Posted on 12/08/2012 2:24:39 PM PST by NYer
The Renaissance (UK /rɨˈneɪsəns/, US /ˈrɛnɨsɑːns/, French pronunciation: [ʁənɛsɑ̃ːs], French: Renaissance, Original Italian: Rinascimento, from rinascere "to be reborn")[1] was a cultural movement that spanned the period roughly from the 14th to the 17th century, beginning in Italy in the Late Middle Ages and later spreading to the rest of Europe. Though availability of paper and the invention of metal movable type sped the dissemination of ideas from the later 15th century, the changes of the Renaissance were not uniformly experienced across Europe. As a cultural movement, it encompassed innovative flowering of Latin and vernacular literatures, beginning with the 14th-century resurgence of learning based on classical sources, which contemporaries credited to Petrarch, the development of linear perspective and other techniques of rendering a more natural reality in painting, and gradual but widespread educational reform. In politics the Renaissance contributed the development of the conventions of diplomacy, and in science an increased reliance on observation. Historians often argue this intellectual transformation was a bridge between the Middle Ages and the Modern era. Although the Renaissance saw revolutions in many intellectual pursuits, as well as social and political upheaval, it is perhaps best known for its artistic developments and the contributions of such polymaths as Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo, who inspired the term "Renaissance man".[2][3]
There is a consensus that the Renaissance began in Florence, Italy, in the 14th century.[4] Various theories have been proposed to account for its origins and characteristics, focusing on a variety of factors including the social and civic peculiarities of Florence at the time; its political structure; the patronage of its dominant family, the Medici;[5][6] and the migration of Greek scholars and texts to Italy following the Fall of Constantinople at the hands of the Ottoman Turks.[7][8][9]
The Renaissance has a long and complex historiography, and in line with general scepticism of discrete periodizations, there has been much debate among historians reacting to the 19th-century glorification of the "Renaissance" and individual culture heroes as "Renaissance men", questioning the usefulness of Renaissance as a term and as a historical delineation.
The new ideals of humanism, although more secular in some aspects, developed against a Christian backdrop, especially in the Northern Renaissance. Much, if not most, of the new art was commissioned by or in dedication to the Church.[16] However, the Renaissance had a profound effect on contemporary theology, particularly in the way people perceived the relationship between man and God.[16] Many of the period's foremost theologians were followers of the humanist method, including Erasmus, Zwingli, Thomas More, Martin Luther, and John Calvin.
The Renaissance began in times of religious turmoil. The late Middle Ages saw a period of political intrigue surrounding the Papacy, culminating in the Western Schism, in which three men simultaneously claimed to be true Bishop of Rome.[64] While the schism was resolved by the Council of Constance (1414), the 15th century saw a resulting reform movement known as Conciliarism, which sought to limit the pope's power. Although the papacy eventually emerged supreme in ecclesiastical matters by the Fifth Council of the Lateran (1511), it was dogged by continued accusations of corruption, most famously in the person of Pope Alexander VI, who was accused variously of simony, nepotism and fathering four illegitimate children whilst Pope, whom he married off to gain more power.[65]
Churchmen such as Erasmus and Luther proposed reform to the Church, often based on humanist textual criticism of the New Testament.[16] It was Luther who in October 1517 published the 95 Theses, challenging papal authority and criticizing its perceived corruption, particularly with regard to its sale of indulgences. The 95 Theses led to the Reformation, a break with the Roman Catholic Church that previously claimed hegemony in Western Europe. Humanism and the Renaissance therefore played a direct role in sparking the Reformation, as well as in many other contemporaneous religious debates and conflicts. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance#Religion)
The Magnificat is magnificent. Parallels the prayer of another holy women who saw a miraculous birth:
“And Hannah prayed, and said, My heart rejoiceth in the Lord, mine horn is exalted in the Lord: my mouth is enlarged over mine enemies; because I rejoice in thy salvation. There is none holy as the Lord: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God. Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your mouth: for the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed. The bows of the mighty men are broken, and they that stumbled are girded with strength. They that were full have hired out themselves for bread; and they that were hungry ceased: so that the barren hath born seven; and she that hath many children is waxed feeble. The Lord killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up. The Lord maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up. He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and he hath set the world upon them. He will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness; for by strength shall no man prevail. The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces; out of heaven shall he thunder upon them: the Lord shall judge the ends of the earth; and he shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn of his anointed. “ (1 Samuel 2:1-10)
It is the things that are not written that is the problem.
The Catholics vs Protestants variety is usually more interesting than Mormons vs Almost Everyone Else, as there are lots of posters on both sides as a result of Catholics not having gotten the en masse zot.
If I ever were to become a convert to Christianity, it would obviously be vital to my salvation to pick the right sect, and not mistakenly select one of all the others which are heretical....
.....but which is it????
Unfortunately, the wikipedia is a poor substitute for even a high school history teacher.
Peace be with you
I think you misunderstood me or have the wrong post. I have documented what you rightly are grieved at: http://peacebyjesus.tripod.com/ancients_on_scripture.html#Supplementary
For in the the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary, it is taught by Catholics*,
as Christ was sinless, so Mary was;
as the Lord remained a virgin, so Mary;
as Christ was called the Son of God, indicating ontological oneness, so Mary is called the Mother of God (which easily infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture);
as the emphasis is upon Christ as the Creator through whom God (the Father) made all things, including Mary, so it is emphasized that uniquely “to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood,” shed for the salvation of mankind, (the logic behind which can lead back to Eve);
as Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His actual flesh and blood to be eaten, so it is emphasized that Mary gave Him this, being fashioned out of Mary's pure blood and even being “kneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,” so that she can say, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5);
as Scripture declares that Christ suffered for our sins, so Mary is said to have done so also;
as Christ saves us from the condemnation and death resulting from the fault of Adam, so it is taught that man was condemned through the fault of Eve, the root of death, but that we are saved through the merits of Mary; who was the source of life for everyone.
as the Lord was bodily ascended into Heaven, so Mary also was;
as Christ is given all power in heaven and in earth, so Mary is “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven.”
as Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) so Mary is made Queen of Heaven and the greatest saint, and that “Next to God, she deserves the highest praise;”
as the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is enthroned (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things;
as Christ is highly exalted above all under the Father, so Mary is declared to be the greatest saint of all, and as having a certain equality with the Heavenly Father;
as Christ ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, so is Mary said to do so;
as all things come from the Father through the Son, so Mary is made to be the dispenser of all grace;
as Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, Mary is said to have (showing some restraint) “almost unlimited power;”
as no man comes to the Father but through the Son, so it is taught that no one can come to the Son except through Mary in Heaven;
and as the Lord called souls to come to Him to be given life and salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord;” “that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”
And as Christ is given many titles of honor, so Mary also is, except that she is honored with more titles than the Lord Himself.
Finally, although (technically) Mary is not to be worshiped in the same sense that God is worshiped, yet the distinctions between devotion to Mary and the worship of God are quite fine, and much due to the psychological appeal of a heavenly mother (especially among those for whom Scripture is not supreme), then the historical practice of Catholics has been to exalt Mary above that which is written, (1Cor. 4:6) and thus, "By the sixteenth century, as evidenced by the spiritual struggles of the Reformers, the image of Mary had largely eclipsed the centrality of Jesus Christ in the life of believers." (Robert C. Broderick, ed., The Catholic Encyclopedia, revised and updated; NY: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987, pp.32,33)
The practice of praying to departed saints and Mary was one that developed, helped by pagan influences, as while Scripture provides no example of any believer praying to anyone in Heaven by the Lord, this was a practice of pagans, including to the “Queen of Heaven.” (Jer. 44:17,18,19,25). The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that a further reinforcement of this idea, “was derived from the cult of the angels, which, while pre-Christian in its origin, was heartily embraced by the faithful of the sub-Apostolic age. It seems to have been only as a sequel of some such development that men turned to implore the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. This at least is the common opinion among scholars, though it would perhaps be dangerous to speak too positively. Evidence regarding the popular practice of the early centuries is almost entirely lacking...,” (Catholic Encyclopedia > Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary) but which it imagines came from the apostles — who never exampled or instructed it, but who instead showed that the believer has immediate access to God in the Divine Christ, (Heb. 10:19), who is the all sufficient and immediate intercessor between God (the Father) and man. (Heb. 2:17,18; 4:15,16) To the glory of God ^
End of story.
Which government was that?
I guess that had never ever happened before Luther. Oh, was it okay when it was a non-reformist Catholic who did it?
You’re good with history. Just pick Jesus’ denomination.
If it was necessary for Mary to be "free from sin" so Jesus' would not be compromised, then wouldn't the same logic hold for Mary's mother? Would she not have needed to be "from from sin" so that Mary would be free from sin, if it's necessary for Mary to be free from sin to have Jesus free from sin?
And also for Mary's mother's mother...mother's mother's mother....
The Immaculate Conception is all about Jesus. A pure womb for him in the Ark of the New Covenant.
Gutenberg had filled someone else's order first, but with the payment of more money he made some promises.
Those two were intensely involved in the issue of modern printing and spreading God's Word as cheaply and as far out into society as was possible.
BTW, Gutenberg had kind of fallen behind because he had a contract to print ready made indulgences ~ and that was hurting the copyists. This turned out to be a high risk business that penetrated into every nook and cranny of the European world of thought and letters ~ these guys were wild eyed revolutionaries. Think of Luther as a guy trying to hold back the future some time ~ good mind exercise.
Carvajal's assistant was later made Pope.
Carvajal also stopped schism in the Spanish church ~ Filippe had wanted to restrict mission work in the Americas to, I believe, the Jesuits. Carvajal wanted it opened up to ALL the orders and brotherhoods. By threatening schism, which would place Spain in the same boat as then France, and turn Carvajal into a Protestant of possibly a higher rank than later church officials (e.g. Luther, Calvin, etc.) Filippe relented as did the Cardinal.
I believe it was Carvajal's uncle who was executed in Peru for defying the authority of a new governor sent out from Spain. He also refused last rights rather giving a whole lot of folks the idea that he, like Pizarro and many other Conquistedores were, in fact, Protestants of some sort.
Guess they were, but Carvajal beat Henry IV to the punch in the 'Paris is worth a mass' ~ he gave America intrinsic worth beyond gold by stepping back from the brink.
Thanks to Carvajal's payments to Gutenberg, he and others were enabled to pursue this new industrial printing press and make it possible for even more folks to come up with their own personal interpretations off scripture.
Now, tell me Cardinal Carvajal and a Pope were wrong!
False. Long before 2001 no "leading psychological professionals," much less a consensus, would have held that pedophiles were "curable." I know. I was working in the trauma field long before 2001 myself and never met a competent ethical psychologist, much less a consensus, who thought this.
The catholic Church has done serious work to reform itself the last ten years or so but it still has much to answer for. Paying cynical hired gun "experts" to try to help itself legally was one grievously unethical act it has never repented. To this day coverups continue in dioceses all around the US.
The RC Church has still to completely "come clean." I know. I have treated (and still treat) its victims.
None of them because being right with God is all about Jesus not some rite, sect, or denomination. Jesus is not the sole property of any one of them and none of them has control over the forgiveness HE freely gives those who place their trust in Him.
This IS heresy to many, but salvation is not based on baptism, communion, confession to priests, membership in any church, or any other thing someone will try to convince you that you need to do.
Paul stated it succintly in Acts when the Philippian jailer asked him, "What must I do to be saved?"
Paul's answer....
Acts 16:31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
All you have to do with God is throw yourself on the mercy of the court and ask for forgiveness and God will grant it to you and you will have eternal life through Jesus.
You don't ever even have to darken the door of a church.
I have never heard that before.
My first inclination was to say *You CANNOT possibly be serious*, but I know you too well and know that you have it backed up.
How can otherwise intelligent people fall for such fantasies (or drivel - take your pick)?
End of story.
It's to pass judgment on the handiwork of God, placing themselves in the position of Judge.
Reproduction was God's plan for propagating the human race and sex is part of that.
I don't fully understand, (thank God) the Catholic churches twisted thinking on sex, but I'm glad to have never gone there.
Why did He need a pure womb? He came into a sin cursed world. He can handle contact with it.
Don't REALLY understand WHAT? Protestant objections to Catholicism? I was raised protestant and still attend services weekly to take an elderly relative who would be otherwise unable to attend. I understand charitable Catholic-Protestant dialogue and I understand the tactics used when EITHER side puffs itself up by mocking or misstating the other side's position. Articles such as the one I referred to have a target audience but it isn't the sincere Catholic who is versed in his/her faith. That is clear from the tone, the presentation of content, and the thinly (or not) veiled insults. We don't generally belittle those with whom we wish to sincerely engage in charitable conversation. How long do you listen when your political opponents misrepresent your positions or mock you? Same thing applies here.
I think you may be on to something about the knee jerk reaction though. I've heard one too many protestant sermons of late telling me that it's sufficient to KNOW what scripture says but amending my life to DO what scripture says is optional. Doesn't sit too well when some who are willing to set aside portions of scripture tell me I'm the one relying on loopholes and failing to adhere to Biblical teaching ;) Thanks be to God not all Protestants preach that message but it's the one I'm hearing of late.
Peace be with you.
The point remains that Luther's "wife" was not free to marry; she was a nun. She was just as much a "wife" to Luther as the San Francisco poofters are "wives" to one another.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.