|
NikkolasKing posted:Now I'm no expert but the history lectures and stuff I've been listening to lately say that, while there was definite corruption and abuses going on, there were people trying to change things even before Luther.This guy for one. maybe the lame un-fun Catholics don't like him, but we cool Catholics think he was the poo poo, and also his Latin was absolutely gorgeous: the Wikipedia mention of his "pure Latin style" is spot-on
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:maybe the lame un-fun Catholics don't like him, but we cool Catholics think he was the poo poo, and also his Latin was absolutely gorgeous: the Wikipedia mention of his "pure Latin style" is spot-on
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Now I'm no expert but the history lectures and stuff I've been listening to lately say that, while there was definite corruption and abuses going on, there were people trying to change things even before Luther.This guy for one. It's a matter of some debate as to how much the Church would have cleaned itself up and how fast had it not been for the Reformation. Luther was essentially the right guy at the right time. Aside from the corruption and doctrinal issues, the German princes wanted to be free of Roman domination, and Luther was their ticket. My opinion is that the Church had no appreciation whatever for how bitterly resented they were becoming and would not have reformed itself very quickly nor effectively on its own. If Luther hadn't shown up, someone else within a few years would have set it all off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:how bitterly resented they were becoming
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:cite this "German Money for a German Church"
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:this
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Maybe it's the desktop icons that make the difference. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
 but seriously, as i understand it the late middle ages were characterized by vibrant popular piety and while in a lot of areas people wanted the different religion in a lot of other areas they resisted it. you can't just talk about "corruption" and "resentment" and the renaissance popes owned
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:
Thousands of people were immediately willing to take up arms against the Roman Church. Luther certainly tapped into something. If you don't like "resentment" feel free to call it something else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
actually on this subject have any of y'all read Eamon Duffy's The Stripping of the Altars? it's essentially a book-long refutation of the "medieval Church was distant from its people" line that's popular in American and British readings of history. he focuses on normal people's experience of religion in England, but it's some really good stuff. it's also clear that he is a very very bitter Irish Catholic
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:actually on this subject have any of y'all read Eamon Duffy's The Stripping of the Altars? it's essentially a book-long refutation of the "medieval Church was distant from its people" line that's popular in American and British readings of history. he focuses on normal people's experience of religion in England, but it's some really good stuff. it's also clear that he is a very very bitter Irish Catholic The Reformation was less about doctrine and more about politics. The resentment was against the Church as a governing authority, primarily. Rome was seen as extravagant and corrupt, while levying crippling taxes and selling indulgences indiscriminately. Most people seemed to be cool with their local parish. It was what it stood for (a distant, indifferent and money-grubbing despot) that pissed people off. Hence the "German Money for a German Church" rallying cry. They wanted to sever political ties with Rome, fundamentally. It all gets tied up with nationalism and local identity politics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:It's amazing how the Orthodox in this thread have good taste while the rest have bad taste So if I jumped ship to the Melkite/Maronite/Byzantine Rite would that mean I have good taste in bad things or bad taste in good things?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:It's also important to note Luther didn't set out to splinter the Church, he wanted to reform it from within. Deteriorata posted:Most people seemed to be cool with their local parish. It was what it stood for (a distant, indifferent and money-grubbing despot) that pissed people off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Thirteen Orphans posted:So if I jumped ship to the Melkite/Maronite/Byzantine Rite would that mean I have good taste in bad things or bad taste in good things? Good taste about bad things
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:Good taste about bad things Ah I can hear the monk on Athos now "...and the abominable Latins have taken the trappings of the Good and Holy Orthodox Church and forced it into spiritual poverty by the acceptance of Marian heresies and calendars foreign to the Fathers, not to mention the complete kowtowing to the farcical head of the Latins, the so-called Bishop of Rome." Thirteen Orphans fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Nov 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
The original goal of the changes in England were ONLY to remove the authority of the Pope and this was broadly supported in England. During his reign, Henry prevented his ministers from altering the doctrines of the Church in England. It's not hard to see that there was a decent amount of resentment, particularly among the emerging middle classes and nobility, against the corruptions of the Church and its leadership. Also I think it was some 150 posts ago but Arsenic Lupin pointed out that my post on Anglicanism was from a perspective other than what you'd get at TEC's General Synod... yeah, so you can consider my perspective more international and the nitty-gritty details are usually about Canada where I've chatted with folks who were at the synod in 75 (my priest and one parishioner were both there as delegates and have spoken to issues such as the arguments used (this is an issue of social justice/equality!) and the fact that the doctrinal change was put through using procedural technicalities to prevent opponents from doing much of anything, possibly to the point that some opponents were discouraged from voting (by holding the vote when they weren't present) and that today this has been acknowledged which is why, as I mentioned, there is a huge emphasis on process with the same-sex marriage vote (which will pass regardless) because they know there's going to be a lot of opposition as it is and they don't want to stir up the same level of opposition and that was caused by the procedural tomfoolery). To give some perspective on this, since it's been 40 years now since the ordination of women was authorized in Canada. In 1975, the prevailing view after the vote was passed was that within 25 years it would be a normative practice throughout the Anglican world, along with all mainline protestant denominations. Evangelical protestants would be debating it with some adopting it. The Catholic Church would be on the verge of adopting it and the orthodox would be starting to discuss it. 40 years later, it remains divisive in Anglicanism, Rome and the Orthodox, if anything, have hardened their positions against it, and the groundswell of support that was expected among protestants hasn't particularly developed aside from possibly in some mainline protestent denominations? But yeah, all that to say, I clearly have my own perspective where I'm coming from. Some of what I gave (ie the stuff on Henry) is pretty much undisputed fact, but certainly there's room for interpretation of what's been going on in the politics of the Anglican Communion. AL may have had some quibbles with the timeline of events I presented. Either I was wrong or the events in question were omitted because they didn't cause enough waves to make global changes. Maybe one thing to recall is that while The Episopal Church has always been a tiny minority of the worldwide Anglican Communion (Less than 5%) the average member of the Episcopal Church is Bill Gates compared to the average Anglican. TEC gives tonnes of money to the global south Anglicans, and when they started changing doctrines, there were a lot of people who were worried either that they were going to cut off money if the south raised a stink or they were going to use their financial clout to somehow push their doctrinal changes on the global south. None of that has particularly happened, but it's something I probably should have mentioned as to why the US (despite being tiny in terms of number of members) carries as much influence in the Anglican Communion as it does. ACC is mentioned purely because I have more knowledge about the ACC and because it tends to get lumped in with the US since we tend to make the same changes a year or so later and because the Diocese of New Westminster was, I think, at the forefront of same-sex blessings when the Anglican Communion was calling for a moratorium to allow everyone to discuss the issue before anyone made any decisions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:actually on this subject have any of y'all read Eamon Duffy's The Stripping of the Altars? it's essentially a book-long refutation of the "medieval Church was distant from its people" line that's popular in American and British readings of history. he focuses on normal people's experience of religion in England, but it's some really good stuff. it's also clear that he is a very very bitter Irish Catholic It's got some great research about the nature of pre-reformation English Christianity, but there's a really irritating layer of circular logic running through it. Basically all signs of piety are interpreted as an endorsement of the religious status quo. This reaches a bizarre level when Duffy claims that the popularity of an English biography of Jesus were evidence that people didn't want a vernacular gospel (because they were buying the biographies so they must have been happy with them). Also, and it's a small quibble, but he's very keen on repeating this fallacy that pre-reformation churches were technicolour artistic wonderlands, before the reformers came over and stripped everything out. You definitely do get bursts of iconoclasm, most notably during the reign of little Edward, but even then, its usually easy to see where the smashed statuary was, and more remains than was damaged. Likewise very little stained glass came to harm during the height of reformation iconoclasm. Certainly the damage done to medieval art was less than that caused by the refitting of European churches during the counter-reformation, by a huge factor. This isn't counting, of course, the wholesale destruction of monasteries, which definitely entailed the loss of a vast treasury of art and architecture. But the monasteries were essentially non-functional at the time of dissolution, because English vocations had dwindled so disastrously. This fact is skimmed over by Duffy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:It's a matter of some debate as to how much the Church would have cleaned itself up and how fast had it not been for the Reformation. Luther was essentially the right guy at the right time. Aside from the corruption and doctrinal issues, the German princes wanted to be free of Roman domination, and Luther was their ticket. so is luther the OP, or is he the guy who comes into a mod's thread and writes a scathing FRIST POTS lmao owned (ps CARDINALS KNEW) e: Actually I have a real question too. Do any of you Catholics or history nerds know of any issues with the Catholic Church where there was a trend in society and the church did an initial reactionary tightening of policy which was then subsequently relaxed? I'm curious if there are any parallels that might point to the current obsession with restrictive policies toward women and queer people being kind of a "fad" that will change once the real fire-breathers wear themselves out. Lutha Mahtin fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Nov 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:so is luther the OP, or is he the guy who comes into a mod's thread and writes a scathing FRIST POTS lmao owned (ps CARDINALS KNEW) Cremation is a prime example. When people in the West started, the Church took a big stand against it, but then said, "As long as you aren't denying or trying to prevent the Resurrection of the Body (which was explicitly why some were doing it), cremation is not ideal, but acceptable." Thirteen Orphans fucked around with this message at 14:51 on Nov 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
Do Catholic monasteries/orders regularly get funding from the church's general treasuries?
Baron Porkface fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Nov 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:so is luther the OP, or is he the guy who comes into a mod's thread and writes a scathing FRIST POTS lmao owned (ps CARDINALS KNEW) Luther was merely the most successful of a line of forum trolls who took it upon themselves to effortpost about reforming the Church in the face of mods closing the threads and permabanning the early reformers. Despite being a pretty good poster overall, his success largely built on the efforts of earlier, banned reformers. Luther was effective in starting the Reformation largely due to messy forums politics (both internal and externally) and the recent invention of Twitter, which allowed him to spread his heretical posting and ideas at unprecedented speed and to a much wider audience than any of his predecessors. Then he got drunk and started poo poo posting angry rants about Jews.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Luther was merely the most successful of a line of forum trolls who took it upon themselves to effortpost about reforming the Church in the face of mods closing the threads and permabanning the early reformers. im permabanned poster poperstomper95. i first started reading ephesians when i was about 12. by 14 i got really obsessed with the concept of “grace” and tried to channel it constantly, until my thought process got really bizarre and i would repeat things like “i got your good works right here pal” and “i love making GBS threads inside the pope's hat” in my head for hours, and i would get really paranoid, start seeing things in the corners of my eyes etc, basically beer-induced schizophrenia. im now on a diet of worms. i always wondered what the kind of “ironic” style of latin humor was all about; i think it’s the unconscious leaking in to the conscious, what jungian theory considered to be the cause of schizophrenic and schizotypal syptoms. i would advise all people who “get” latin to be careful because that likely means you have a predisposition to wearing silly robes. peace.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
friday night lutherpostin
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:i would advise all people who “get” latin to be careful because that likely means you have a predisposition to wearing silly robes. peace. as someone whose life is sad enough to have acquired a fluent reading knowledge of latin, this is one hundred percent the truth
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Actually I have a real question too. Do any of you Catholics or history nerds know of any issues with the Catholic Church where there was a trend in society and the church did an initial reactionary tightening of policy which was then subsequently relaxed? I'm curious if there are any parallels that might point to the current obsession with restrictive policies toward women and queer people being kind of a "fad" that will change once the real fire-breathers wear themselves out. Well, obviously the church's dogma does not change. But with that in mind, I just read an article about how the teaching about whether the state should enforce Catholicism as the only ok religion has basically changed 180 degrees between the 19th century and Vatican 2: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/08/conscience-and-coercion I imagine this happened: nation-states arise and become secular -> church doubles down -> 100 years pass -> church gives up, or maybe the people at Vatican 2 were themselves members of a generation to whom the idea of state coerced religion was repulsive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
EVERY MORNING I WAKE UP AND OPEN PALM SLAM A TOME INTO THE LECTERN. IT’S THE BOOK IF HOURS AND RIGHT THEN AND THERE I START DOING THE PRAYERS ALONGSIDE WITH THE MAIN CHARACTER, CHRIST. I DO EVERY PRAYER AND I DO EVERY PRAYER HARD. MAKIN ALLELUIAH SOUNDS WHEN I SLAM DOWN SOME "LORD HAVE MERCY"S OR EVEN WHEN I MESS UP THE PSALM. NOT MANY CAN SAY THEY SANG CHRISTENDOM'S MOST PIOUS HYMNS. I CAN. I SAY IT AND I SAY IT OUTLOUD EVERYDAY TO PEOPLE IN MY SEMINARY CLASS AND ALL THEY DO IS PROVE PEOPLE IN SEMINARY CLASS CAN STILL BE IMMATURE JEKRS. AND IVE LEARNED ALL THE LINES AND IVE LEARNED HOW TO MAKE MYSELF AND MY CHURCH LESS LONELY BY SHOUTING EM ALL. 9 HOURS INCLUDING WIND DOWN EVERY MORNIng
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 11:02
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Do Catholic monasteries/orders regularly get funding from the church's general treasuries? They are almost universally self-sufficient either through the jobs the members do, like a Jesuit teacher, goods produced, like Holy Cross Abbey's creamed honey, or donations to the organization.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 12:41
|
|
|
'm looking for a church, it cant be rosea (that's Latin for pink) or any girl color. It has to be of 2 or more capsa (that's Latin for 2 compartments) and has be be minusculus (small) sized. And has to be really bellus (cute). Also It has to be about 10-20 bux. And you have to post pics of it first (i want to make shure it's bellus [cute]). And it would be nice if it came with matching incense holder (WITH incense). OH! and it CANNOT have any cartoon pictures, or be made out of plastic. It has to be made of ceramic, or something like that. Also it would be nice if it was made in rome. and not in china or corea (Korea) or whatever. I have found a church similar to the one im describing in istanbul, but it was 1 capsa, and i don't want my filioque (rice) to touch my other things (it can get wet and i would not like that, plus 2 compartments looks more bellus) -- Orthodoxy is the cool place to hang out. You can find most of the cool people there. In Orthodoxy you can just chill and do whatever and totally relax. "ἡσυχασμός" is the Orthodox motto, for example, that's how laid back it is there. Show up if you want to have a good time. Another good reason to show up is if you want to hang out with friends."
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
So here is something that has always confused me and I got reminded of it when doing a Google search on the most popular books in The Bible. It was a Top 10 list and 8 were in the NT and the only OT books featured were Genesis and Psalms. What exactly do Christians take away from the Old Testament? Even a poster or two earlier in here suggested I just skip to the NT because most of the OT isn't relevant. And while this is characteristic of laymen perhaps, a lot of people I've talked to over the years say there is a severe disconnect in the portrayal of God from the OT t NT. This idea has existed since t he founding of Christianity, apparently. I know that, ostensibly, the Old Testament exists to "validate" Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. But Modern Christians couldn't care less about that. So what is its purpose here and today to the various churches you all belong to?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:I know that, ostensibly, the Old Testament exists to "validate" Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. But Modern Christians couldn't care less about that. So what is its purpose here and today to the various churches you all belong to? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typology_(theology)
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
Crossposting.pidan posted:OK please show me the parts of the core teachings of Christianity, Buddhism, or even Judaism where it says to convert or kill unbelievers. pidan, I didn't want to address this in the terrorism in Paris thread since there's enough people completely missing the loving point without me joining in on the religion talk, but I imagine the thread regulars might be better suited to pointing out in a non-confrontational way the ways Christianity can be twisted to the same ends Islam ends up being twisted for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
my dad posted:Crossposting. In short, in most cases Christianity and Islam alike are used as excuses by people filled with hatred and fear to say "But I'm not a bad guy!" Any ideology can be twisted to suit the needs of the angry, the fearful, the greedy, the disaffected, or the hopeless. Or indeed anything people feel that they need an ideology to back up. Islam and Christianity are nothing special in that regard, and there are plenty of examples I could point to of secular ideologies practicing "convert or kill unbelievers" mentalities. You're missing the forest for the trees.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Christianity: "I come not to bring peace but a sword," "if they right eye offend God, pluck it out," King David killing literally everyone he can get his hands on. Abortion clinic bombers, far right terrorism in the US, that nutjob out in the middle of nowhere who got into an armed standoff over his land, they all twist Christianity to suit their violent ends. That last dude accrued followers from all over the US and they were planning to use noncombatants as human shields before the feds backed down. Judaism: the dude who killed Rabin was a right wing Jew, and everyone who knows him now treats him as a hero. Islam is also responsible for some of the most beautiful things humans have created, and great science and learning. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Nov 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
my dad posted:I imagine the thread regulars might be better suited to pointing out in a non-confrontational way the ways Christianity can be twisted to the same ends Islam ends up being twisted for. Then there's the Nth Crusade where Christian Europeans sacked Christian Jerusalem, because it was just lying around and the residents weren't using it. People suck. People who are sure God is on their side suck even more. The late-c19 anarchist terrorists also sucked, so it's not restricted to people motivated by religion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:HEY GAL is researching that period and can fill you in on all of the truly depressing details.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:So here is something that has always confused me and I got reminded of it when doing a Google search on the most popular books in The Bible. It was a Top 10 list and 8 were in the NT and the only OT books featured were Genesis and Psalms. The Old Testament doesn't 'exist to' validate Jesus; it does that, but only because Jesus guided the apostles and others of the disciples into seeing how. Judeans weren't walking around with a checklist ticking off prophecies as Jesus accomplished them, after all. The Old Testament records how God made covenants with his people (in a sense, how he set up their inheritance, if you think of testament in the "directions for disposing of an estate" sense), it provides us with hymns and poems about God and the world, and it describes people chosen as spokesmen for God who made promises on God's behalf - things like "God remembers you and has a plan to save you from your distress". Folks suggested you skip to the NT not because the OT is irrelevant but because if you try to read it from Gn 1:1 to Rev 22:21 you'll get overwhelmed, and also be prone to think that because something is described as happening that means God approved of it and then get annoyed at 'contradictions' when God is described as disapproving of things that happened earlier. People named Psalms as the book of the OT they read most often because nobody even remembers that the book of Habbakuk exists, not because Psalms is better or more important than the rest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:So here is something that has always confused me and I got reminded of it when doing a Google search on the most popular books in The Bible. It was a Top 10 list and 8 were in the NT and the only OT books featured were Genesis and Psalms. If you stipulate "Jesus was an important guy" and just read the NT, you can get the gist of what Christianity is all about. If you want to understand why Jesus was an important guy, you need to read the OT.Jesus was a Jew, growing up in Judea in the 1st Century AD. Understanding who he was, who he was talking to, what it meant to them at the time and consequently how we can translate that to what he might say to us, today, requires understanding the OT.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:hahahahah oh right, I forgot! A fourth to a third of Germany died! Dude, and I thought I had memory problems. (I do. Thanks, zonohedron posted:People named Psalms as the book of the OT they read most often because nobody even remembers that the book of Habbakuk exists, not because Psalms is better or more important than the rest. To be fair, some bits of the OT are just plain more fun, doctrinal necessity or not. For great poetry, check out the Song of Songs; for great philosophy check out my main man, Ecclesiastes; and for romance novel values, check out Ruth or Esther, which is where the Dance of the Seven Veils comes from. Arsenic Lupin fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Nov 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
my dad posted:pidan, I didn't want to address this in the terrorism in Paris thread since there's enough people completely missing the loving point without me joining in on the religion talk, but I imagine the thread regulars might be better suited to pointing out in a non-confrontational way the ways Christianity can be twisted to the same ends Islam ends up being twisted for. Hi! I apologize for contributing to the derail of the Paris thread, it wasn't the right place or time for doing the is-Islam-inherently-violent dance for the hundredth time. I realize that Christianity or almost any other belief system can be used to justify violence, and I'm definitely aware of Europe's history of religious wars. I think those wars were based on the following argument: People are believing a wrong thing, we need to stop them from believing the wrong thing, because their wrong belief undermines our authority as people who know what the right thing to believe is. And this argument can be used with literally any belief. But I think that Christianity is peaceful at its heart. There is no description of Jesus killing people, ordering or endorsing the killing of people. Instead, he forgives the people who torture and kill him. I'm aware that many Christian leaders have believed that God supports their wars, but I think this belief is not supported by the religion's core teachings. Just to say here what I said in the other thread as well: There are many valid interpretations of Islam that are not violent at all. I just think that the violent interpretations are also valid, in a way that they aren't in other religions. pidan fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Nov 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
is it possible that your beliefs about what islam's core teachings are are wrong edit: a lot of smart people honestly believed that the core of christianity's teachings were violent in the early modern period HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Nov 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 17:32
|
|