papers - Madison). It also defends the epochs of man since 70AD, Judaism/Islam - Anglo/Protestant - Freemasonry/Enlightenment. Including paganism. It is political/social usury. It is also maintained by a usurious financial structure and engineered consent (propaganda). I would say that is all in according to its underlying structure/s because identity trumps ideas. US functions as designed. Expressing Catholic or sympathizing with Catholic is not equal to being Catholic. I'll stand with Peter.
@@mayachico9766Being that Britain encouraged colonialism for the purpose of opening forced markets to buy products manufactured by British peasants-cum-factory workers, it shouldn't be a surprise that capital from banks was embraced as the means to conduct trade. And being that British Christians were forbidden to practice usury, because it was understood to be a sin (an inheritance from the days before the Protestant Revolt), it was only natural that the British merchants would lobby the government to allow them to seek funding from the Jewish bankers who were permitted to practice usury when lending cash to Gentiles. And being that Christ Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead after the Gospel is preached to the whole world and the Jews convert (en masse), any effort to stymie the upcoming conversion is from Satan, because Satan knows he'll be contained in the pit forever after Christ returns.
Thanks much
20:34 bottom of slides are cut off
Very good videos, but i would object to the US Civil War. While the CSA were not perfect, neither were the motivations of the North. Lincoln was hardly a principled abolitionist, he was practically content with any course of action so long as it stopped the CSA from seceding. There was a seriously considered amendment to perpetually secure the "right" of slavery prior to the war. Lincoln's attitude after the war's start is just typical political posturing.
The Republicans may have been founded by abolitionists, but by the 1860 election they were content with merely stopping the expansion of slavery into new territories.
Excellent content
Dan, have you heard of the concept that there is a difference between patriotism (being a good virtue) and nationalism (being something that can be a negative concept leading to conflict)? I am not sure if this is a Catholic view point. Possibly it is.
thanks a lot
Hello, just found your channel and I really liked this video, I will watch some of your older ones too in the near future!
I have a question though, maybe you answered it in the video and I didn't keep attention or it's just my lack of understanding, but:
At 45:48 you say that the desire to have a state to defend one spirit/nationality is an enlightenment based thought.
Could you explain why that is?
@@moe676 Hello, thank you. The principle you described of the state existing to defend and promote the volksgeist emerges from the German Enlightenment - video 1 in this series gives a specific look at the development of that school of thought. Nationalism as an element of state craft is older than the Enlightenment, of course, but it was given central importance during the Enlightenment.
@@historiaecclesiastica Thank you very much, I will catch up on that video!
Really interesting
Aquinas is a huge step along with other nominalists in laying the groundwork for the modern world. Why? Because Aristotelian pragmatism supplanted Platonic philosophy. Catholic Church planted seeds of its own demise.
I don't think Aquinas was a nominalist. Nominalism is about rejecting abstract concepts as unreal. Aquinas was what is called a Moderate Realist. It's sort of halfway between Platonic Idealism and the anti-metaphysical tendencies of Nominalism.
Nominalists believed that abstract concepts were just "names" we apply to categorize things. It was pure invention. This is really a step towards modern science and a rejection of philosophy. This is the opposite of Aquinas's Scholasticism which is still very much in the tradition of ancient philosophy.
The error that led to modernism was not rejecting Plato for Aristotle, it was rejecting philosophy for empiricism.
Yes, because the 30 years' war, which saw the population of what is today modern Germany reduced by from 1/4 to 1/3 due to the wars of religion was a veritable age of peace, righit guise?
LOL
You mean the 30 Years' War which was a fruit of the Lutheran Schism? That 30 Years' War? You do realize this is a Catholic channel, right? The only response you'll get is that the peace of Christendom was compromised by heretics and rebels.
Heresy was just a cover the German princes used to rebel against the lawful authority of the Emperor
@@benjaminmorris3625 indulgences were a cover for the greed, peculation and avarice of the "lawful authorities" in Rome.
That was one of the "fruits" of the Protestant "Reformation."
And how long did the peace of Westphalia last after that?