View Full Version : Belloc, you're on your own with this Pope.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-13-15, 19:00
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_REL_VATICAN_COMMUNIST_CRUCIFIX?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-07-13-10-01-45
Let's just assume that AP has this right.
The crucifix was a replica of one designed by a Jesuit priest, the Rev. Luis Espinal, who was tortured and killed by Bolivian paramilitary squads in 1980. Francis prayed at the site of Espinal's assassination upon his arrival in Bolivia.... Espinal was well-known among his fellow Jesuits as a proponent of the Marxist strain of liberation theology.
Sound like the only problem is they didn't burn him at the stake.
During a news conference en route home to Rome on Sunday, Francis said he interpreted Morales' gift through the prism of Espinal's Marxist bent and viewed it as protest art.
I heard Moses was thinking of taking a similar stance on the Golden Calf- you know, people were hungry and Moses had been gone awhile and people started protesting. Moses decided to go a different way with it.
Galileo and JPII are up in heaven shaking their heads over the science and marxist stances. I'm Irish-Catholic and I demand a mulligan on this guy.
I still can't come up with any evidence that this guy literally isn't the anti-Christ. It would be ironic if this is the one thing that gets me sent to hell, but listening to this guy makes me less and less certain that the forever-retirement plan is real.
We already had the anti christ.
http://www.frenblog.com/illusion/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/pope-benedict-xvi-with-horns.jpg
Business_Casual
07-13-15, 19:10
It's hardly the first time a Pope has said controversial things.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-13-15, 19:14
We already had the anti christ.
He just looked like the anti-christ. Ratzinger was way closer to JPII on the whole east-west thing and helped keep the leftists in check.
Waitaminnit...
Most of the population is whining about being offended by everything under the sun, and we jump on the guy who *isn't* offended? Read the article. He didn't say he liked it, he didn't say he supported it. He just said he wasn't offended by the gift.
If you want *controversial*, check out some of the stuff that guy Jesus Christ spouted.
He just looked like the anti-christ. Ratzinger was way closer to JPII on the whole east-west thing and helped keep the leftists in check.
Look at the picture man, he's got horns.
SeriousStudent
07-13-15, 21:14
First, last, and only note from mods/staff on this thread:
At the first sign of personal attack or general motarditry, I'm locking this thread and infracting people.
Seriously.
FlyingHunter
07-13-15, 21:36
First, last, and only note from mods/staff on this thread:
At the first sign of personal attack or general motarditry, I'm locking this thread and infracting people.
Seriously.
TOP DEFINITION
Motard
A alteration of the USMC term Moto. This word is used to describe some overbearing marine who extremely loud and obnoxious all the time. He is so motivated even in the shittiest situations that everyone wants to kick him in the teeth.
Had to look up Motard. Interestingly, my Google search for the action verb Motarditry yielded only 2 results. Two! Both from M4C. My linguistic playbook is enriched.
Look at the picture man, he's got horns.
Glad I'm not the only one.
SeriousStudent
07-13-15, 22:01
I've had two PM's from members regarding my use of the term motard. Yes, FlyingHunter nailed it.
I had a Gunny that once referred to my squad as "my little band of drooling motards" and the term stuck in my head ever since.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled program, already in progress.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-13-15, 22:52
Sorry for my motardishness, but if there is anyone who can get me back into the fold, it's Belloc. I'm sure that he is crafting the perfect answer that will take me hours to understand.
This was presented during a state visit. It wasn't like the pope walked up to a gift table and picked it. He is a head of state. Another head of state handed him something. If this is the straw that broke the camels back for you with this pope, your back was already broken. Personally I think he is the best thing that has happened to the church in a long time. As a lapsed, way lapsed - Jesuit educated Catholic, I hope he lives to be 120.
Doc Safari
07-14-15, 10:30
I believe that the prophecy of St. Malachi is correct and this pope is "Petrus Romanus", or the defective pope at the end times.
Some people believe that a pope, probably the final one, will be the "False Prophet" predicted in Revelation, and I see circumstantial evidence that Francis is dancing with this prediction.
There have been a lot of good popes in history, and it's unfortunate that true, dedicated, Bible-believing catholics have to endure this pope's heresies, but it's time to wake up if you haven't already.
Waitaminnit...
Most of the population is whining about being offended by everything under the sun, and we jump on the guy who *isn't* offended? Read the article. He didn't say he liked it, he didn't say he supported it. He just said he wasn't offended by the gift.
If you want *controversial*, check out some of the stuff that guy Jesus Christ spouted.
This.
Also this is what leaders in the public eye do. One leader gave another leader a gift. The pope did the right thing and accepted it as such......a gift. Nothing more, nothing less.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-14-15, 11:49
This is like giving a Jew a Swastika, but with a nice little Star in the middle. Sorry about the whole trying to kill you off thing, hope we can get past that. Would a Confederate flag with MLKs picture on it appease the left?
If you don't see the disconnect between now and JPII, I can't help you.
I believe that the prophecy of St. Malachi is correct and this pope is "Petrus Romanus", or the defective pope at the end times.
Some people believe that a pope, probably the final one, will be the "False Prophet" predicted in Revelation, and I see circumstantial evidence that Francis is dancing with this prediction.
There have been a lot of good popes in history, and it's unfortunate that true, dedicated, Bible-believing catholics have to endure this pope's heresies, but it's time to wake up if you haven't already.
Whether he's petrus romanus or not, he's definitely spouting some liberation theology communist drivel.
I can actually make this easy.
Communism is popular with poor people. When you have nothing, or almost nothing, the idea that we will take a little from those who have it and give it to you can be quite appealing. It's like magic money that comes from somebody you don't care about.
They don't understand the reality that those who administer the money are the ones who actually get it and the lives of the poor people change very little in reality, and the only real difference is there are now more poor people since the government has taken the wealth they used to have.
Since most of South America is incredibly poor, these ideas are very popular with them and the Pope is simply pandering to that. This isn't the first Pope to sell "dreams and rainbows" to the poor and then ask for a donation as a sign of their faith.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
07-14-15, 13:21
I dont like the guy, but his political beliefs make him the antichrist?
Let's just assume that AP has this right.
I would advise never doing that when it comes to the Catholic Church or the Pope.
Pope Francis given Hammer and Sickle “crucifix”, reacts “No está bien eso” … that’s not right.” http://wdtprs.com/blog/2015/07/pope-francis-given-hammer-and-sickle-crucifix-reacts-no-esta-bien-eso-thats-not-right/
Doc Safari
07-14-15, 13:29
I dont like the guy, but his political beliefs make him the antichrist?
When he said it wasn't necessary to believe in God, that pretty much sent red flags flying in the breeze.
Sorry for my motardishness, but if there is anyone who can get me back into the fold, it's Belloc. I'm sure that he is crafting the perfect answer that will take me hours to understand.
Well if I do, then that's on me.
Here's the thing. Many of the comments that the Pope has made I am not comfortable with, (to be honest I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that he likes to speak off the cuff and he's terrible at it) but much of what he has said is very deliberately misinterpreted or mistranslated. For example, the leftist media have been throwing up headlines about how Pope Francis referred to capitalism as "the dung of the devil!" http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/07/13/pope-calls-world-youth-rise-against-global-capitalism
However that is not at all what he said. Here is what he actually said:
"The earth, entire peoples and individual persons are being brutally punished. And behind all this pain, death and destruction there is the stench of what Basil of Caesarea called “the dung of the devil”. An unfettered pursuit of money rules. The service of the common good is left behind. Once capital becomes an idol and guides people’s decisions, once greed for money presides over the entire socioeconomic system, it ruins society, it condemns and enslaves men and women, it destroys human fraternity, it sets people against one another and, as we clearly see, it even puts at risk our common home."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2015/07/did-francis-really-call-capitalism-the-dung-of-the-devil/
I find nothing wrong with that. Of course it is wrong to make capitalism, or the sole pursuit of money, into some sort of false idol, because it is wrong to make anything into an idol. Think Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers and all the other crooked lying investment houses that almost destroyed the entire global economic system. And this actually ties in with a previous comment of his concerning weapons and the arms industry that flipped out many people on various firearms forums. He was not blasting private ownership of firearms, or the existence of weapons manufactures per se, but instead criticising when companies would seek profit regardless of the effect on people or the consequences, for example all the corporations, including Ford, that did very lucrative business with Nazi Germany.
HTH. :)
When he said it wasn't necessary to believe in God, that pretty much sent red flags flying in the breeze.
Except: NO, THE POPE DIDN’T SAY YOU DON’T HAVE TO BELIEVE IN GOD
http://spectator.org/blog/54673/no-pope-didnt-say-you-dont-have-believe-god
Doc Safari
07-14-15, 14:11
Except: NO, THE POPE DIDN’T SAY YOU DON’T HAVE TO BELIEVE IN GOD
http://spectator.org/blog/54673/no-pope-didnt-say-you-dont-have-believe-god
Well, reading that article, it DOES appear that he said the equivalent of that. But it also points to other popes (like Benedict) having a similar view.
Well, reading that article, it DOES appear that he said the equivalent of that. But it also points to other popes (like Benedict) having a similar view.
The problem is 99.9% of Christians have what I like to call "Sunday School Faith"--in other words, they have made no effort to advance their study of the nature of God beyond the dumbed-down pablum they were fed as children.
When a scholar gives a well thought-out answer to a theological question it's interpreted by these people as heresy.
Well, reading that article, it DOES appear that he said the equivalent of that. But it also points to other popes (like Benedict) having a similar view.
I think it kind of makes sense. Don't you?
Let's look at the example of two former very confirmed atheists who later became devout christians, Peter Hitchens (brother of Christopher Hitchens) and C.S. Lewis. Their conversion did not happen overnight, but was instead a life journey where they never stopped earnestly trying to figure out the truth of what the real universe is really like. Well, suppose one of them was killed before his full conversion, say in an auto accident or in the case of C.S. Lewis in the bombing of London. It is permissible as to christian to believe that even though he died still as an atheist, his constant honest pursuit of the truth of all reality, which is after all simply itself a response to God's grace, makes him a candidate for the mercy and forgiveness of God?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzBT39gx-TE
Doc Safari
07-14-15, 15:18
I think it kind of makes sense. Don't you?
Let's look at the example of two former very confirmed atheists who later became devout christians, Peter Hitchens (brother of Christopher Hitchens) and C.S. Lewis. Their conversion did not happen overnight, but was instead a life journey where they never stopped earnestly trying to figure out the truth of what the real universe is really like. Well, suppose one of them was killed before his full conversion, say in an auto accident or in the case of C.S. Lewis in the bombing of London. It is permissible as to christian to believe that even though he died still as an atheist, his constant honest pursuit of the truth of all reality, which is after all simply itself a response to God's grace, makes him a candidate for the mercy and forgiveness of God?
That is above my pay grade. The Bible says ALL have fallen short of the glory of God. I have even debated whether infants who die never having had a chance to hear the Gospel go to Heaven or not. I don't have an answer.
I dont like the guy, but his political beliefs make him the antichrist?
You'd think everyone was talking about POTUS or something.
The problem is 99.9% of Christians have what I like to call "Sunday School Faith"--in other words, they have made no effort to advance their study of the nature of God beyond the dumbed-down pablum they were fed as children.
When a scholar gives a well thought-out answer to a theological question it's interpreted by these people as heresy.
I am a lapsed, as in way lapsed, Jesuit educated catholic. Criticizing the pope because he was handed a gift at a state event is just silly. What should he have done? He is a head of state and another head of state handed him something. If you doctrinal or religious disagreements then so be it, but this is just silly.
I actually like that this pope speaks up for the poor and social justice. Whether I agree with it all or not, at least he is rocking the boat.
I do have to crack up at the conservative catholics having palpitations over this pope. Conservative in my family always used papal authority and papal infallibility as the last defense against modernity and reform. Now that they have a more liberal pope they are spouting a totally different tune about papal authority. Can't have it both ways...
Finally, they elected a Jesuit from South America who ministered to the poor and the down trodden during the military dictatorship. What did they think they were getting?
The problem is 99.9% of Christians have what I like to call "Sunday School Faith"--in other words, they have made no effort to advance their study of the nature of God beyond the dumbed-down pablum they were fed as children.
When a scholar gives a well thought-out answer to a theological question it's interpreted by these people as heresy.
I am a lapsed, as in way lapsed, Jesuit educated catholic. Criticizing the pope because he was handed a gift at a state event is just silly. What should he have done? He is a head of state and another head of state handed him something. If you doctrinal or religious disagreements then so be it, but this is just silly.
I actually like that this pope speaks up for the poor and social justice. Whether I agree with it all or not, at least he is rocking the boat.
I do have to crack up at the conservative catholics having palpitations over this pope. Conservative in my family always used papal authority and papal infallibility as the last defense against modernity and reform. Now that they have a more liberal pope they are spouting a totally different tune about papal authority. Can't have it both ways...
Finally, they elected a Jesuit from South America who ministered to the poor and the down trodden during the military dictatorship. What did they think they were getting?
That is above my pay grade. The Bible says ALL have fallen short of the glory of God. I have even debated whether infants who die never having had a chance to hear the Gospel go to Heaven or not. I don't have an answer.
The answer to your question can be found in the subsequent verse.
At least it answers the question for me.
Doc Safari
07-14-15, 16:47
The answer to your question can be found in the subsequent verse.
At least it answers the question for me.
What's the address?
What's the address?
Romans 3:23-24
But if you head down this road, you may quickly find yourself mired in the question of justification, the nature of which was a sticking point that is one of the causes of the divergence of Protestantism.
But avoiding that, the bottom line is that the grace of God is required. And since there can be no question that God is more gracious than I, the question is answered for me.
You guys really have no clue of what you are talking about... but I guess trying to instill some sense into fanatics is a lost battle.
FWIW, I live in Paraguay, where the Pope landed after Ecuador and Bolivia, and I was following every step of this trip. It was a huge popular fest. All other denominations (jews, buddhist, anglican, lutheran, orthodox, etc.),welcomed him and had kind words for him. Only some loony evangelicans (not all) spread hate and stupidity around, one idiot even tried to bump his papamovil with a self made sign with "666" on it.
Agree with him or not, this Pope is full of common sense and humanity, and his views really do not deviate from the catholic church established doctrines.
The hammer and sickle cross was simply an idiotic gesture from Evo Morales, who cannot even be considered catholic nor christian.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-14-15, 20:04
You guys really have no clue of what you are talking about... but I guess trying to instill some sense into fanatics is a lost battle.
FWIW, I live in Paraguay, where the Pope landed after Ecuador and Bolivia, and I was following every step of this trip. It was a huge popular fest. All other denominations (jews, buddhist, anglican, lutheran, orthodox, etc.),welcomed him and had kind words for him. Only some loony evangelicans (not all) spread hate and stupidity around, one idiot even tried to bump his papamovil with a self made sign with "666" on it.
Agree with him or not, this Pope is full of common sense and humanity, and his views really do not deviate from the catholic church established doctrines.
The hammer and sickle cross was simply an idiotic gesture from Evo Morales, who cannot even be considered catholic nor christian.
I think the major issue is three things- one is that Pope Francis is heavily influenced by his SA experience and this comes out in his often off the cuff comments while the press grabs the most leftist interpretation of what he does say.
Saying that a 4th century writer was anti-capitalist is inherently incorrect since capitalism really didn't show up until 1000 years later. While the left pushes the anti-capitalistic view of his comments, I think pushing the fact that corrupt capitalism is the actual affliction that plagues SA is as valid as point. That is relevant to us since we are heading more and more towards a corrupt form of 'capitalism' that has to do more with the power of the capitol in DC than capital in the bank.
I'd love Donald Trump hand the Pope a crucifix attached to a dollar sign and see what happens. That would be about as tacky as what Morales did.
The issues he has with capitalism aren't really about money. They really are about being self-centered to the point of be detrimental to society and ultimately to the individual. That ties together most of his themes, but for some reason that isn't the message that is getting out.
And I agree with you 100% on capitalism, and comments of some of the press... I was reading reports from this trip and some of the reporters might as well be martians, such was the naivety/stupidity/ignorance/bias that was blurring their views.
Sadly, the same can be said about some of the world's "best" press when covering many other topics.
Lastly, can't we all get along and celebrate/tolerate our differences?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=idLQ26P9dpQ
I heard Moses was thinking of taking a similar stance on the Golden Calf- you know, people were hungry and Moses had been gone awhile and people started protesting. Moses decided to go a different way with it.
Galileo and JPII are up in heaven shaking their heads over the science and marxist stances. I'm Irish-Catholic and I demand a mulligan on this guy.
Well, let's keep in mind that actually, Galileo was pretty much completely wrong. Here is the abridged version of events.
1. Galileo believed that the earth moved around the sun. However that was not Galileo's theory, that was Copernicus, and Copernicus and the Catholic Church got along just fine.
2. Galileo also believed that the sun was the center of the universe, and he was wrong.
3. Galileo believed that the planets moved in perfect circles around the sun, and he was wrong.
4. Galileo asked for permission to teach his mostly wrong theories and the Catholic Church said to him, "Sure, why not, go for it."
5. But then Galileo, brilliant but an egomaniac, demanded that he be given permission to teach his theories as established scientific fact, because he was so absolutely cocksure that he was completely right, to which the Church simply asked him if he actually could in any way prove them. When he respond "Well no, not really.", the Church then said that he should in that case then teach his ideas only as unproven theories until such time as he could in fact actually prove them scientifically. And does not science today rather demand that as well?
6. This bent his nose out of joint, and so he made the bad play of insulting and attempting to humiliate the Catholic bishops because they would not allow him to teach his unproven theories as established scientific fact.
7. Well I'm very sure that it will come as a surprise to exactly no one that also many Bishops have huge sensitive egos, and so a few of them decided to drum up the charge of heresy to get back at him for insulting them.
8. The end result being that Galileo was sent to live in a villa in Tuscany. (Someone please tell me what Bishops I need to personally insult and offend so that they "condemn" me to go live in a villa in Tuscany.)
And here is pretty much the same thing that the Pope has been saying. As we see, it's nothing new.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=215&v=42nMkSNmCzM
Well, let's keep in mind that actually, Galileo was pretty much completely wrong. Here is the abridged version of events.
1. Galileo believed that the earth moved around the sun. However that was not Galileo's theory, that was Copernicus, and Copernicus and the Catholic Church got along just fine.
2. Galileo also believed that the sun was the center of the universe, and he was wrong.
3. Galileo believed that the planets moved in perfect circles around the sun, and he was wrong.
4. Galileo asked for permission to teach his mostly wrong theories and the Catholic Church said to him, "Sure, why not, go for it."
5. But then Galileo, brilliant but an egomaniac, demanded that he be given permission to teach his theories as established scientific fact, because he was so absolutely cocksure that he was completely right, to which the Church simply asked him if he actually could in any way prove them. When he respond "Well no, not really.", the Church then said that he should in that case then teach his ideas only as unproven theories until such time as he could in fact actually prove them scientifically. And does not science today rather demand that as well?
6. This bent his nose out of joint, and so he made the bad play of insulting and attempting to humiliate the Catholic bishops because they would not allow him to teach his unproven theories as established scientific fact.
7. Well I'm very sure that it will come as a surprise to exactly no one that also many Bishops have huge sensitive egos, and so a few of them decided to drum up the charge of heresy to get back at him for insulting them.
8. The end result being that Galileo was sent to live in a villa in Tuscany. (Someone please tell me what Bishops I need to personally insult and offend so that they "condemn" me to go live in a villa in Tuscany.)
And here is pretty much the same thing that the Pope has been saying. As we see, it's nothing new.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=215&v=42nMkSNmCzM
Well a couple things.
First, he was more correct than the Church which generally believed the Earth was the center of the universe. He figured out the Earth rotated around the sun, rather than the sun rotating around the Earth. Nobody had any idea about the Andromeda galaxy at the time.
Second, he wasn't sent to a villa in Tuscany any more than people are sent upstate to a facility when they go to Folsom. He was under house arrest.
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture." The Inquisition found that the idea of the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith."
Pope Paul V instructed Cardinal Bellarmine to deliver this finding to Galileo, and to order him to abandon opinion that heliocentrism was physically true. On 26 February, Galileo was called to Bellarmine's residence and ordered
... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.
—The Inquisition's injunction against Galileo, 1616
The decree of the Congregation of the Index banned Copernicus's De Revolutionibus and other heliocentric works until correction. Bellarmine's instructions did not prohibit Galileo from discussing heliocentrism as a mathematical and philosophic idea, so long as he didn't advocate for its physical truth.
For the next decade, Galileo stayed well away from the controversy. He revived his project of writing a book on the subject, encouraged by the election of Cardinal Maffeo Barberini as Pope Urban VIII in 1623. Barberini was a friend and admirer of Galileo, and had opposed the condemnation of Galileo in 1616. Galileo's resulting book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was published in 1632, with formal authorization from the Inquisition and papal permission.
In February 1633 and was brought before inquisitor Vincenzo Maculani to be charged. Throughout his trial Galileo steadfastly maintained that since 1616 he had faithfully kept his promise not to hold any of the condemned opinions, and initially he denied even defending them. However, he was eventually persuaded to admit that, contrary to his true intention, a reader of his Dialogue could well have obtained the impression that it was intended to be a defence of Copernicanism. In view of Galileo's rather implausible denial that he had ever held Copernican ideas after 1616 or ever intended to defend them in the Dialogue, his final interrogation, in July 1633, concluded with his being threatened with torture if he did not tell the truth, but he maintained his denial despite the threat.
The sentence of the Inquisition was delivered on 22 June. It was in three essential parts:
Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.
He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition. On the following day this was commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life.
His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.
Or as you call it, just a nice day at a sunny villa. We should bring back the inquisition, it sounds like great summer fun.
Well a couple things.
First, he was more correct than the Church which generally believed the Earth was the center of the universe. He figured out the Earth rotated around the sun, rather than the sun rotating around the Earth.
But that is rather parsing it in a way that does not tell the whole truth of the story. It was not simply that "the Church generally believed the earth the center of the universe" and that's that, but that Galileo could not in fact, by his own admission, prove that all his fellow astronomers at the time, and going back quite a ways in history, were completely wrong. The Church was not simply saying that "we are right and you are wrong", but instead "all these other astronomers say that you are wrong, and you admit that you cannot prove your theories, so we are going to stick with the prevailing theories until at such time there is solid scientific evidence to believe something else."
It simply was not 'the Church against science', but the Church actually adhering to what was in fact the scientific consensus at the time since no one, not even Galileo, who even admitted this, could offer proof that the scientific consensus was actually wrong.
Second, he wasn't sent to a villa in Tuscany any more than people are sent upstate to a facility when they go to Folsom. He was under house arrest.
Sorry, but there is no tenable logical comparison between Galileo's house confinement in a Tuscan Villa and being incarcerated in Folsom prison.
As for the rest,
http://www.ukapologetics.net/galileo.htm
Outstanding 1970s philosophy of science writer Paul Feyerabend refused to be taken in by the usual myths about Galileo, writing this:
"The trial of Galileo was one of many trials. It had no special features except perhaps that Galileo was treated rather mildly, despite his lies and attempts at deception. But a small clique of intellectuals aided by scandal-hungry writers succeeded in blowing it up to enormous dimensions so that what was basically an altercation between an expert and an institution defending a wider view of things now looks almost like a battle between heaven and hell." (p. 127, 'Against Method,' fourth edition. This is the paperback version of just under 300 pages, with an Introduction from Ian Hacking, and published by Verso of London and New York).
As we are going to see, the popular story about a powerful and superstitious Church fighting against the brilliant science of Galileo is very largely a myth of rationalist modernism.
Now the 'Church' which I refer to in this article is the 17th century Roman Catholic Church and some may wonder why I would want to defend them, but I think that all Christian Apologetics must always strive to uphold the truth. The Galileo myth is used by modernist atheists and scoffers to attack the record of Christianity and I really think that we should all honestly consider the real evidence and not popular modernist spin.
Another myth is that Galileo conclusively proved that the earth orbits the sun – but it was not yet possible to deduce that much in Galileo's day, as several scholars are starting to admit. In fact, Galileo's research was concerned with sun spots, the phases of Venus and the lumpiness, or irregularity, of the surface of the moon. Thus we see how the myths of modernism snowball along!
But the science of Galileo's day was Aristotelian in approach and he knew that some of his conclusions would not fit in with their approach. He published his conclusions in 1613 in Letters on Sunspots. The Church largely accepted his science but the universities which were steeped in Aristotle opposed him. Many writers have claimed that Galieo feared being branded as a heretic and therefore being handed over to the Inquisition - J.W. Draper is typical of such writers, but the truth is that it was the scornful rejection of his fellow astronomers which he greatly feared. Indeed, he dedicated his book to Pope Paul III. His book circulated for over 70 years with no opposition from the Church, but with almost continual opposition from his fellow scientists!!
Far from being excommunicated and ostracized by the Church at this stage in his life, he became popular with several cardinals and was befriended by the man who later became Pope Urban VIII.
But much later (in 1632) Galileo wrote another book which he called, Dialogue Concerning the Chief World Systems and in this book he went much further and did alienate the Church. In this book he sought to reinterpret several biblical passages but this went against the Council of Trent guidelines which were established by about 1565. The Roman Catholic Church of the day did not feel it was the business of a scientist (and one rejected by many of his fellow scientists at that), to publish works on biblical interpretation, this being considered as interference in the matters of the Church. To make things even worse he mocked some ideas of the pope (Urban VIII, who had been his friend) in this book. Before a year had elapsed from its publication, Galieo's book was banned."
Eurodriver
07-15-15, 06:20
I do not see what the issue is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A9lder_C%C3%A2mara
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist."
No Communist here, but it's about time the Pope has showed an active interest in something other than the elite.
I started a very similar thread last month when the clown started down the climate change road.
For those who support him and try to explain the unexplainable, remember that many other Popes have somehow managed to interact with the media in such a manner that their message was not lost in translation.
While I don't believe that he is the Anti-Chirst, I do think that he should be shouting the virtues of capitalism from the top of St. Peter's Basillica if he was truly inspired by God. The fact that he has such a poor understanding of how socialism oppresses and capitalism lifts populations out of poverty means that he is just another clown in a funny costume.
As for the rest,
Actually if you take the time to reread, I was pretty factual about the Galileo / Inquisition thing. I wasn't presenting the exaggerated "myth" version. I was just pointing out that your "retired to a sunny villa in Italy" ending was as disingenuous as those who claim exaggerated versions of his torture and imprisonment.
You are correct, he was treated well by the standards of the time. He wasn't put to death and he wasn't burned at the stake. It could have been worse.
Actually if you take the time to reread, I was pretty factual about the Galileo / Inquisition thing. I wasn't presenting the exaggerated "myth" version. I was just pointing out that your "retired to a sunny villa in Italy" ending was as disingenuous as those who claim exaggerated versions of his torture and imprisonment.
You are correct, he was treated well by the standards of the time. He wasn't put to death and he wasn't burned at the stake. It could have been worse.
Whoa there, I never said it was a sunny villa.
Whoa there, I never said it was a sunny villa.
It is reasonable to assume it was sunny in Florence. Changes the matter of his house arrest until his death very little.
It is reasonable to assume it was sunny in Florence. Changes the matter of his house arrest until his death very little.
I wasn't presenting the exaggerated "myth" version. I was just pointing out that your "retired to a sunny villa in Italy" ending was as disingenuous as those who claim exaggerated versions of his torture and imprisonment.
Second, he wasn't sent to a villa in Tuscany any more than people are sent upstate to a facility when they go to Folsom. He was under house arrest.
I never said "retired" either. But if you now want to play the "reasonable to assume" card, I think it is pretty reasonable to assume that house confinement at his own home, a villa in Tuscany, where he actually did some of his most important work, was rather nothing like being locked up in Folsom prison.
Now if you want to go get some more chips, we can keep on playing.
I never said "retired" either. But if you now want to play the "reasonable to assume" card, I think it is pretty reasonable to assume that house confinement at his own home, a villa in Tuscany, where he actually did some of his most important work, was rather nothing like being locked up in Folsom prison.
Now if you want to go get some more chips, we can keep on playing.
Ya know, I think it will do the most good to just let your characterization of his house arrest stand on it's own.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.