[tradjazzman]

Of course I meant Henry v111 of England , thank God for him , if there is a god... tradjazzman

[TUT317]

I think we attribute too much to any one person(s), whether it be Henry v111 or Luther. The wheels of change were already set in motion with the advent of the Reformation. Luther and Henry were important historical people of the time but they did not have the power to bring down any church, regardless of their motives.

The RCC decline in power was a result of a completely revolutionary way of thinking. Going was the old Aristotelian world view.It was being replaced by a scientific approach to nature, politics and theology.

When Luther claimed that every individual had an immediate relationship to God he was expressing a new world view. Based on this liberal approach to theology, such things as a persons relationship with God being mediated through the church hierarchy became unacceptable to some.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the Protestant Reformation and the scientific revolution went hand in hand.


Tut

[paraclete]

I don't think it is a coincidence that the Protestant Reformation and the scientific revolution went hand in hand.


Tut

I think if you check it out the Age of Enlightenment was a little later than the Reformation, perhaps you mean the Renaissince.

An institution such as the RCC is slow to change, even 500 years after the Reformation it stills holds, or more accurately clings, to it's traditions. The Reformation held no scientific view, it was about man's relationship to God, whereas the scientific view is that man has no need of God

[dwashbur]

I think if you check it out the Age of Enlightenment was a little later than the Reformation, perhaps you mean the Renaissince.

An institution such as the RCC is slow to change, even 500 years after the Reformation it stills holds, or more accurately clings, to it's traditions. The Reformation held no scientific view, it was about man's relationship to God, whereas the scientific view is that man has no need of God

True, but an argument could be made (not saying I'm making it, just tossing it out for consideration) that the wheels were set in motion by folks like Copernicus et al, ideas that challenged some of the RCC's established teachings like the earth as the center of the universe. Such things could have set the stage, in a way, for the Reformation; by that time, all it needed was a catalyst, and Luther provided that.

Again, just an idea that came to me and I figured I'd put it on the table for discussion if anybody's interested.

[TUT317]

True, but an argument could be made (not saying I'm making it, just tossing it out for consideration) that the wheels were set in motion by folks like Copernicus et al, ideas that challenged some of the RCC's established teachings like the earth as the center of the universe. Such things could have set the stage, in a way, for the Reformation; by that time, all it needed was a catalyst, and Luther provided that.

Again, just an idea that came to me and I figured I'd put it on the table for discussion if anybody's interested.

Hello paraclete,


I think most people would be willing to attribute a minimalist interpretation to the Protestant Reformation and Science. That is to say the Reformation broke the medieval ecclesiastical control over European thought.

I would want to go further with this explanation. Therefore I would agree with dwashbur's account.

Regards

[arcura]

dwashbur,
Thanks for putting that ion the table for discussion.
I hope to see some on that.
Fred

[paraclete]

ideas that challenged some of the RCC's established teachings like the earth as the center of the universe. .

Thanks for reminding us that the flat Earth society is still in operation in Rome.

[arcura]

paraclete,
That's news to me. Who is saying that the earth is flat?
It surely is not the pope or the magisterium of The Church.
So who?
Thanks,
Fred

[paraclete]

paraclete,
That's news to me. Who is saying that the earth is flat?
It surely is not the pope or the magisterium of The Church.
So who?
Thanks,
Fred

Fred the Flat Earth Society refers to people who hold views which don't conform to the facts, that is their traditions bind them up.

[TUT317]

paraclete,
That's news to me. Who is saying that the earth is flat?
It surely is not the pope or the magisterium of The Church.
So who?
Thanks,
Fred

Interesting question.

Aristotle proposed that the solar system was composed of perfect crystalline spheres with the Earth being at the centre of the solar system.
Planetary motion was explained as the work of the unmoved mover.

Some of Ptolemy's ideas were later added to help explain the motion of planets. I could stand correct but I think it was Ptolemy who worked out the circumference of the earth to within two or three thousand miles. This was about 100 A.D

So great was Aristotle's "world view' that during the Middle Ages theology also reflected this idea. Aristotle's unmoved mover became an important philosophical/theological concept during this time.

The idea of the earth being flat had always been around in ancient times. Did people believed the world was flat during the formation of Christian ideas? I don't know. Scholars such as Aquinas would have accepted that the Earth was round.

Tut

[arcura]

I was asking that because I thought that paraclete was referring to The Church of members therein who believed the world was flat.
I thought that was rather odd considering the fact the worlds first observatory was established and built by the Vatican.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[paraclete]

I was asking that because I thought that paraclete was referring to The Church of members therein who believed the world was flat.
I thought that was rather odd considering the fact the worlds first observatory was established and built by the Vatican.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I think it is time to get us back on topic
Luther didn't start with the intention of creating a new Church. What he obviously wanted was reform within the Church and a return to true Christian values.
The Church in Luther's time apparently and obviously held many incorrect views, this is typified by their persecution of Luther himself, Copernicus, Kepler, Galleilo as well as the Inquisition and their persecution of the Jews, and the excessive trade in relics and indulgences. The Church had become what Christ had described as a den of thieves when he purged the Temple and Luther would have been mindful of that.
There is a view that they have moved on from these times but the problems being experienced by the Church today are in fact issues that the Church has failed to deal with for centuries. They are in fact a flat Earth Society failing to see what is right in front of them. There is no refuge in apostlic succession, if you are wrong, you are wrong, whether that is the basis for salvation or false doctrine

[TUT317]

I think it is time to get us back on topic
Luther didn't start out with the intention of creating a new Church. What he obviously wanted was reform within the Church and a return to true Christian values.
The Church in Luther's time apparently and obviously held many incorrect views, this is typified by their persecution of Luther himself, Copernicus, Kepler, Galleilo as well as the Inquisition and their persecution of the Jews, and the excessive trade in relics and indulgences. The Church had become what Christ had described as a den of thieves when he purged the Temple and Luther would have been mindful of that.
There is a view that they have moved on from these times but the problems being experienced by the Church today are in fact issues that the Church has failed to deal with for centuries. They are in fact a flat Earth Society failing to see what is right in front of them. There is no refuge in apostlic succession, if you are wrong, you are wrong, whether that is the basis for salvation or false doctrine

Hello Paraclete,

Very impressive summation in my view (for what my view is worth).

I think I can see what you are getting at.

It could be seen that the RCC was the 'first church' because of an unbroken philosophical/theological tradition which started with the Ancient Greeks and goes through to modern times. As far as the RCC Church is concerned, Aristotelian philosophy is still as relevant today as it was then. Of course there have been additions/subtractions to Aristotle's original works, notably by Medieval scholars. This claim requires greater explanation, but this is not possible at the moment.

The most striking example of an 'about face' by the church was the eventual acceptance of a heliocentric solar system. Interestingly enough there is no reference in the Bible to an earth centred solar system. It was no doubt the result of an 'addition' to Biblical facts.

So why was Copernicus treated so badly by the Church? Probably because it was a challenge to the Church's authority on ALL MATTERS, not just religious. Was it William Pitt who said something along the lines that power corrupts absolutely, but absolute power corrupts absolutely?

The interesting thing about philosophy before and during this period was that it represented an all encompassing theory. In other words, philosophers and theologians set out to explain both heaven and earth within one consistent epistemology(theory of knowledge).

What people such as Luther were stressing was that this is not possible. There is more than one theory of knowledge. Aristotle and subsequent theologians were wrong when it came to explanations of the physical world. Science can explain the physical world better than theology. From my point of view theology can explain the non-physical world.

However, this was not what needed changing. What needed changing was a theology which purported to cover everything, physical and non-physical. Eventually such theology/philosophy became outmoded As witnessed by the plurality of different religions today.

To hang on to the idea that one theology can criticize the physical world as being 'too liberal' is to make the same mistake as those who persecuted Galileo.



Tut

[paraclete]

Hello Paraclete,

Aristotelian philosophy is still as relevant today as it was then.

Tut

I think this is where the Church went wrong. We are followers of Christ, not Aristotle. The Bible is not about greek logic but something entirely different and if you try to apply that logic you will become confused and ultimately heretical. The statements of Jesus are completely illogical if viewed from Aristotle's stance because they stem from an entirely different curtural background. Even the jews had difficulty with what Jesus was saying. By the time of Luther the Church had migrated far away from its beginnings and was relying on a doctrine of works. It had become corrupt. Luther challenged this doctrine of works and in doing so challenged papual authority because the pope in error was promolgating this doctrine. Because he did this publicly Luther was ultimately declared a heretic but in fact the heretical teachings came from the pope.

[JoeT777]

I think it fair to say that some here are 'bible-only,' that is to say; the bible is their infallible rule of faith. More times than not, those who hold to this principle read the bible literally. When we do so, many verses in the Old Testament would lead to the conclusion that the universe revolves around the earth or that the earth flat.

Now, when the subject of the Galileo vs. the Church comes up, the same self-styled literalists complain that the Pope was unfair insisting on a literal reading of Scripture. What ridicule they heaped on the Church for pushing doctrine over holy Science, but of course without considering the hypocrisy of the argument. This is especially egregious when they don't know the facts surrounding Galileo's censure, for that matter what he was really charged with – it seems many love a sensational story as opposed to truth. As you know, story revolves around the Copernican theory (the pun was intended). There is a bit of irony in the story; not only was Copernicus an astronomer, he was also a Catholic cleric.

Galileo published Discourse on Floating Bodies in 1612 along with a book on sunspots in 1613. The first claim that the Copernican theory was heretical was raised by the Grand Duchess Christina at a banquet citing scripture. The Duchess was the wife of the Grand Duke Cosimo de Medic. Galileo later circulated a letter saying scripture should not be taken so laterally. The conversation was picked-up by a Dominican priest Tommaso Caccini who, from the pulpit, suggested that the Copernican theory should be declared heretical. Father Caccini's denunciation pointed to Joshua commanding the sun to stand still at Ajalon. The Copernican theory doesn't permit the motion of the celestial bodies to stop, thus it was heretical; so much for astronomical acumen of Dominican priests. In any event Father Caccini complained to the Roman Inquisition stating that mathematicians along with Galileo should be banished from Christendom. The complaint against Galileo included that he engaged in publishing his private interpretation of Scripture. The charges were summarily dismissed by the Inquisition in February 1615. Cardinal Bellarmine wrote in the summary that the Copernican theory was yet to be proven and until such time should not be applied to interpretation of Scripture.

Case closed? Not exactly. In December that same year Galileo unwisely decided to visit friends in Rome. And, like most men with a new toy (the telescope) and a bright idea (the Copernican theory) he went about town troubling the aristocracy with the idea that their secure position in the center of the cosmos had just been usurped and replaced with as an insignificant rock. Consequently the Pope, Paul V called for a formal decision on Copernican theory in February of 1616. Don't forget, at this time there was still little separation from the natural sciences and theology. So a committee of eleven theologians and one natural scientist, and a mathematician, pronounced that the Copernican theory was nonsense; after all everyone knew that man and his planet were at the center of the universe.

Cardinal Bllarmine, a renowned Catholic apologist tried to intervene knowing that if the Copernican theory was later found correct, it would put the Church in an untenable position of defending a position that is contrary to nature – the Church has held, from the time of Christ, through Peter, that what is true in nature is, in some way, a revelation of nature's creator. As a result of this verdict, Galileo's book was put on the index of Forbidden Books. Cardinal Bellarmine convinced the Congregation of the Index of Forbidden Books to stop circulation until a new preface was written simply stating that the theory was not proven. As insurance that Galileo would follow through, the jurists insisted on a document prohibiting Galileo from teaching his new theory. Much later this document appeared stating that Galileo had been enjoined from teaching the theory in any way. Since it was dated February 1616 it is presumed to be the back-up if he failed to follow through with re-writing the preface of his book.

As any good Catholic Galileo submitted himself to censure. In an audience with Pope Paul V, Galileo was assured support “discouraged and disappointed, but not defeated”, he went to Venice which was his home, where he continued his work freely until 1624.

Publishing his book The Assayer Galileo advocated the atomic theory for the composition of matter. Wisely he avoided the mentioning the Copernican theory. Even still, he was attacked by overzealous critics who saw this theory as an attack on transubstantiation. In 1624, Pope Urban VIII, successor to Paul V stated “that the Church had never declared the works of Copernicus to be heretical and would not do so,“ but added “a proof of its truth would ever be forthcoming.” Encouraged, Galileo wrote Dialogue on the Two Great World Systems in 1632 to provide that proof. Looking for an imprimatur, the book was given to the Inquisitor. Father Riccardi said that the Dialogue focused on “the mathematical examination of the Copernican position on the earth's motion, with the aim of proving that, if we remove divine revelation and sacred doctrine, the appearances could be saved with this supposition…so that one would never be admitting the absolute truth of this opinion, but only its hypothetical truth without the benefit of scripture.” Again, bull headedly Galileo continued to insist that his theory was an absolute.

The Dialogue was published by coincidence at the worst possible time, the Thirty years War was raging in Bavaria and the Protestants had succeeded in expelling Jesuits and winning several battles. This forced Pope Urban VIII to prove his orthodoxy and turned on Galileo because of Jesuit denouncement of the Dialogue. This is when the “back-up” injunction was “found.” In any event Galileo was deposed twice in front of the Inquisition on the charge of disobeying the mysteriously reappearing injunction. The charges were eventually dropped, however he was censured for being “vehemently suspected of heresy”. For teaching the heliocentric theories, the Dialogue was banned by the Index for more than 200-years. Galileo was required to make a public abjuration and was placed under house arrest. Petro Redondi said that “this heresy was inquisitorial – that is, disciplinary, not theological or doctrinal – both according to the words of the manuals of criminal heresiology”. In short, Galileo was found guilty of disobedience, not of heresy. (Source: Warren H. Carroll, The Cleaving of Christendom, 2000.)

So today the literalist accuses the Church teaching by allegory as opposed to 'the Word of God'?

JoeT

[dwashbur]

Joe,
Excellent summary! Consider yourself greened, since the system won't let me give you one until I spread the love around a little more.

I would just take minor issue with one statement early in your treatise:

"I think it fair to say that some here are ‘bible-only,’ that is to say; the bible is their infallible rule of faith. More times than not, those who hold to this principle read the bible literally."

My objection is to the phrase "more times than not." There are plenty of us who are not of that camp, and frankly some of us are embarrassed by them. The situation isn't necessarily that they are the majority of Bible-only-ers, but rather that they're the ones who make the most noise. As I said, a minor quibble. In fact, that may well have come from Sir Nitpick rather than from me; too much Vicodin at the moment makes it difficult for me to tell!

Again, thanks for that excellent summary of the Galileo matter; I don't think I've ever seen it set so fully in its historical context before, and I learned a lot.

[arcura]

JoeT,
Thanks much for that history lesson. It filled in gaps of my knowledge on the subject.
Like dwashbur I learned a lot.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[TUT317]

So today the literalist accuses the Church teaching by allegory as opposed to ‘the Word of God’?

JoeT

Joe, this is exactly what Aquinas was doing.

Aquinas spoke of the Holy Spirit as the author of the Bible, but he also paid careful attention to the literary and linguistic aspects of the Bible. He regarded all theology as 'scientific'

Tut