The Inquisition ...

[Thomas]

Very well...Likewise the fact that Leo X, the Pope during the particular 10 critical years of Luther, was from the infamous Medici banking family (basically the Rothschilds or Rockefellers of their time), which explains his theology of money, money and more money is in the public domain.

Doesn't that constitute your ruling of an ad hominem?

Leo seemed to have been cultured and erudite, but certainly too fond of 'the high life'. Whether he actually said "Let us enjoy the papacy since God has given it to us" is doubtful ... probably not, but then our current Pope Francis could be hung for some of his extempore comments.

There seems little doubt that he enjoyed life's pleasures, and anecdotes seem to reflect a casual attitude to the office of St Peter. On the other hand, he prayed, fasted, went to confession before celebrating Mass, and conscientiously participated in the religious services of the church. So I suppose it depends on what side of the divide the historian falls.

To the virtues of liberality, charity, and clemency he added the Machiavellian qualities of deception and shrewdness, so highly esteemed by the princes of his time. I don't doubt the latter — no-one gets to high office anywhere without a touch of the Prince about him or her.

Leo's character has been assailed by lurid aspersions of debauchery, murder, impiety, and atheism. Even you damn him because he was a Medici. In the 17th century it was estimated that 300 or 400 writers, more or less, reported (on the authority of a single polemical anti-Catholic source) a story attributed to him. later scholars rejected them.

The philosopher David Hume, while claiming that Leo was too intelligent to believe in Catholic doctrine (?), conceded that he was "one of the most illustrious princes that ever sat on the papal throne. Humane, beneficent, generous, affable; the patron of every art, and friend of every virtue". Even Luther testified to Leo's universal reputation for morality.

Leo's most recent biographer, Carlo Falconi, claims Leo hid a private life of moral irregularity behind a mask of urbanity. Martin Luther said that Leo had vetoed a measure that cardinals should restrict the number of boys they kept for their pleasure, "otherwise it would have been spread throughout the world how openly and shamelessly the pope and the cardinals in Rome practice sodomy".

In 1514 Leo X had issued the Bull Supernae dispositionis arbitrio which, inter alia, required cardinals to live "... soberly, chastely, and piously, abstaining not only from evil but also from every appearance of evil" and a contemporary and eye-witness at Leo's Court (Matteo Herculaneo), emphasized his belief that Leo was chaste all his life.

Historians have dealt with the issue of Leo's chasteness at least since the late 18th century, and few have given credence to the imputations made against him in his later years and decades following his death, or else have at least regarded them as unworthy of notice; without necessarily reaching conclusions on whether he was homosexual. Those who stand outside this consensus generally fall short of concluding with certainty that Leo was unchaste during his pontificate.

So it seems scholarship is more charitable than yourself, but as you point out, attacks on Leo's character and the continued publishing of probably falsehoods and guilt-by-association carry no import on the rights and wrongs of the Reformation, or indeed, the Inquisition.

I haven't called into question the methods of the Inquisition...I don't think anyone seriously does.

Oh, tosh! You know the popular opinion of the Inquisition.

It is the abuse of that system by those so inclined and in position to do so that tends to draw notice.

Show me a system anywhere ...

Or so the authority of the Church would have us believe. You choose to believe this, I do not. I believe that authority vested through what is written in the Bible belongs to fervent, believing individuals.

Well one, it doesn't matter whether or not you choose to believe it, Scripture speaks for itself in this instance and two, God preserve us from 'fervent, believing individuals' — speak to Wil, he'll fill you in on that one!

Which pretty well contradicts your claim of indulgences being condemned in any kind of wholesale and comprehensive manner even prior to Pope Leo X...

No it doesn't, you're just ignoring the facts.

Sincerely, I am not about attacking your or anyone's faith - merely pointing to what actually occurred historically.

I find your reading of history, and the selective choosing and ignoring of evidence, and assumptions based on your opinion alone, somewhat at odds with that statement.

 

[juantoo3]

Doesn't that constitute your ruling of an ad hominem?

Absolutely. It also conforms simultaneously with your ruling of what is fair game "because it is in the public domain." comme ci comme ça

attacks on Leo's character and the continued publishing of ... guilt-by-association carry no import on the rights and wrongs of the Reformation, or indeed, the Inquisition.

Quite

God preserve us from 'fervent, believing individuals'

Perhaps. Frankly, I am more concerned with fervent institutions. G!d save us from them!

I find your reading of history, and the selective choosing and ignoring of evidence, and assumptions based on your opinion alone, somewhat at odds with that statement.

As long as you find me....

 

[wil]

I find your reading of history, and the selective choosing and ignoring of evidence, and assumptions based on your opinion alone, somewhat at odds with that statement.

I'd love to meet the person that doesn't do that when presenting an argument trying to prove their assertions.

I get lambasted all the time for wanting to expose the problems with my country, my religion, my race, my sex..always as a traitor of some sort.

 

[Thomas]

I'd love to meet the person that doesn't do that when presenting an argument trying to prove their assertions.

Me? I have sought for no more than fairness, truth (as much as we can know it) in the face of fiction, and balance.

It seems those who walk the Middle way always get sidelined to one side or the other.

If I am too robust, then maybe that is my fault, and then again, maybe not. Certainly, if I wasn't as robust as I am, I would have been driven off IO a long time ago.

 

[Thomas]

What I draw from discussions so far:

The Office of the Inquisition, in the popular mindset, is based largely on myth and Monty Python. It was nowhere near as bad as assumed, and in fact was most often significantly better in outcome for the accused, than the alternative.

The Reformation sprang from one man's campaign against the abuses of indulgences, which became a campaign against the authority of the Roman Catholic Church per se, particular aspects of Catholic doctrine and popular expressions of religious piety.

Was it good thing? Well the Church definitely needed an overhaul, but in many respects the Reformation went the wrong way about it. It didn't actually reform the Church, rather it just allowed for new formations which were themselves as capable of abuse as the institutions they sought to displace.

The general idea that the Church was corrupt through-and-through is as naive, as simplistic and as wrong as the counter-claim that it was chaste and innocent and perfect. The inverse can be said for the new Reformation institutions. They are corporate bodies of men, and as such are as fallible as man is. As I've said before, the Popes of the Middle Ages were, to a man, lawyers ... lawyers are too often Pharisaical in the way they conduct themselves. I get nervous around lawyers, and from what I understand about some aspects of Catholic Canon Law, i have every right to be!

The general assumption that the Church kept the laity in a state of ignorance is also false. In fact I would argue that a sense of belonging was stronger then than now, a living of a life in Christ stronger then than now, although many look down their noses at what they assume to be superstition and nonsense, unable to see the spiritual vitality the underpinned many of the practices condemned, and when they were banned, there was nothing to put in the place of what was lost.

At ground level the laity lost, in some aspects, more than they gained. That's probably true across all aspects of life. It's hard to see what they did gain, as the new institutions proved to be as dogmatic and as dictatorial as the old. New rulers replaced the old, new sins were added, new punishments meted out. Things got particularly bad where unstable social structures led to conflicts in which the laity were most often the innocent victims in disputes that had more to do with politics than faith — just recall Luther's condemnation of the German Peasant's Revolt and one can see that the idea of removing the yoke from the labourer's shoulder is a nonsense.

Indulgences were and continue to be a point of conflict. It's overlooked that the laity 'bargained' for indulgences with the Church, as much as the Church employed indulgences as a means of generating wealth from the laity. Guilds and other popular bodies bartered their services with indulgences built in to the contract. Indulgences were part of the labourer's hire in works for the Church.

But that went with the Reformation, as did veneration of the saints, processions, pilgrimages, all of which formed a rich part of the lay life. Churches, places of art that more often than not was the expression of the lay faith, were stripped of symbols and became become somewhat sterile. The focus was shifted from Christ to the pastor — I for one walked out of a Catholic Church when I saw that the celebrant sat on a chair at the head of the altar while the Tabernacle was removed to the side ... it's just symbolically wrong.

The publication of the Bible in the vernacular did little but appease the intellectual. Tyndale's Bible was full of anti-Catholic tracts and commentaries on Scripture, it was a polemical treatise wrapped around Scripture. And the laity had been in possession of vernacular texts since the 9th century in Britain.

Historically, many of the Reformers' claims that the 'Traditions' of the Church, up to and including a priesthood, monasticism and the Liturgy itself, were inventions of the Catholic Church have now been proven false.

 

[RJM]

...in NYC, DC ...and go in on Sunday and be among 3/4 empty pews...

How about Rio de Janiero? 16% of the world population is still Catholic.

 

[Thomas]

Opps, double post in praise of me ... that's telling ...

 

[wil]

Opps, double post in praise of me ... that's telling ...

lol, I know you are well read, but there is also confirmation bias eh? I mean if I mostly read communist authors, if I mostly read communist history, and I am a communist....my experience and knowledge already comes pretainted even If I am striving to be unbiased.

 

[juantoo3]

What I draw from discussions so far:

Overall I think your synopsis is a good one. A couple minor points I would contend with, but overall I think you said it well, if just a wee bit tilted.

 

[Thomas]

lol, I know you are well read, but there is also confirmation bias eh?

Well I try not to ... and that's up to someone to show me otherwise, else I'll say no, there isn't.

You can't critique 'on the assumption that ... '

That's where good scholastic habit preserves ... when I was doing me degree, we weren't allowed to get away with a one-sided argument. You had to read the opposition. Yes, most of the reading list was Catholic, but then that's hardly surprising.

When it came to countering New Atheists here recently for example, my references were all atheist, I think.

 

[Thomas]

Overall I think your synopsis is a good one. A couple minor points I would contend with, but overall I think you said it well, if just a wee bit tilted.

Well, a little bit of tilt this way might be just the thing to offset a whole lot of tilt that way.

 

[RJM]

Although Luther was against the abuse of peasants by feudal landowners, it doesn't mean he was being hypocritical by condemning the peasants revolt, especially its being hijacked by murderous gangs of thugs and thieves, etc. He wasn't at all for revolution. He was a Christian gospel preacher. It was done in his name, which is quite different.

 

[juantoo3]

Well, a little bit of tilt this way might be just the thing to offset a whole lot of tilt that way.

Feel better now?

 

[RJM]

I'm sorry. I'm fond of Martin Luther and believe he was sincere. He may have been naive and he obviously never foresaw the repercussions. But I defend him against implication of -- what's the word -- I don't know: deliberately dishonest manipulation of public opinion?

He certainly wasn't interested in personal power or gain or in making anybody like him. His drive was for truth. He didn't go in there to wreck the Church. Perhaps if they'd listened to his theses about the indulgences, things might have turned out differently. They DID want to kill him.

Well, a little bit of tilt this way might be just the thing to offset a whole lot of tilt that way.

I'm a Catholic. New atheists get my goat. Hugely. The Catholic Church retains the mysticism and grandeur. It works for me. God is there The truth is there. Of course its not the only place. But for me the Catholic Church is the shell of the nut.

 

[Thomas]

Although Luther was against the abuse of peasants by feudal landowners, it doesn't mean he was being hypocritical by condemning the peasants revolt ... He wasn't at all for revolution.

This is the point. He was a man of his times.
The German Peasants' War was a widespread, grass-roots revolt against the injustices of the ruling class. It was Europe's largest and most widespread civil uprising. The peasants faced insurmountable obstacles. No command structure, no military thinking, no artillery, no cavalry. Their battles usually ended in rout and massacre, opposed by experienced commanders leading well-equipped and disciplined armies, with ample funding.

It incorporated some of the principles of the Reformation, however Luther and other Reformers condemned it and sided with the ruling nobility. In "Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants", Luther condemned the violence as the devil's work and called for the nobles to put down the rebels 'like mad dogs.' Luther supported the existing secular status-quo, especially in his native Germany.

Was he wrong? Not really. He simply wasn't a socialist.

I'm fond of Martin Luther and believe he was sincere.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't doubt his sincerity.

A complex man driven, I think, by his inner 'demons', if I can use that term lightly. His dreadful sense of his own sinful nature ... I'm sure modern psychology would have nailed the condition, but these were different times. Suffice to say he suffered from depression? I think his theology actually freed him in some degree from that, and he assumed it would free everyone else ...

As I have learned here, nothing is ever quite so black-and-white as we would like it to be.

On the one hand we have Arius, instigator of the first great schism, but not a bad man, and preached what he honestly believed. On the other we have Athanasius, who at one time stood alone ('Athanasius contra mundum') for what subsequently became the orthodox doctrine, but who was not unknown to settle matters by rounding up a few of the beefier monks and paying someone a visit ...

(Arius, like Luther to some degree, saw what they started being picked up by others and carried far beyond what they had intended.)

Augustine v Pelagius is another. The usual populist debate runs along the lines of Augustine started the doctrine of original sin and is therefore a bad man, while Pelagius promoted a doctrine of spiritual autonomy and self-determination and is therefore a good one ...

Augustine's "Confessions" is a luminous spiritual text of one man's self-discovery of God, and contains some of the most profound theological and philosophical thought ever to have hit the human race (Paul Ricour's magisterial volumes on the philosophy of narrative is breath-taking and founded in part on Augustine).

If Pelagius had his way, then 'spirituality' would be the preserve of a monastic elite, noted for their austere asceticism. We'd all be Carthusians or nothing at all!

His drive was for truth. He didn't go in there to wreck the Church. Perhaps if they'd listened to his theses about the indulgences, things might have turned out differently. They DID want to kill him.

Did they, though? I'm not sure his drive was for truth, so much as what seemed true to him — he had a distinct interpretation of Scripture, and dismissed from the Canon those elements that refuted his theological position. He definitely wanted to break the authority of the Church, that's for sure, it could not continue if it 'reformed' as he wanted it, so I think he was intent on bringing Rome down. Perhaps if he saw the distinction between a doctrine and the abuse of a doctrine, things might have turned out differently?

The Catholic Church retains the mysticism and grandeur.

But the Reformers got rid of that.

But for me the Catholic Church is the shell of the nut.

Same for me.

People tend to view 'Tradition' as either ossified old bones, or perhaps a glacier. I see it as a stream of clear water, or light, that runs through time. At times it's muddied, obscured, and at times it's been tainted with blood ... but cut off that stream and you have nothing. Replace it with ersatz ideologies and you have I'm not sure what, something temporal and contingent that evaporates before the next new thing.

 

[juantoo3]

As you said, it is not so "black and white."

The Catholic Church retains the mysticism and grandeur.

But the Reformers got rid of that.

I'm not so sure the Reformers "got rid of" the mysticism, if anything a significant amount of it remains, though I can see how you may not see it for what it is.

As for grandeur, I think a legitimate argument can be made that that is a symptom of the disease that needed healing. Please don't take this the wrong way, I suppose there are people that get inspired by stained glass, towering ceilings and marble statues...but I'm not one of them. I don't need man made edifices to be inspired, and I seriously don't think Jesus led us in that direction. I don't begrudge others that opportunity, and I do appreciate such things as *man* made art...but such "grandeur" comes at such a cost, and isn't necessary for salvation.

To illustrate, my idea of a cathedral is the Grand Canyon, the Sierra Madre Mountains, the Blue Ridge Mountains, the Shenandoah Valley. Church is a walk along the beach, or a stroll on a path shaded by 300 year old Oaks and Magnolias.

"Where two or more are gathered in my name...," is what Jesus taught. Nowhere, in any place in the New Testament, is there command to build an edifice. After the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem, there was no edifice remaining.

I can draw inspiration from the edifices G!d created, and can take into my soul the realization that nothing man can do can begin to compare to what G!d has already done. There is nothing more mystical, and no greater grandeur, anything to come from the minds, hearts and hands of men will always be found wanting.

I expect there to be justification forthcoming...but any possible argument would only come after the fact, not from Jesus.

 

[Thomas]

I'm not so sure the Reformers "got rid of" the mysticism, if anything a significant amount of it remains, though I can see how you may not see it for what it is.

OK ... (dubiously) ...

As for grandeur, I think a legitimate argument can be made that that is a symptom of the disease that needed healing.

A good point.

I suppose I make a distinction. When it comes to wealth and jewels and crowns and robes and palaces and all the trappings of material grandeur I'm right with you. Had they been available in His day, I very much doubt that Jesus would have required a gold-plated Rolls Royce, or even an armoured-glass popemobile. A battered old Land Rover would have sufficed. A tractor ... as it was, He entered Jerusalem on an ass.

On the other hand, I see art, architecture, music, etc., etc., as an expression of faith and devotion. It's understandable that if someone is inviting Jesus into his/her house they'd tidy up the place and dress it as best they could. He, no doubt, would be happy with somewhere to sit, but I think it's a viable expression, albeit sometimes sentimental. D'you see what I'm getting at? It's the same reason why New Agers decorate their rooms with crystals, dream-catchers, incense etc., Lord knows, I did all that in my day.

I suppose there are people that get inspired by stained glass, towering ceilings and marble statues... but I'm not one of them.

Each to his own.

I don't need man made edifices to be inspired ...

Is it necessarily a need? I visit art galleries, I don't feel the need to ... but yes, I suppose I have heard people say "I need ...", and not in a religious sense, either. I think there's an element of the edifice as a fruit of inspiration ... of creating outside what one feels/sees/senses inside?

and I seriously don't think Jesus led us in that direction.

Never intended to go there, I think. That's my thing about the Church adopting the materiality of Rome, rather than just the useful ideas like straight roads and central heating.

I don't begrudge others that opportunity, and I do appreciate such things as *man* made art...but such "grandeur" comes at such a cost, and isn't necessary for salvation.

I don't know what cost, but agreed, it's not necessary.

To illustrate, my idea of a cathedral is the Grand Canyon, the Sierra Madre Mountains, the Blue Ridge Mountains, the Shenandoah Valley... Church is a walk along the beach, or a stroll on a path shaded by 300 year old Oaks and Magnolias.

OK. I could go on about symbolism, etc., all that stuff is 'the personality of the planet' as someone once said to me ...

But I too am awed and inspired by nature. I rather like the Shinto that when you get somewhere like that, or maybe it's just a curlew calling out over a peat bog (one of my own 'cathedral moments' in Ireland), a fox barking in the night (as long as they're not up to doing the doings), then throw up a Torii, because you've stepped into a sacred space.

Or the Moslem idea of looking East, drawing a line in the sand, and then stepping across it, a threshold between the sacred and the mundane.

I think we're in agreement here?

I once read of someone who sat down with his dad, and his dad took and apple and twisted it in half, gave him his piece ... I read that as a Eucharist. Done from the right place, any action can be a Sacramental Act.

Again, I watched a video of a Muslim grandad washing his grandson's hands in his own. Perhaps it's cos I can remember my dada doing that with me ... but it was, for the Muslim, a religious act, a sacrament act.

I designed a book jacket:

That image is Antelope Canyon in Arizona. says it all for me: Cathedral, the Sacred, Enlightenment ...

"Where two or more are gathered in my name...," is what Jesus taught.

I ain't arguing with Him, he's a tougher nut that even you! And, like you, He knows His onions.

Nowhere, in any place in the New Testament, is there command to build an edifice. After the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem, there was no edifice remaining.

No, and true, but then God did give instructions in the Hebrew Scriptures, and there's a whole raft of understanding about the value of creating sacred spaces, it's a universal and was there before institutional religions ...

I can draw inspiration from the edifices G!d created, and can take into my soul the realization that nothing man can do can begin to compare to what G!d has already done. There is nothing more mystical, and no greater grandeur, anything to come from the minds, hearts and hands of men will always be found wanting.

Nothing more awesome for me than a starlight night when I can escape the light pollution of London ... or a racing ocean wave ...

Cardinal Avery Dulles had his 'epiphany' when he watched a rose bloom through the rain on a window pane. Archbishop Kallistos Ware had his when he heard a choir singing Gregorian Chant in an Orthodox church in Oxford. The 'Anonymous Author' of Meditations on the Tarot, assumed to succeed Rudolf Steiner as the head of the school of Anthroposophy, had his looking at the Rose Window in Chartres Cathedral. The actor Alec Guinness said his came when he was filming the Father Brown stories in France, and was walking from the set to his digs in costume as a country priest. A schoolboy happened to pass by, held his hand, chatted away quite happily, then waved goodbye and went home. He said such a gesture from one so innocent, such trust, meant the cassock had to mean something more than the jaundiced 'nudge-nudge' of the post-modern sensibility that sees anyone in orders as a paedophile ... but I do suspect the quite private Sir Alec had something deeper than that going on ...

I find it reasonable and natural for someone to desire to make something for God, Heaven knows, I tidied my flat the first time I invited a young lady round!

I think there might be something in noting the distinction between the desire of wanting 'the best that I can do for you', and wanting 'the best that there is in the eyes of men' ... the latter sounds suspect to me, in a Parable of the Rich Man and the Publican kinda way?

 

[wil]

Some of us reformers love our mysticism....

We revel in it, and while it may not be to your liking or thinking, I am now ever more so grateful at your knowledge and sharing.

Arius, instigator of ... honestly believed. On the other we have Athanasius, who at one time stood alone ('Athanasius contra mundum') for what subsequently became the orthodox doctrine, but who was not unknown to settle matters by rounding up a few of the beefier monks and paying someone a visit .(Arius, like Luther to some degree, ...beyond what they had intended...Augustine v Pelagius ...Augustine's "Confessions" i...Paul Ricour's ...
If Pelagius had his way, ... We'd all be Carthusians or nothing at all!

I know you've provided us s condensed version, but it soothes my soul...

A. There ain't no certain way
B. And the hell with those that say my way or the highway
C the truth and way has always been argued and disagreed with
D man has had his hand in telling man what G!d has said and man has written and edited and translated
E it releases us all...to believe and understand as we will, to commune wit the eachness of the allness in our own way.
F I luv it, and you for sharing
G I appreciate even more the sometimes heated arguments it took you all to get to this point
H it proves the value if ebb and flow of a thread
I it proves that we can disagree and break eggs to make an omelette.
J yeah, I know, my understanding of what happens doesn't bode well with all
K 123, glad you are back, this discourse reminds me of the old days here, and I so wish we could ressurect a few others, additionally appreciate that you stood in in the middle of this and continued.
L you all have my utmost respect, Thomas, RJM, 123... back to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

[wil]

To illustrate, my idea of a cathedral is the Grand Canyon, the Sierra Madre Mountains, the Blue Ridge Mountains, the Shenandoah Valley. Church is a walk along the beach, or a stroll on a path shaded by 300 year old Oaks and Magnolias.

Bliss....a.chorus of angels is singing in my soul...

 

[juantoo3]

A good point.

I have my moments

I suppose I make a distinction. When it comes to wealth and jewels and crowns and robes and palaces and all the trappings of material grandeur I'm right with you. Had they been available in His day, I very much doubt that Jesus would have required a gold-plated Rolls Royce, or even an armoured-glass popemobile. A battered old Land Rover would have sufficed. A tractor ... as it was, He entered Jerusalem on an ass.

On the other hand, I see art, architecture, music, etc., etc., as an expression of faith and devotion. It's understandable that if someone is inviting Jesus into his/her house they'd tidy up the place and dress it as best they could. He, no doubt, would be happy with somewhere to sit, but I think it's a viable expression, albeit sometimes sentimental. D'you see what I'm getting at? It's the same reason why New Agers decorate their rooms with crystals, dream-catchers, incense etc., Lord knows, I did all that in my day.

Yes...but is it necessary for salvation? Now, I need to qualify because even as I wrote the earlier post I was reminded of the Magdalene anointing Jesus with the precious oil, and Judas scolding her that the money could have been used for the poor, and Jesus (I imagine gently reminding) that "the poor you have with you always," a polite rebuke of Judas' position.

But we are talking of levels of degree. Surely you understand that a cathedral...pick one, any one, scattered across Europe...costs many multiple king's ransoms to build. Most took centuries...plural...to construct. That isn't pocket change.

On the one hand, I could see that as an expression of faith...OK. On the other hand, taking into consideration the period of time in which they were built, it wasn't optional. Dissent was not allowed. You either go along with the program, or you are on the outs (interpret that as you wish).

So I do understand what you are getting at...but it is a far, far higher level of degree; number one being essentially coerced into it, and number 2 quite a different matter than sweeping the floor, vacuuming the rug and making sure the toilet bowl is clean.

Each to his own.

Yes...I believe I said the same thing in different words.

Is it necessarily a need? I visit art galleries, I don't feel the need to ... but yes, I suppose I have heard people say "I need ...", and not in a religious sense, either. I think there's an element of the edifice as a fruit of inspiration ... of creating outside what one feels/sees/senses inside?

I don't know, you tell me why how many millions of believers were coerced (cajoled, duped, convinced) into building bigger and bigger cathedrals all across Europe...primarily though not exclusively in the predominantly Catholic parts of Europe?

Have to go for now, back later to address the rest