Posted on 08/13/2024 8:48:00 AM PDT by OneVike
Article is posted in full, but any complimentary hits to my website would be appreciated, and any comments posted to my website I promise to respond to. The reason For My Faith
Bump for later - looks like a great read !
Thank you!
“It would be just west of the Azores that Pope Alexander VI would draw the “Line of Demarcation” from the North Pole to the South Pole and give everything west of the line to Spain and everything east to Portugal”
And the land he claimed to own still causes trouble to this day since this was Spain’s claim to what would become the West of the United States. Protestant Anglo-Saxons didn’t really think much of the Catholic Pope arrogating the entire hemisphere to his minions, and the Mexican American war settled it.
But they do remember, and flood in now under the assumption that “this is ours”. And we Protestants are supposed to passively acquiesce to this obvious Catholic attempt to submerge the most successful nation in history and take it back to their monarchial stratified state that was pre-Reformation Europe.
Thank you for posting!
Yup, they would like nothing better than to return the world to where we are the surfs, owned by the land, and they control our lives again.
After all, today the left claims no one should own land, which means the land owns us, unless you are the privileged. Look how they warn us the sea will ingulf the land, yet they keep on purchasing ocean front property.
Like I stated, they have been trying to destroy the middle class since.
That is what Socialism is all about. We are the surfs who must struggle for crumbs and they are the Lords living high on the hog as kings and queens.
Then how did Portugal get Brazil?
It was by accident that Portugal found Brazil while heading to India before Spain ever had a chance to know it existed.
Portugal colonized Brazil in 1500 when Pedro Álvares Cabral, a Portuguese diplomat, landed in Porto Seguro with a fleet of 1,200 Portuguese adventurers while traveling to India. Cabral was blown off course and accidentally discovered Brazil.
By the way, I cannot know for sure, but considering the Popes ruling, you can bet Spain protested to the Vatican when Portugal beat them to the discovery of Brazil in their, so-called allotted territory.
“Protestant Reformation” still stops me in my tracks. I was taught in High School that it was the “Protestant Revolt.”
I like “Protestant Rebellion” more.
When you throw out do trine and even pull away from the Catholic Church and form your own there’s nothing reforming about that.
Interesting. Protestant basically means , “To Protest”. Protest against what? Protest against the status quo, which was the way the Catholic Church had twisted things.
And we know to a certainty the Italians went there to buy cloth and were familiar with the Flemish artists because of Van Eyck's Arnolfini Portrait, which depicts Tuscan merchant Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini and his new bride, and which we know Arnolfini sat for while in Bruges on a business trip.
Van Eyck painted the Arnolfini Portrait 18 years before Leonardo was born, yet it has all the hallmarks of Italian Renaissance art. The realistic anatomy and perspective, realistic flesh tones, the impression of mass, and the workaday subjects. Two years earlier still, he also painted probably the most famous example of Renaissance art made in Flanders before there was a Renaissance, the Ghent Altarpiece (made famous by the rather bad George Clooney movie, Monuments Men).
Long story short, the chief reason the Renaissance is so identified with Italy is because it was Vasari who gave it its name.
It also bears mention that during the Italian Renaissance, the Vatican considered art a negotiable instrument suitable for buying absolutions and/or indulgences. The Medici family didn't commission all that art because they were art lovers, they commissioned it because they feared for their immortal souls.
The Medicis had become rich and powerful as bankers at a time when the Catholic Church regarded charging interest on loans as usury, and usury was a mortal sin. So by having all that art done to glorify the Church, they hoped to buy their ways out of hell.
Same with all the homosexual and pederast artists (da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, Cellini, Titian, Donatello, Bazzi, yadda, yadda, yadda). Paint a masterpiece glorifying Catholicism, be absolved of sodomy. Michelangelo obviously had no love for working in paint so he must've have got fidgety in his old age, afraid that the ceiling of the Sistine hadn't been enough, so he came back a quarter century later to add the Last Judgement to the altar wall. Something to remember the next time you're visiting the Vatican Museums.
In the later Baroque period, Caravaggio (who probably was a switch-hitter) fled Rome after murdering a man, and eventually struck up negotiations by mail with Cardinal Borghese regarding just how grand a work he'd have to paint for him in order to get the murder charge lifted so he could come home. They eventually reached an agreement but Caravaggio died under mysterious circumstances before making it back to Rome.
These abuses of power I mention because they quite clearly did not escape the attention of Martin Luther, which goes to the original point of SunkenCiv's post.
I have a question, if you don't mind. In your research did you come across any evidence that clearly links secular humanism to the renaissance?
While this organization https://www.sacredarchitecture.org/articles/the_myth_of_renaissance_secular_humanism discounts any connection to a secularly influenced humanist philosophy, the page is riddled with examples of possibilities that would encourage an argument.
How that explanation appears to me is all those incremental offshoots Rankin brings up, in their way, contributed to the 'God is dead' announcement back in the late fifties or early sixties when secular humanism emerged, if not with the wreath, at least with a full head of steam.
Meanwhile Hankins encourages in the last paragraph with...if we see the humanist movement of the Renaissance for what it was—a movement to build a more humane, virtuous, wise, tolerant and open-minded Christian civilization—we can more easily understand why the highest authority in that civilization, the papacy, would embrace its ideals. And we might conclude that it remains vital that Christianity and faith traditions around the world embrace those ideals still today.
That kind of conclusion leaves open the door for modern liberal thought and encourages modern Christianity to disregard discernment and embrace, even UNwillingly, all that is contributing to the destruction of this country.
I’ve always said Socialism and Communism were simply a reversion to Feudalism. The structure is identical. The names simply change. Instead of “King” and “court”, we get “Premier” and “bureaucracy”.
That’s exactly how it worked out in the Soviet Union. The Nomenklatura were simply the new aristocracy, equally as corrupt.
OneVike knows his stuff!
It was an accident, and Spain DID protest: it led to the Treaty of Tordesillas (the initial demarcation) and then the Treaty of Zaragosa (in 1529) where all the problems were worked out. Portugal got to keep Brazil and of course the Azores...not much else!
"""The Southern Renaissance man, with his focus on self-gratification and personal achievement, had a desire for public appraisal and political power. No longer did a supreme authority, such as the pope, appoint officials and leaders.
The Northern Renaissance man was more interested in man as a human being, and was more ethical and religious then his Southern counterpart. As a rule these men did not bother with the politics of the state. They were much more interested in their Judeo-Christian heritage and what the ancient scriptures could tell them."""
As to the main question you asked,
across any evidence that clearly links secular humanism to the renaissance?"
Humanism of the time pretty much emphasized the importance of observation and critical analysis which derives from education, individuality, moral autonomy, self-improvement. Along with this is In this it revived a strong interest in classical Roman and Greek philosophy and the importance of the arts and sciences. Now with the Roman and Greek philosophy came the urge to break away from the spirituality taught by the Church.
That being stated, I totally agree that secular humanism was a part of the Renaissance. How much so is difficult to state, since there was a lot of fear for those who dared to challenge the authority of either the monarchies or the church. As attested to how John Huss was burned at the stake and later Martin Luther being threatened with the same. Those who publicly challenged the Church the State were often times met with violence, imprisonment, and even banishment of not death. So to say there wasn't an element of secular humanism would be to deny the almost complete control the Church and Monarchs had over everyone's lives.
Allow me to take a deeper stab at this, if I may. If anyone takes umbrage I will deal with it later, but this is completely off the top of my head as I mentally look back 16 years ago when I did my research for my thesis.
In my research I found much written on all types of philosophical reasons used for what created the Renaissance. Dare I say, if you look back at the mindset of the times, there was a desire to rid oneself of being controlled by others, regardless of the personal reason.
After all, humanism is the act of freeing ourselves from the constraints of all outside authority, whether it be Religious or Political. Many wanted to free themselves from the confines of a higher power having control of their lives and ultimate destination after life. Then as I mentioned, men were tired of the cast system of feudalism that told them they could not aspire to a better life because of the status of their birth. Again, when we look at the mindset of men, you were either a surf owned by the land and controlled by the Lord of the estate, and under the control of the church which had complete control of your spiritual soul before and after death.
Then there was the upperclass who still had to contend with the political ruling class of the Monarchies. Now take this into consideration. Let us say you are the second, third, or fourth son of the King and father died so the eldest gained control of the kingdom. Yet, what happened usually to the other sons. Well if it had not already happened, they sent to the monastery to spend their life as clergyman. In in time, these rejected sons would sometimes gain more influence through power of the Church than their the brother the King had.
Look back into history and you will find a hodgepodge of Cardinals, Popes, Kings, and Lords who were all relatives like today's members of former Political operatives (usually Democrats), MSM news journalists, and Hollywood all part of the ruling class telling us how to live.
Well the rest of society became weary of the lack of control they had over their lives. Thus the movement of humanism was very clear to see, even if it was somewhat subdued. Yet, with the growth of all the same things that led to the Reformation, we too can see a growth of humanistic teachings in many of the writings.
Which is what Machiavelli touched upon when he glamorized the perfect secular ruler divorced form the control of the church, but creating states and societies based not on what people should ideally be, but rather on how they really are. This was a call for a society that was neither part of the royal family, nor part of the Church hierarchy. I would argue that at the time of the Renaissance, many highly educated individuals became humanists, out of the pure desire to be freed from the control of both the state and the Church.
The problem with pinpointing how much this was a part of the Renaissance is difficult, because neither the Church nor the monarchies were willing to give up their complete control the the people and power. Thus only in a few areas were these types of thoughts and discussions allowed to even take place.
Well as I started writing my thoughts, I lost track of time and just kept typing my thoughts away. I guess I remember more from that intense study and research than I thought. I hope I did not go too far off tangent. And I pray someplace in these thoughts I answered your question.
Thanks you
and thanks for filling in the blank on the protest.
The Protestants are revolting! You said it! They stink on ice!!!
Exactly.
The end result is us becoming their surfs again.
Something we are getting closer and closer to with every screwed up election
We will vote our freedoms away one right at a time till we have none left.
Those who are willing to lose a right for security, will soon have neither freedom nor security.
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.