My criticisms of presentations in the previous post on the Nissen Hut do not really apply in this series on church history. His voice is straightforward, his key dates appearing onscreen when they need to, the lack of “preachiness”, even though he obviously belueves, along with the historical angle the whole way.

It still misses certain things about, say, the Merovingians and Franks, the Templars, which I’d not expect him to be au fait with … what they really found beneath the mount, the way they sailed away with booty, the increasing corruption and perversion. This came to a head in Phillip of France’s time … himself corrupt and brooking no rivals … thus the torture and killing of de Molay and Templars, thus the allegations of gross perversion and other things.

I can see that this presenter goes along with the accusations being beat ups, that the Templars were not corrupt. Except they were and today, the Illumined continue the tradition … I’ve been down this rabbit hole for the past two decades and a half … an example was P2 in the Vatican. One online source way back was a chap using the name Ephesians 5:12, not religious but an apostate Mason. And yes … they did get to him eventually.

Just before playing the YT, another I watched was quite aligned with how I think on’t … or vice-versa, I’m aligned with him … his contention is a question … the early church was essentially apostolic, it grew from there and was fairly aligned in theology. Then something changed and there are references to Paul and Peter at odds on observance, then obviously the seven churches, eventually Constantinople itself … and so on. This chap’s question was: “Is Christ divided?” If the answer is no, then how did the denominations, often mutually exclusive, come about?

And his answer was that they started following a man, not Christ himself, a man calling himself a Man of God. The assumed divine powers, the visionary ability of the Bishop of Rome were something the Vatican has always assumed for itself, pushed, backed by vast financial resources, clothed in pageantry and high churchery, just as the royals do. Think you know my view of this man or that assuming for himself the role of spokesman for God. The orthodox were certainly not enamoured of the powerplays of the Bishop of Rome.

And then came Avignon, where I stayed a short while … yes, I’ve been on that bridge.