Why Rome?

[mindlight]

Though an Anglican I have a question for Catholics which is why this post is here.
We both accept a primacy to the Bishop of Rome. But The Catholic church did move to Avignon around the time of the Black death under the influence of the French King. This has been described as the Babylonian captivity by some as it lasted aproximately 70 years.

My question is why is the church headquartered in Rome?

Do Catholics regard the black death and hundred years war as judgments by God on that move to Avignon away from Rome?

 

[Reader Antonius]

I am actually an Anglican but I have a question for Catholics which is why I post here.
We both accept a primacy to the Bishop of Rome. But The Catholic church did move to Avignon around the time of the Black death under the influence of the French King. This has been descrined as the Banylonian captivity by some as it lasted aproximately 70 years.

My question is why is the church headquartered in Rome?

Do Catholics regard the black death and hundred years war as judgments by God on that move?

Welcome to OBOB!

There's no easy answer why (ultimately) Rome became the seat of the Catholic Church. I mean one could easily say that it is because that is the Episcopal See that maintains and carries on the unique Petrine Ministry, so it is only natural that the Holy See in Rome would be an administrative and spiritual center for all the Catholic churches (Eastern and Western).

But the question is deeper than that: Why Rome at all? In other words, why did St. Peter choose Rome to establish his Petrine See that would carry on his authority in the universal Church?

Perhaps the Holy Spirit decided it and communicated that decision to St. Peter. Perhaps St. Peter saw symbolic value in Rome being his special see. Perhaps it is simply coincidental that Rome is where St. Peter last exercised his unique episcopal authority. Perhaps it is all of these things together. No-one knows.

As for your second question, it's a bit complicated and depends on the individual Catholic (there is no official opinion). Even during the Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy, there was still a Papacy and it still was the Bishop of Rome (even in Avignon). So despite the physical location moving the Pope remained Bishop of Rome with all that his entails. The Holy See is, in a very real sense, wherever the Pope is.

But what about the Black Plague and the Hundred Year's War? Both historical events were devastating for the Western Church, but whether or not they were a scourge of God is not known. Many back then and even today do believe they were chastisements from God, but not necessarily because of the Pope being in Avignon or the later schism. It all depends on who you ask.

 

[Bob Crowley]

But the question is deeper than that: Why Rome at all? In other words, why did St. Peter choose Rome to establish his Petrine See that would carry on his authority in the universal Church?

I'm not any sort of authority on Church history, but i would have thought that Saint Peter was directed to Rome by God in one form or another. Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire, so if you're going to expand a church, then it would make sense to go to the administrative centre of the empire.

Although Constantine was the Emperor who endorsed Christianity as the official Roman religion after centuries of perscecution (sometimes worse than others), he also set up Constantinople. For a time the Roman Empire moved east, becoming the Holy Roman Empire based in Constantinople. Rome almost became a backwater after the barbarian invasions.

But it was always the seat of the Bishop of Rome that was endorsed as the Chair of Peter, through thick and thin.

Gradually Rome recovered, although it was often a case of two steps forward and one back, while Constantinople received a death blow in 1453 with the Ottoman invasion and conquest.

I have a rather morbid view of future history though. I think Western Europe will go "Moslem". It won't be very sincere, but possibly a response to dire economic events eg. a Middle Eastern oil embargo, and I think the Vatican may be forced to South America, where Spanish and Portuguese missionaries laid the groundwork for the Catholic Church hundreds of years ago. Rio de Janeiro perhaps, where the statue of Christ towers over the city from Mount Corcovado?

But that's only my peculiar opinion.

Incidentally Constantinople also suffered from the Plague on a number of occasions. It wasn't just Rome. The Plague of Justinian supposedly killed around 5000 people a day. That's six or seven times the reported number in New York at the present time.

 

[mindlight]

Welcome to OBOB!

There's no easy answer why (ultimately) Rome became the seat of the Catholic Church. I mean one could easily say that it is because that is the Episcopal See that maintains and carries on the unique Petrine Ministry, so it is only natural that the Holy See in Rome would be an administrative and spiritual center for all the Catholic churches (Eastern and Western).

But the question is deeper than that: Why Rome at all? In other words, why did St. Peter choose Rome to establish his Petrine See that would carry on his authority in the universal Church?

Perhaps the Holy Spirit decided it and communicated that decision to St. Peter. Perhaps St. Peter saw symbolic value in Rome being his special see. Perhaps it is simply coincidental that Rome is where St. Peter last exercised his unique episcopal authority. Perhaps it is all of these things together. No-one knows.

As for your second question, it's a bit complicated and depends on the individual Catholic (there is no official opinion). Even during the Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy, there was still a Papacy and it still was the Bishop of Rome (even in Avignon). So despite the physical location moving the Pope remained Bishop of Rome with all that his entails. The Holy See is, in a very real sense, wherever the Pope is.

But what about the Black Plague and the Hundred Year's War? Both historical events were devastating for the Western Church, but whether or not they were a scourge of God is not known. Many back then and even today do believe they were chastisements from God, but not necessarily because of the Pope being in Avignon or the later schism. It all depends on who you ask.

So you locate the Holy See with the pope not the city. But if God told Peter to go to Rome and then subsequent popes stuck with the place it seems there was some kind of messaging of its significance. Given the enormity of the events surrounding the move to Avignon it does on reflection seem to have been a cursed decision. A plague that might have wiped out a third or even half of Europes population including half its priests, continual devastating warfare between France and England. Also the entire fourteenth century was characterised by famines and population decline from the peaks of the previous century. Arguably also the plague and the Avignon move contributed to an undermining of church authority in Europe and to the Reformation that followed a little later. Given the seismic events that surrounded this move it is hard not to interpret it as some sort of judgment.

 

[mindlight]

I'm not any sort of authority on Church history, but i would have thought that Saint Peter was directed to Rome by God in one form or another. Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire, so if you're going to expand a church, then it would make sense to go to the administrative centre of the empire.

Although Constantine was the Emperor who endorsed Christianity as the official Roman religion after centuries of perscecution (sometimes worse than others), he also set up Constantinople. For a time the Roman Empire moved east, becoming the Holy Roman Empire based in Constantinople. Rome almost became a backwater after the barbarian invasions.

But it was always the seat of the Bishop of Rome that was endorsed as the Chair of Peter, through thick and thin.

Gradually Rome recovered, although it was often a case of two steps forward and one back, while Constantinople received a death blow in 1453 with the Ottoman invasion and conquest.

I have a rather morbid view of future history though. I think Western Europe will go "Moslem". It won't be very sincere, but possibly a response to dire economic events eg. a Middle Eastern oil embargo, and I think the Vatican may be forced to South America, where Spanish and Portuguese missionaries laid the groundwork for the Catholic Church hundreds of years ago. Rio de Janeiro perhaps, where the statue of Christ towers over the city from Mount Corcovado?

But that's only my peculiar opinion.

Incidentally Constantinople also suffered from the Plague on a number of occasions. It wasn't just Rome. The Plague of Justinian supposedly killed around 5000 people a day. That's six or seven times the reported number in New York at the present time.

Interesting point of view. If St Peter was initially directed to Rome because of its political significance as the capital of the Roman Empire and Gods desire to convert that Empire then why did the Papacy not move to Constantinople when that became the capital of that Empire. Even through the barbarian invasions and as you say when Romes political significance declined signifignantly the popes stuck with Rome. That seems to have been a spiritually significant choice on their part. My understanding was that there were a number of factors in the decision to go to Avignon:

1) The power of the French Kings over the papacy
2) A struggle between 2 prominent Roman families who wanted to determine the succession of the papacy
3) Bandits in Rome and general civil unrest
4) A dissatisfaction with accommodations in Rome. Major fires had ruined the Vatican palace in 1307 and 1361

But these seem quite worldly reasons to me and actually I could understand if this reasoning process would have angered God sufficiently to allow plagues and wars and famines to hit Europe. Urban V was finally escorted back to Rome by Florentine soldiers commanded by Giovanni Boccaccio (Author of Decameron) in 1367 but he returned to Avignon in 1370 and then again Gregory XI moved the papacy back in 1377 ending the Babylonian captivity. Thereafter the church spent a lot of money doing the place up and completely rebuilt the Apostolic palace for instance. It was shortly after the restoration of the architectural glory of the Vatican that the Reformation began.

I doubt that Europe will go Muslim and Italy remains deeply Catholic but even if it did not sure there would be a justification for moving the Holy See. The popes are the Bishop of Rome and how can they be that in South America?

 

[chevyontheriver]

So you locate the Holy See with the pope not the city. But if God told Peter to go to Rome and then subsequent popes stuck with the place it seems there was some kind of messaging of its significance. Given the enormity of the events surrounding the move to Avignon it does on reflection seem to have been a cursed decision. A plague that might have wiped out a third or even half of Europes population including half its priests, continual devastating warfare between France and England. Also the entire fourteenth century was characterised by famines and population decline from the peaks of the previous century. Arguably also the plague and the Avignon move contributed to an undermining of church authority in Europe and to the Reformation that followed a little later. Given the seismic events that surrounded this move it is hard not to interpret it as some sort of judgment.

If God had told Peter to go to Lyon, or to Athens, or to stay in Antioch or Jerusalem then the Church would be headquartered there. If, as some terrorist extremists would want, a big fat dirty bomb would blow up the Vatican and contaminate Rome, then the See of Peter would go elsewhere. We pay attention to the See of Peter and not to Rome per se. Rome made sense as the location of the Roman Empire, and the nexus of those great Roman roads. Not so relevant as a place now. The See of Peter could function from anywhere on the planet now.

I don't think the plague can be tied to Avignon one way or the other.

The popes are the bishops of the See of Peter, wherever that is. It was in Antioch for a while before Peter went to Rome.

 

[mindlight]

If God had told Peter to go to Lyon, or to Athens, or to stay in Antioch or Jerusalem then the Church would be headquartered there. If, as some terrorist extremists would want, a big fat dirty bomb would blow up the Vatican and contaminate Rome, then the See of Peter would go elsewhere. We pay attention to the See of Peter and not to Rome per se. Rome made sense as the location of the Roman Empire, and the nexus of those great Roman roads. Not so relevant as a place now. The See of Peter could function from anywhere on the planet now.

I don't think the plague can be tied to Avignon one way or the other.

The popes are the bishops of the See of Peter, wherever that is. It was in Antioch for a while before Peter went to Rome.

Peter was not the head of the church in Jerusalem, that was James the brother of Jesus, though he probably had seniority in Antioch. But personally I do accept his primacy among the apostles and that a succession passed through him to Clement of Rome etc for example. One would hope such a bomb scenario never happens to Rome though look what covid-19 has done to the streets of Rome and attendance at Easter services at the Vatican. The reasons for Rome and the persistence of Rome as the location of the Holy See strikes me as more spiritual than relating to infrastructure and global significance or they would have moved it to Constantinople or even Madrid, Paris or London at some point

There was a long list of disasters that occurred during and after the papacies move to Avignon.

 

[Reader Antonius]

Hi again, mindlight! Welcome back and happy Pascha.

So you locate the Holy See with the pope not the city.

"Yes" and a little bit "no" too. It's not quite that simple. There are, if I recall from my seminary days, reasons why the Pope couldn't just, say, decide to move the Petrine See to Rio de Janeiro or something like that. In other words, the city of Rome is special and the Papacy is tied very closely to it (especially with electing a Pope and historical succession). The Old Catholic Encyclopedia expounds a bit on this and it is worth a quotation or two:

"VI. ELECTION OF THE POPES
The supreme headship of the Church is, we have seen, annexed to the office of Roman bishop. The pope becomes chief pastor because he is Bishop of Rome: he does not become Bishop of Rome because he has been chosen to be head of the universal Church. Thus, an election to the papacy is, properly speaking, primarily an election to the local bishopric. The right to elect their bishop has ever belonged to the members of the Roman Church. They possess the prerogative of giving to the universal Church her chief pastor; they do not receive their bishop in virtue of his election by the universal Church. This is not to say that the election should be by popular vote of the Romans. In ecclesiastical affairs it is always for the hierarchy to guide the decisions of the flock. The choice of a bishop belongs to the clergy: it may be confined to the leading members of the clergy. It is so in the Roman Church at present."

Also, on the topic we spoke about earlier, the Old Catholic Encyclopedia asserts:

"Although Christ established the perpetual office of supreme head, Scripture does not tell us that He fixed the law according to which the headship should descend. Granting that He left this to Peter to determine, it is plain that the Apostle need not have attached the primacy to his own see: he might have attached it to another. Some have thought that the law establishing the succession in the Roman episcopate became known to the Apostolic Church as an historic fact. In this case the dogma that the Roman pontiff is at all times the Church’s chief pastor would be the conclusion from two premises—the revealed truth that the Church must ever have a supreme head, and the historic fact that St. Peter attached that office to the Roman See. This conclusion, while necessarily connected with revelation, is not part of revelation, and is accepted fide infallibili. According to other theologians the proposition in question is part of the deposit of faith itself. In this case the Apostles must have known the law determining the succession to the Bishop of Rome, not merely on human testimony, but also by Divine revelation, and they must have taught it as a revealed truth to their disciples. It is this view which is commonly adopted. The definition of the Vatican to the effect that the successor of St. Peter is ever to be found in the Roman pontiff is almost universally held to be a truth revealed by the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and by them transmitted to the Church."

So the idea of the Successor of St. Peter being a bishop of Rome in succession (and vice-versa) is extremely important. The move from Avignon was more a physical move of the Pope's residence than any loss of being seen as the true Bishop of Rome, but that physical separation caused a great deal of confusion and was abetted by corruption, as you know. It eventually helped foment the Western Schism, which did truly incalculable damage to the prestige of the Papacy.

But if God told Peter to go to Rome and then subsequent popes stuck with the place it seems there was some kind of messaging of its significance.

Absolutely.

Given the enormity of the events surrounding the move to Avignon it does on reflection seem to have been a cursed decision. A plague that might have wiped out a third or even half of Europes population including half its priests, continual devastating warfare between France and England. Also the entire fourteenth century was characterised by famines and population decline from the peaks of the previous century. Arguably also the plague and the Avignon move contributed to an undermining of church authority in Europe and to the Reformation that followed a little later. Given the seismic events that surrounded this move it is hard not to interpret it as some sort of judgment.

Again, I tend to agree. I have a hard time sometimes accepting that certain historical events are God's punishment or castigating response (though I do accept the premise readily). I have never really thought about if the Hundred Years War or the Great Plague were from the hand of God in a punitive sense for the papal move, but it does seem a sensible or defensible assertion.

I for one do suspect that the stunning success of the Mongol Horde and its large empire were due in part as punishment for the sins of Christians and Muslims, but that is for another time I suppose.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The reasons for Rome and the persistence of Rome as the location of the Holy See strikes me as more spiritual than relating to infrastructure and global significance or they would have moved it to Constantinople or even Madrid, Paris or London at some point.

There were those who thought the See of Peter should go to Byzantium. Constantine probably thought so too, as he called the council in Nicea, which is suburban Byzantium. And the See of Constantinople, not one of the original patriarchates by any means, elevated itself to become the principal patriarchate of the Orthodox mostly on the merits of being where the Empire was ruled from.

There was a long list of disasters that occurred during and after the papacies move to Avignon.

There are always a long list of disasters to look at for almost anything. So maybe you have something, or not. Either way I wouldn't consider it proof of something. I could give it a solid 'maybe' at very best

 

[mindlight]

Hi again, mindlight! Welcome back and happy Pascha.

Happy Resurrection Day season to you also. Your answer was fantastic and just what I was looking for.

"Yes" and a little bit "no" too. It's not quite that simple. There are, if I recall from my seminary days, reasons why the Pope couldn't just, say, decide to move the Petrine See to Rio de Janeiro or something like that. In other words, the city of Rome is special and the Papacy is tied very closely to it (especially with electing a Pope and historical succession). The Old Catholic Encyclopedia expounds a bit on this and it is worth a quotation or two:



Also, on the topic we spoke about earlier, the Old Catholic Encyclopedia asserts:

Superb quotes and yes that makes sense. Peter establishes a local bishopric with global primacy. Peter was sent to Rome and led the church there but was regarded as the broader leader of all the apostles and the oversight person for all the churches. The later primacy of the bishop of Rome also implies the acceptance by the Roman congregation of the sacrifices implicit in the wider responsibility and role of their bishop. Thus the church is always grounded in a particular place and yet it is also universal.

So the idea of the Successor of St. Peter being a bishop of Rome in succession (and vice-versa) is extremely important. The move from Avignon was more a physical move of the Pope's residence than any loss of being seen as the true Bishop of Rome, but that physical separation caused a great deal of confusion and was abetted by corruption, as you know. It eventually helped foment the Western Schism, which did truly incalculable damage to the prestige of the Papacy.

Absolutely.

Yes that seems fair

Again, I tend to agree. I have a hard time sometimes accepting that certain historical events are God's punishment or castigating response (though I do accept the premise readily). I have never really thought about if the Hundred Years War or the Great Plague were from the hand of God in a punitive sense for the papal move, but it does seem a sensible or defensible assertion.

God is not the author of evil but it seems to me that he manages the great tragedies of history according to his purpose. Even the Reformation and split in the church led to a competitive propagation of the gospel all across the globe and some significant reforms in society and the church also. When God manages a truly horrible event he sets a time limit to it as happened with the plague and the odd parallels between the time that Israel was in Babylon and the Babylonian Captivity. The plague seems to me to be a rebuke and a test that led to deep and long lasting changes in European and then global society.

I for one do suspect that the stunning success of the Mongol Horde and its large empire were due in part as punishment for the sins of Christians and Muslims, but that is for another time I suppose.

After the failure of the crusades the Muslims might have been tempted to unite and keep coming taking out the Byzantines and then Western Christian powers but the Mongols came from the East and changed their focus.

That Mongol success was ended by the plague in China which so weakened the Mongols along with some other significant tragedies that they were driven out. The Tatars or Golden Hoards army got plague while trying to wipe out the Genoans in Caffar, They catapulted the plague bodies over the walls thus spreading it to Europe as Genoan ships fled back to Italy and Constantinople. But you are right the plague ended their advance and significance as a power. So you could say the plague stopped the Mongols from conquering Europe.

 

[mindlight]

There were those who thought the See of Peter should go to Byzantium. Constantine probably thought so too, as he called the council in Nicea, which is suburban Byzantium. And the See of Constantinople, not one of the original patriarchates by any means, elevated itself to become the principal patriarchate of the Orthodox mostly on the merits of being where the Empire was ruled from.

There are always a long list of disasters to look at for almost anything. So maybe you have something, or not. Either way I wouldn't consider it proof of something. I could give it a solid 'maybe' at very best

But Rome despite its political marginalisation and loss of economic and cultural significance remained the site of the Holy See. The only time it was moved, there was a plague that wiped out a third of Christian Europe, endless wars between Christians and ultimately a loss of authority and prestige that set in motion events and trends that led directly to the Protestant schism of the church

 

[Bob Crowley]

Interesting point of view. If St Peter was initially directed to Rome because of its political significance as the capital of the Roman Empire and Gods desire to convert that Empire then why did the Papacy not move to Constantinople when that became the capital of that Empire. Even through the barbarian invasions and as you say when Romes political significance declined signifignantly the popes stuck with Rome. That seems to have been a spiritually significant choice on their part. My understanding was that there were a number of factors in the decision to go to Avignon:
1) The power of the French Kings over the papacy
2) A struggle between 2 prominent Roman families who wanted to determine the succession of the papacy
3) Bandits in Rome and general civil unrest
4) A dissatisfaction with accommodations in Rome. Major fires had ruined the Vatican palace in 1307 and 1361

But these seem quite worldly reasons to me and actually I could understand if this reasoning process would have angered God sufficiently to allow plagues and wars and famines to hit Europe. Urban V was finally escorted back to Rome by Florentine soldiers commanded by Giovanni Boccaccio (Author of Decameron) in 1367 but he returned to Avignon in 1370 and then again Gregory XI moved the papacy back in 1377 ending the Babylonian captivity. Thereafter the church spent a lot of money doing the place up and completely rebuilt the Apostolic palace for instance. It was shortly after the restoration of the architectural glory of the Vatican that the Reformation began.

I doubt that Europe will go Muslim and Italy remains deeply Catholic but even if it did not sure there would be a justification for moving the Holy See. The popes are the Bishop of Rome and how can they be that in South America?

To be honest, I'm not familiar with the temporary move to Avignon, but I'd be very surprised if God would punish the whole of Europe because of political chicanery by a small group of powerful people, by butchering 30-60 percent of the population using a virulent bacteria.

From Wikipedia -

The Black Death, also known as the Pestilence and the Plague,[a] was the most fatal pandemic recorded in human history, resulting in the deaths of up to 75-200 million people in Eurasia and North Africa, peaking in Europe from 1347 to 1351.

The "Avignon Papacy" lasted from 1309-1377, which incorporated the time of the Black Death. It swept right across Europe, but probably originated in Central Asia or East Asia. So it affected areas which had nothing to do with the Catholic Church at the time, including North Africa which was predominantly Moslem by that time.

As to whether Western Europe and Italy will go Moslem, that's up for opinionated grabs. It's just that I developed a lot of respect for the old pastor who I was talking with when this topic came up, and I found from personal experience he was uncannily prophetic. If he said he "thought" something would happen I found it eventually did. I say "thought" because in my (not always humble) opinion, I think God was telling him what was going to happen.

If Islam did get control of Western Europe, you can bet your bottom dollar they'd no more tolerate Rome as the central authority for the Catholic Church than the Ottomans did for Constantinople to remain the central authority for the Byzantine (aka Orthodox) Church. The Vatican would be told to go.

But since neither mindlight or I know exactly what God will or will not allow, about all we can do is wait and see how things pan out in the course of time.

If we're still around to see it.

One thing though - God's not soft. If He was prepared to sit there and watch the Black Death as it went through the motions, then He's no wallflower. One of the quotes of my old pastor was "I think they (the Catholic Church) soft-pedal judgement. .. I think they do anyway." He also predicted I'd become Catholic, which I did. And a few other things as well, all accurately.

I suppose I'm more aware of judgement that most, as I make the claim my (very cruel) father appeared in my bedroom the night he died. We argued and conversed. but at the very end of this peculiar session, he turned to his right. He said "No!" Then with far more urgency "No!!" Then he screamed. The terror was so contagious I started to scream.

Then he just disappeared, and I haven't seen him since. I didn't even get to view the body, as he was dead for four days before he was found, locked up in summer heat in a flat.

That was just over 40 years ago, and I still remember most of the proceedings, and in particular the terrifying scream which ended it all. I don't remember dreams - to this day I couldn't relate to you a single dream.

God ain't soft. With all due respect, I wouldn't like to be in the shoes of some. In fact, my old pastor said, in his own opinion, "I (the pastor) don't think I'd like to be in your father's shoes."

But on the other hand, God's not going to kill millions because of a misguided move by a Pope or three. They had nothing to do with the decision.

So how do we play off these immense natural evils against God's alleged "Love"? It would be like standing on the beach with the 2004 Tsunami coming in, with the irresistible churning wave of turbulent dirty water about to break over you, and calmly telling the terrified family a few feet away as they tried to protect their children, "Nothing to worry about! God loves you!!"

 

[mindlight]

To be honest, I'm not familiar with the temporary move to Avignon, but I'd be very surprised if God would punish the whole of Europe because of political chicanery by a small group of powerful people, by butchering 30-60 percent of the population using a virulent bacteria.

Many of these people who died were Christians, they died quite rapidly from the accounts that we have. So effectively God called them home from lives that were pretty poor, oppressed and in which hunger and plague were common place. So would not use word butchering here. But God does punish kings through their people. When David called a census it was his people that died of plague

From Wikipedia -

The "Avignon Papacy" lasted from 1309-1377, which incorporated the time of the Black Death. It swept right across Europe, but probably originated in Central Asia or East Asia. So it affected areas which had nothing to do with the Catholic Church at the time, including North Africa which was predominantly Moslem by that time.

Yes my understanding is that the origins of the plague were in Mongolia decades before. The Chinese and Eastern empires generally may have suffered more than Europe and also experienced other calamities like Earthquakes, floods, locusts and famines and wars. That the plague only lasted 4 years in Christian Europe seems like a blessing In that respect. God set a time for it and then ended it.

As to whether Western Europe and Italy will go Moslem, that's up for opinionated grabs. It's just that I developed a lot of respect for the old pastor who I was talking with when this topic came up, and I found from personal experience he was uncannily prophetic. If he said he "thought" something would happen I found it eventually did. I say "thought" because in my (not always humble) opinion, I think God was telling him what was going to happen.

If Islam did get control of Western Europe, you can bet your bottom dollar they'd no more tolerate Rome as the central authority for the Catholic Church than the Ottomans did for Constantinople to remain the central authority for the Byzantine (aka Orthodox) Church. The Vatican would be told to go.

Islam is not as powerful as you think in Europe and both Christians and liberals are stronger and will remain so in any foreseeable scenario for the next century. Liberals do not like Muslims if they try and take away their freedoms and Christians already have something better. Also some Muslims have been annoyed by some of the recent arrivals with their Middle Eastern fundamentalism. Turks for instance are quite moderate compared to Afghan, Iraqi or Syrian Muslims and do not like being told they are inappropriately dressed for mosque. If Islam did get to strong I would be more worried of a scenario akin to how Germany treated the Jews. The culture is so opposed to the engrained depths of the European mentality that they would be more likely exterminated than become our masters.

But since neither mindlight or I know exactly what God will or will not allow, about all we can do is wait and see how things pan out in the course of time.

If we're still around to see it.

You will be waiting a long time to see a Muslim dominated Europe. They are not a serious challenge. They come from impoverished countries, do not speak our languages that well, their religion is a false one and they have no skills. What they bring that is positive is a healthy respect for family and a zeal for God that is often lacking here.

One thing though - God's not soft. If He was prepared to sit there and watch the Black Death as it went through the motions, then He's no wallflower. One of the quotes of my old pastor was "I think they (the Catholic Church) soft-pedal judgement. .. I think they do anyway." He also predicted I'd become Catholic, which I did. And a few other things as well, all accurately.

I suppose I'm more aware of judgement that most, as I make the claim my (very cruel) father appeared in my bedroom the night he died. We argued and conversed. but at the very end of this peculiar session, he turned to his right. He said "No!" Then with far more urgency "No!!" Then he screamed. The terror was so contagious I started to scream.

Then he just disappeared, and I haven't seen him since. I didn't even get to view the body, as he was dead for four days before he was found, locked up in summer heat in a flat.

That was just over 40 years ago, and I still remember most of the proceedings, and in particular the terrifying scream which ended it all. I don't remember dreams - to this day I couldn't relate to you a single dream.

God ain't soft. With all due respect, I wouldn't like to be in the shoes of some. In fact, my old pastor said, in his own opinion, "I (the pastor) don't think I'd like to be in your father's shoes."

But on the other hand, God's not going to kill millions because of a misguided move by a Pope or three. They had nothing to do with the decision.

So how do we play off these immense natural evils against God's alleged "Love"? It would be like standing on the beach with the 2004 Tsunami coming in, with the irresistible churning wave of turbulent dirty water about to break over you, and calmly telling the terrified family a few feet away as they tried to protect their children, "Nothing to worry about! God loves you!!"

God is not soft He is awesome. How He judges the wicked or calls His own people home is not the same as saying he is killing millions. Sorry to hear about your dad.