The Papacy has had an odd collection of characters over the past two thousand years. I have written about a few; one in the fourth century, Sylvester, one in the seventh century, Gregory I, and one in the fourteenth century, John XXII.
Now Sylvester was Bishop of Rome, one of several called Popes at the time, and during the reign of Constantine. In the Council of Nicaea, 325, Sylvester decided not to attend. After all Constantine was in charge and it was Constantine who essentially formed the Nicene Creed. He also eliminated Arian ideas for a while. After the Council Constantine tried to move to Persia with no luck. Gregory was a classic Bishop of Rome around 600 AD. Constantinople was the capitol city and the language was Greek. Gregory allegedly spoke no Greek so was effectively ostracized from the ruling emperors. Finally John XXII was in Avignon, a French plant, while there were at time two other Popes. Chaos ruled.
By the late Middle Ages the Pope had obtained massive secular powers including their own armies. Some Popes advocated massive war against the Muslim tribes, called the Crusades, resulting in brutal and massive killings on both sides. The Popes adhered to the concept of "The Two Swords". namely Kings have one and the Pope another.
The current resident in Rome seems to want to get into a battle with the current resident in Washington. It seems to be a "your mother wears combat boots" interaction, no winners.
The issue is simple. The Persians want to finish the development of their nuclear weapons and they have clearly stated the want to destroy the US. This should not be taken lightly. Thomas Aquinas had proposed the concept of the Just War, and also the Unjust enemy. Perhaps a rereading of Thomas and an understanding of Papal history would be of some use.
Posts
