Religio et politica omnia licent: Centuries of Magdeburg

In politic context the fakes are custom, because the people is owner of votes and of decisions, we are accustomed, in every country to fakes and the formal promises that haven’t a result because these are necessary to electoral campaign; but in religion sincerity is duty; but when religion is a mask to politic motives, all is different; the read of first pages of centuries of Magdeburg reports some no errors, but authentic lie, because the author, may Mattie Flacius Illiricus(1520-1575) that together with other written this Historia Ecclesiae Christi, this is History Christ’s Church, I think that he known the Latin language because the books of Saint John Damascenes from Middle age were translated from original Greek to Latin language, hence Illiricus read certainly this book on images of Damascenes; and that he has read this book, we deduce it from lie that he used, when he, or other, writes that: “ (saint John Damascenes openly indicated idolatry saint’s as corruption of divine doctrine and the oppression of roman pope(Qui uero aperte indicassent,idolatria sanctorum mortuorum, corruptelis doctrina coelestis. ueritatis oppressione, Romanorum pontificum et aliorum sacerdotum), the first oration of Damascenes is against whom decry the images, and the image of Christ: “Therefore I venture to draw an image of the invisible God, not as invisible, but as having become visible for our sakes through flesh and blood.”; and the lie of Illiricus is in following words of Damascenes: “I do not draw an image of the immortal Godhead. I paint the visible flesh of God, for it is impossible to represent a spirit…”; this explication is sufficient to consider that the idolatry, seen from Centuries is pure invention; this biblical step took from Damascenes is clarification: “Thou shalt adore the Lord thy God, and thou shalt worship him alone , and thou shalt not make to thyself a carved thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath”, but in biblical tale is yourself you don’t make carved work, alone yourself; and Damascenes gives a historical and liturgical justification of this prohibition : “These injunctions were given to the Jews on account of their proneness to idolatry.”; it is very right because the Jews gone out from ancient  Egypt where the idolatry was natural communication to gods, thereupon God has prohibited the adoration otherwise the people could has worshipped the fakes gods carved. After other step is more explicative: “Now we, on the contrary, are no longer in leading strings. Speaking theologically, it is given to us to avoid superstitious error, to be with God in the knowledge of the truth, to worship God alone, to enjoy the fullness of His knowledge.”; thereupon for Damascenes we are exempt from idolatry. This one step of Damascenes that cunningly Illiricus didn’t transcript because this oration is against the adoration of imagines, this is the pagan believer, we must consider that the heathen interpreted the worship no certainly to sculptures but the carves were necessary to communication with gods. But the motive of these lies is merely politic, hence every lies is right.Saint John Damascenes, other steps: “We have passed the stage of infancy, and reached the perfection of manhood. We receive our habit of mind from God, and know what may be imaged and what may not.”, whereby we can’t become idolaters because we have received from God our faith; and: “When the Invisible One becomes visible to flesh(this is Christ), you may then draw a likeness of His form.” It is both the artistic and the theological right, and the other theological truth: “…He worked in the flesh through divine power…”, therefore he was a man, a visible man, whereby: “Give to it all the endurance of engraving and color.”, this is the human form. Other: “The worship of latreia(worship) is one thing, and the worship which is given to merit another. Thus, the Son is the living, substantial, unchangeable Image of the invisible God, bearing in Himself the whole Father, being in all things equal to Him, differing only in being begotten by the Father, who is the Begetter ; the Son is begotten.”The other step is clear representation of nascent nationalism in Germany, because the Illyricum said: “Pippin king of France with perjury and Charlemagne with imperial dignity from pope took and gratitude from a prostitute they worshipped and it they accepted”; the nationalism mentioned above is clear to hide or will forget that also Henry 4^th , in Canossa, in Emilia Romagna, Italy, where the imperator of Holy Roman Empire, for three days stated on the snow because he wanted the absolution from Gregory 7^th pope from excommunication, Otto1th the Great, imperator of Germany defensed the Church in 962 a.Ch., also Henry 3th, king of Germany, given the order to the Church against the Roman noble families and last Charles 5^th, that protected the Church during the 16^th century; these kings or imperators Illiricus has forgotten, very strange, but it is sufficient think that this book was necessary to promote the Protestantism in Germany and above all promote the nascent national wit, in fact he condemned the presumed worship of French kings but not mentioned the German kings. The politic and economic motive of protestant reform is in following step, that contains also an historical error, because Illiricus mentioned a king that isn’t in British: “Iuas British king his reign was elected to contribute to Church…lords in every town of occident didn’t lived as the Church…”, this is among the cosiness and richness; this king isn’t in British history and the tribute is mentioned and stressed, why? Because it is motive, repeat, for the nascent Protestantism confession. Other contradiction  is in the following step: “ …so truly orphan and lacking of aide the Church of Christ seems almost the sheep among the wolfs…”, this is the enemies, but a question has raised, the Church could pay the protection of somebody for immense richness that it has had, or this richness was not? Other step: “Our Lord Jesus Christ, who with very great love has embraced it(the Church) didn’t leave it”; hence Christ is accomplice of corruption and immoral behavior of Church! Regard the seat of Church it is indirectly accuse to God, although Illiricus didn’t writes, but we can deduce that it is intention or Illiricus didn’t understand what he was writing, the step says: “Its seat was transferred for his(of God) goodness both here everywhere(suo seculo Ecclesiam fuisse per totum orbem terrarum diffusam.)”; it is certainly true but if the Roman Church is so deplorable institution why God has stirred it everywhere, because he is hell or this Church isn’t so wreck? Other step: “In much towns of Nordic Germany during centuries of reign of Christ as sowing and grounds thrown are, and the Church much institutions(In multis Gcrmaniae locis,superioribus seculis regni Christi quasi semina et fundamenta iacta sunt, et Ecclesiae non paucae institutae); it is means that also the Germany, country of Luther was in origin was spoiled from the Roman Church, thence why, do you preach the degeneration of Church, when also your country was involved?

Alessandro Lusana