Pour nous joindre, cliquez
דף הבית

Female genital organs

Our scientific topics

The Boomerang effect

To contact us

To go to our blog

Science and Faith

France and God

Our objective

Friends sites

Every life born from knowledge

Others spiritual topics

Read in music

psyh

FRANCE AND GOD

Continuation of the chapter 3



Were-they worse than others?



A Grace of God, who concerns all these men who could be these kings Merovingian 1, and already before them these very little known monks such as Saint-Martin, artisan of the rural apostolate in Gaul to fifth century.

They created a deep-rooted of the Christianity of most invaluable for our country still today, because they are them by the person of Clovis, who gave France to God,  just like  had been case of Armenia at the third century. If we are today with the profit of the blessing which they brought to the France, we have to know not dissociate us of it, and look without condemning certain errors which we inherited through a small page in history.

These kings Merovingian whose Clovis belong, came from the family of Mérovée, small more or less legendary frank chief. They drew their strength of their origin considered divine and their warlike virtues. The name even of Clovis (i.e. Louis) means "Famous to the combat".


1) Merovingian (dynasty of Frankish kings, 481–751)


Like the Pharaoh, Clovis was certainly gazed from divine birth by the frank people, but contrary to the first who was miracles eyewitness, without converting himself, Clovis converts at the Christian God in which it believed simply without miracles. Isn't this beautiful?

Merovingian monarchy was going to only bring few improvements on pagan rites of this time, because very divided between the idolatry, the profit and craving for power, but it was going to allow the installation of a base of Christian civilization, carried in particular by all monastic system.

The Merovingian lineage lived its real limiting through the victory of Pépin II, also known as Pépin from Herstal, palate’s mayor 1 of Austrasie, against his neustrian rivals in Tertry, near Saint-Quentin, in 687. Acknowledging in theory, the king authority neustrien Thierry III, he had put in escape, and without being encumbered in Austrasie of a particular king, Pépin II restores the unit of the frank kingdom to its profit and for his person, and not for that of the king. From Austrasie, which he did not leave, he let live in Neustrie, in the Seine and Oise valleys , normal stay of the frank sovereigns since Clovis, the phantom kings whom he installed with his liking on the throne, slowly letting dissipate the prestige of the royal race.

It is not without reason than the pope, threatened by Byzantium or Lombard, made call in 739 (only sixty year later) to the palate’s mayor Charles Martel, who had just gained against the Arabs celebrates victory of Poitiers in 732 rather than with king de France, since the king had slowly been dismissed of his kingship. If the call remained without effect on this date, it was heard in 754. It then sealed the alliance between two forces spiritual and temporal of the Occident: Papacy and future frank monarchy.


1. Palate’s Mayor : Dignitary of the Merovingian court used somewhat by the king as governor; he gradually substitute oneself for the king.

The Carolingian Empire Partition

The kingdom of which Charles Martel had assured the government was thus and remained until his death a weak unit and even extremely fragile, whose only presence and personal action of its chief, everywhere and at each time, made a success in safeguarding cohesion. It's that the two Charles Martel's wires, Carloman and Pépin (future Pépin the Brief) discovered, between which the palate’s mayor, such as king, had divided the kingdom not long before its death, to Quierzy in 741. Then they judged more judicious to put somewhat back in light the legitimate representative of the Merovingian family, Childéric III. This monarchy poor show was the germs of its abolition, since king Childéric himself proclaimed in his acts and writings that he owed to Carloman palate's mayor his dignity: "Childéric, king of the Franks, in eminent Carloman, palate's mayor, which established us on the throne..."

In year 751, the moment was finally more favorable to give up the Merovingian fiction. Strong on account of pope's support, of whom Carloman and Pépin the Brief had approached upon of the restoration of the franque Church undertaken by Saint Boniface, Pépin the Brief called to the assembly the kingdom's majors in Soissons, in November 751. He got there made elect himself king of the Franks, and, hitherto unknown ceremony in Gaul, he was made him crown with holy oil by the present bishops, led by Saint Boniface.

The Church thus devoted pull off a coup and, the evangelization progressing more quickly than ever, ensured the success of this one. Nevertheless, a solemn confirmation of the decisive option taken by the brought together bishops in Soissons did not appear superfluous. After having obtained from Pépin the brief the promise written to give him the district of Ravenne and to ensure to him the peaceful possession of the duchy of Rome, the pope Etienne II personally renewed, in the abbey church of Saint-Denis, to the Blessed of Pépin, then to the Blessed of his sons Charles, the Charlemagne future, and Carloman his youngest. A monk of Saint-Denis, perhaps witness of the event, added that "the same day Sovereign pontiff blesses the Bertrade queen, woman of Pépin the brief, and made defense to each, under penalty of interdict and of excommunication, to never dare to choose a king resulting from another blood than these princes, that divine piety deigned glorify and, by the intercession of the apostles saints , to confirm and devote from hand of the blessed pontiff, their Vicar".

The monarchy from divine law had been born. The one who, with the eyes of the Merovingian families, could have seemed an usurper, was shown from now on, like the one chosen by the Christians God, and his descendants with him.

Through these historical backgrounds, our aim should not be to throw discredit upon such or such Christian denomination, but on the contrary to make us lawyers of the principal actors of these founder times. I will say as for me, thank you Lord to have avoided me this particularly difficult period that had been this part of our history. It's indeed easy for us to forget after the Roman domination how our civilization was gone down again, especially in the north of our beautiful country where this influence had been less made feel, and where the Celts had more marked their stamps.

Those which were to make the decisions didn't had the retrospective we have. All these men were only human ones, subjected more or less like each one of us to their preconceived ideas. The Holy Spirit of course was there to avoid the errors to them as he is for each one of us, but it has to be admitted that the amount of confidence, the amount of faith can enormously vary in certain decision-makings according to our understanding. Their error was obviously unjust in front of God, because the primitive paganism attached to a monarchy under the only condition that it is from divine nature, was thus replaced by a monarchy of divine right by scholars supporting a form of idolatry made in the name of the Eternal God.

Indeed let us not forget that the wish of the Eternal had been that the men retained him as King. This digression was probably not worse than of his people to which he was really expressed, all the more so through his permissive will, God had indicated the king of his choice whom he had made anoint for this function by the Samuel prophet, as we read into 1 Samuel 8. That wasn't obviously going up to dimension in which God elevated this human being on a level equal to his by a divine nature, but this choice of God could appear at certain which had not gone until looking further into the true reason of the institution of the human monarchy on Israel by God, as being "the institution voluntarily selected by God to represent him on his people", therefore all the people.

The special divine unction, would have been the most normal in Christian dimension, if in the eyes of the men it had not made of them people elevate to the divine nature, and had brought to them only the approval of God to behave well in their duties towards the people "itself of God". Thus, it isn't the God unction on the monarchies who is to be contested, but the use who was made by them, by these kings who was only men.

God had announced it upon the first times, knowing in advance the result of this institution, knowing that, even if the men rejected him then, him will not reject them and will do all to enlighten them. Let's leave it to hypothesis at bad management of the context, and will come lawyers from our brothers like Jesus asks it to us, rather than in indicters, because we could otherwise to find many bad reasons.

These men and these kings unquestionably sinned while promoting too high, an institution God would have to wish to establish only on human scale with men talking with God, like it was the case of the Judges on Israel. But in front of which dilemma these representatives of the Christian faith were they confronted?

Perhaps they had only two solutions to their mind ? In the first, they fulfilled the requirements of the civilization of the time which was let lead by kings only on condition that they are from divine nature, as it was initially the Merovingian position, in the second they promoted their king to the divine dimension. In the first, they continued to be let govern by kings with unsure manners and often barbarian, in the second the compromise ensured the safeguard of the Christian values.

This compromise was obviously going to prove with the passing centuries, as an element of collective confusion, from which it's necessary lifted the curtain, between the behavior of kings de France and the image which they then gave of God. This compromise was obviously going to prove with the passing centuries, as an element of collective confusion, from which it's necessary lifted the curtain, between the behavior of kings de France and the God's image they then gave. God had allowed this at his people to which it had so strongly appeared, then he was going to tolerate it from people which had just hear spoken about him.

This once more underlines the true nature of  God, who institute not rules and laws to be able to crush the offenders, because in this case God "erased himself" once again in front of the "need" for the circumstances. It is not necessarily good indeed to establish rules on people which cannot receive them and to put them into practice. This is how God to become manifest himself to Abraham, then several centuries later he exempt his Law to Moses.

God can actually request from some, much rigors in their own life, but towards those whom do not know it perfectly and whom come-with him, he can be patient while waiting for the harvest. Would this to say he wishes we will limit ourselves there? Admittedly not, because the Bible is extremely clear on this subject! Certain texts, such the parabola of the sterile fig tree in the New Testament, reveal well indeed a time ago for any thing, and there isn't in that, to apply double standards. God is God, the same one yesterday today and eternally (Luke 13-6/9) And he made up this story for them: A certain man had a fig-tree in his garden, and he came to get fruit from it, and there was no fruit.

And he said to the gardener, See, for three years I have been looking for fruit from this tree, and I have not had any: let it be cut down; why is it taking up space?

And he said, Lord, let it be for this year, and I will have the earth turned up round it, and put animal waste on it, to make it fertile: And if, after that, it has fruit, it is well; if not, let it be cut down.//

God acts likewise towards the people, and this is why we have to work in the tolerance of the human comprehension, while waiting for the day of his blessing. Our aim only was to make a complete break with the idea preconceived of the voluntary institution the human monarchy by God, while only it was far from ideal he can do under these circumstances.

Thus let us not forget in this context, if certain people lived kings, kings lived people. We easily feel sorry for the fate of the oppressed people, by making sometimes too quickly these kings of the tyrants. It's not for you to condemn the men, even if some their acts can have been "reprehensible". How much I realize today that myself I didn't always express the form of respect for others, which it was sometimes necessary for these kings, whereas I did not have the tenth of the greatness which was granted to them. Perhaps this respect existed for certain of these kings and lords only by a need for personal survival? Without people there isn't indeed kings! But for others it was in my opinion, with a dimension given by the God's Spirit.

This dimension from the Spirit of God is certainly accessible to each one of those which seek him, but as it wasn't always my case, and not the case of each one either, this deserves well to be underlined to the advantage of these kings.

Jesus said and we will go back on, it's more difficult to a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven, than a camel to pass by the needle's hole. Of course it isn't question of a sewing needle, which would have definitively closed the door of the kingdom of heaven at all rich person, but of the low door by which one could go past on night in the asleep city. This one was requiring for a man to bend down to enter, and only was allowing with big difficulty to a camel to go down on one's knees, in order to avoid the brutal invasions. Let us thus perceive that the richness can become a handicap, and for these rich kings and with the multiple capacities, it was more difficult for them than me, from modest social class to behave well. I don't say it obviously to condemn me, nor to congratulate them on their errors, but so that each one examines himself before judging these damned kings and lords.

No! These kings were only men with all the defects which we all can have, then let's look to the one of them, Charlemagne, which was perhaps greatest.

He would have been especially as easy to him to fall into the pride, than he had been crowned king in his more tender childhood at time when that did not exist. It was indeed an outstanding man, and brother in Jesus-Christ. He knew to reconcile the physical efforts by immense rides in whole Europe, the intellectual needs by a self-educated culture with level two or three years of higher education, and spiritual realities while being unceasingly moved by a faith to reverse the mountains. He was living in an environment in which the intellectual culture had so little consideration, than that brings from there again more Glory to God, in the use which He made of him. Some parts of his life remain obviously unknown, and can let imagine that he was certainly not perfect, but we can almost say “fortunately”, because everyone could have shame of little which we make, especially if we compare to knowledge and means of our time.

If we look at all the exchanges that he had got from all parts of Europe, and all the institutions which he created or tried to create politically, him, the federator before the hour of Europe, and that without portable telephone nor personal plane, we must acknowledge that his faith was of divine nature. Attention however to give all Glory of that only to God, who gives according to His will to this one who wants to follow Him. We aren't to promote the man at the celestial level of God, but to recognize however how much God wants to give us His nature and so much He can give an energy, a strength and a very particular intelligence as well on the intellectual level as spiritual, to whom wants to make His will.

How much one received some perhaps as much during the centuries, but put it in practice only in the bad direction, whereas Charlemagne employed his faith only in the good direction at human sight... It is that, which is the more surprising!

He was indeed the initiator of a intellectual rebirth as well for the laity as the ecclesiastics, the defender of Christian moral, just like he was it for the faith as well on the battle fields as in the theological debates, to unify the Christian people. This concept of Christian people, Alcuin 1 proposed it in the months which preceded the advent of the Empire. Two years later, he used the phrase "Iniperium christianum" to qualify an Empire which could not be content itself, to be Roman, since he did not include all the old Empire's grounds, whereas he included some which was not. And same Alcuin specified his thought well when he called Charles "Rector and Emperor of the Christian people".

Charles was at the same time in their eyes, the successor of Constantin and that of David. David whose he was taking the name in the literary plays of the palatine Academy but whose all knew that he was the "king priest" instituted by God to lead the chosen ones and that one was considering already, at the time of Merovingian Monarchy, for a political model.

Already in 614, a council compared Clotaire II with David at the service of the people of God, and Pépin the Brief didn't scorn that the pope himself qualified him New David. When Paulin d'Aquilée qualified Charlemagne of "king and priest, and very wise governor of the Christians", he justified the amalgam of the frank people and the Christian people, like that the royal function and the sacerdotal function. In all that, we can see the research of the biblical references more attached prophetically to the Jesus's person than to that of a human king. This is why there would be to much say on this amalgam between the function of king and that of priest, such as we could see it about king Saul in 1 Samuel 13, but despite their error and their idolatry, the sincerity of these people isn't undoubtedly to call into question. Thus at coronation and anointment of the emperor there was attribution of prophecies of Jesus to the person even of Charlemagne, and it was read Isaiah (9 – 6/7):

This map shows the various possibilities for sharing: that Charlemagne planned in 806 and that adopted by her young son.

The Treaty of Verdun in 843 with the "Lorraine corridor" of Lothaire will be the germ of all the wars of the classical and modern era.

For to us a child has come, to us a son is given;

and the government has been placed in his hands;

and he has been named Wise Guide, Strong God,

Father for ever, Prince of Peace.

Of the increase of his rule and of peace there will be no end,

on the seat of David, and in his kingdom;

to make it strong, supporting it with wise decision and righteousness, now and for ever.

By the fixed purpose of the Lord of armies this will be done.

1) In Latin, Albinus Flacus, Anglo-Saxon religious scientist, born in York towards 735, deceased in Tours in 804, master of the palatine school founded by Charlemagne, he played a capital part in the Carolingian rebirth.


The idealism of some was perhaps not righter to God, but others were probably more sincere, because it was just a Christian empire that Charlemagne was concerned at the assembly in March 802, when he considered it necessary to send the "missi dominici 1" to recall to all the empire the truths of the faith, the moral requirements and the personal and social duties of the Christian. And the familiar one of Saint Augustin did not miss to assimilate the concern of the God city and that of a terrestrial city in which one begun to find this concept called Respublica in ancient Rome.

 

1) Government officials appointed by Charlemagne, who went in pairs, one from the clergy and the other laic, to ensure control and surveillance of the local authorities.


He of course was chief of war without pity like we could in otherwise see it, but did he have in the context of the time, much other possibilities? How would he negotiate with these more or less cruel bloodthirsty men with which he was confronted? Would he have to begin by their do "look sternly" before acting?

In the same line, still not to play the accuser's part, we will thus say it is easier to criticize since its heat soft armchair, than take fast initiatives on the battleground against cruel invaders, without fear and law. It would be necessary besides for us to add to these external invaders, interior uprisings handled by envious tyrannical characters, whose the only goal was to sometimes monopolize a whole population to their glory rather than of God. If it were not a question yet to found a democracy, what present government wouldn't choose the solution of lesser evil?

It is enough for us to look at how much the  world with Christian basis, and many Moslem people protested against the terrorist actions of Oussama Ben Laden, to justify to us that if the United States, had been controlled by Charlemagne, we would have doubtless found only very few differences in this conflict. Perhaps in the eyes of certain the fact of having to slit the heads as was constrained to do it Charlemagne himself, can seem being more barbarian than to do send "clean" bombs by soldiers. They of course reach ninety-nine percent of times their objective, but he employed the means of which he laid out to defend the same ideal of freedom and moral than ours. Let us look at his work in all serenity, like the work of an heart turned sincerely towards God, that God plenty used, even if he were perhaps not sanctified absolutely according to the God perfection? Who can claim today to be perfect, if  not the stupid one who would look at only to himself?

Undoubtedly he created certain institutions which can today appear obsolete to us, and for the other tyrannical ones, but the whole of the man and his work are however such a diversity, than shows the hand of God on him.

In all humility and respect, we can thus speak in praise of the faith of a brother in Christ that God used as well as possible for His Glory, like He could make it with some among us if we would accept it. We can certainly make mistakes of youth but when we are sincere and real, God blesses if we repent.

Before this repentance, He however tries to ward us, in order to personally bless each one and for eternity, but also to bring his work in us even further. Thus we can think that if Charlemagne had simply received royal unction without it being made of him a veneration subject, the beginnings of federalism which he had carried out would be perhaps concretized. By an one or two centuries, we indeed see appear this structure in the Swiss Confederation Suisse? The fact of having promoted a little too high their  "nature"  of king, accentuate the carnal man dimension already too inclined towards the power, the capacity, the domination and pride. What thus facilitated the power to them a time, was going to be turned over against them, who were going to think them as demigods, to see more.

How indeed a child, sincere but from carnal nature, will contradict those who since his early childhood put him on a pedestal? How that one will be able to make later the difference between his happiness to beat, so much his neighbors whom he will find always quarrelsome, than are "people" that he will find always too unsubdued to achieve his own desires? How won't he likes to think he's God when all the considerations are due for him, and nothing can exist to call him into question or almost?

It seems to me that if it had been thus for myself who knew not be from divine birth, I would be always to believe me higher than many others because God would have blesses me through my social position.

Perhaps am I a too weak spirit or on the contrary too pretentious, but for my part I don't see anything which can bring to a child born under the difficult rank of pretender to the throne, with the compassion of his next like Jesus taught it to us! Perhaps am I a too weak spirit or on the contrary too pretentious, but for my part I don't see anything which can bring to a child born under the difficult rank of pretender to the throne, to the compassion of one's fellow man like Jesus taught it to us!

It isn't either on him that we will base the fault, but on our nature. The kings don't form themselves. They are initially children like the others, even if the fate intended for a different position.

The future for them however is thrown, the man made these kings of the gods or almost god; as long as those progress, by the assimilation of each one to share the "size" of its king, everyone is found there, even if in that, God becomes more the servant of the king, that the king servant of God. The future for them is however determined, the man made of these kings, gods or almost god; as long as the ones progress, by the assimilation of each one to share the king's "splendor", everyone make a profit, even if in that, God becomes more the servant of the king, than the king, servant of God.

It would had been necessary to have such amount of humility to be a good monarch according to God, whom one could have seen God working through him, rather than to see a great man.

For France, as for so much of other countries, even if it were thus for certain kings, it was often the opposite. The idol god that the men had created themselves, to the detriment of only God which could guide them usefully, was thus going to be turned over against them to the wire of the centuries. For France, like for so much of other countries, even if it were thus for certain kings, it was often the opposite. The idol god that men had created themselves, to the detriment of God whom only could guide them usefully, was thus going to be turned over against them during the passing of the centuries.

To a fulgurating rise, moved by the faith one man during one or two generations, was going to come a slow descent into Hell of monarchy and consequently in the eyes of the men: The image of "God".

Let us look indeed to the majority of his successors, who were not going to have to conquer, but to reign to preserve "their" privileges acquired at the detriment of God's splendor. Through their behaviors, which image of God the ones which reigned were going to give to their observers, while each one considered it was from God that they extract their "nature"?

God is less feared often, because invisible with the eyes of the ones haven't got faith, whereas these kings possessed dissuasive soldiers. These kings were going indeed to give of God, an image of a tyrant to many men, sometimes even of a sanguinary tyrant. A lot among us, rather than to judge the bad acts of these kings invested with unction received from Holy God, three Saint times, were going to confuse and condemn God himself to which this institution had been wrongfully ascribed.

With which unction God had truly covered these kings? Wasn't this, each man receives when he get married for example, and he makes the decision to cherish his wife, to provide for her needs, and to behave as a good family man, attentive to the needs one's family?

If it were not this unction these kings and their subjects interpreted to obtain from God, but the one of "demigods", whom all was allowed, there's nothing of surprising whom they received according to their work already on this earth. Look, whom husband will be able to allow himself to behave indefinitely like a tyrant in his couple? God will finish to take care of the woman, because no institution prevails on only one heart to God.

The men by their interpretation of the laws often made the opposite of Him, because pursuing in that, their own aims and no this of God. All that these kings then wasted by their extravagances to the rest of the people's misery, it was for these peoples, God who withdrew it to them. During the passing of time, which, was going indeed to continue to hope in this God of love? This God whose Jesus says to us in(John 3-14/18) As the snake was lifted up by Moses in the waste land, even so it is necessary for the Son of man to be lifted up: So that whoever has faith may have in him eternal life.

For God had such love for the world that he gave his only Son, so that whoever has faith in him may not come to destruction but have eternal life.

God did not send his Son into the world to be judge of the world; he sent him so that the world might have salvation through him. The man who has faith in him does not come up to be judged; but he who has no faith in him has been judged even now, because he has no faith in the name of the only Son of God.//

How will one be able to continue to believe in this God of love ready to sacrifice himself so that whoever, i.e. me, i.e. you, can live in peace and harmony with each one, because victorious of the sin, when we see  his "counterpart" on ground to adopt a such opposite attitude, so-called approved of God? If one again believes the slightest bit in this God, what image will have we of him at least?

Then, by a "banal" mistake in interpretation of some, no more blameworthy than others, on the fact that God had not instituted the monarchy on the men, but had accepted it to His detriment the men chooses of the kings other than him and than He would bless however, those who put the human monarchy in place like coming from God, have brought into disrepute God. Misfortune isn't these men made this error, but although those whom followed them perpetrated it and gave thus reason more to the man than God whom they represented.

These behaved with the Pharisees image at time of Jesus, and in order not to lose their position in their "synagogue", which is became the church or monarchy, they preferred crucifier God, father, son and perhaps for certain Holy Spirit.

They were certainly not worse than of other as men, but because of the fact that they perpetrated, from great human Utopias were going to be born. We get to this point.

Top Top Top Beginning of chapter
Top

This work cannot be sold. It is offered free of charge for information by Association

CHRETIENS DE L'ESPOIR, 2 Impasse Saint Jean - 26110 - VINSOBRES - France.

Tel. (33) 0954705737 – Fax (33) 0959705737 - E-mail: christianofthehope@free.fr - Company registration number 444 684 427 00016

Following chapter
דף הבית של ספרים הפרק הבא