Did tbe Church restrict scientific thought or development during the "Dark Ages"?

[jcrichton]

I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to imply Catholicism was the only institution suffering from these problems. We simply happen to be on a Catholic sight so I’m addressing my concerns toward the Roman catholic Church. As I’ve said in my post I don’t believe the Catholic Church is any different in these matters from any other institution. You seem to be doing what is troubling to me though. You seem to be trying to deminish the sins of the Church by comparing them to others. I know your not justifying Catholic problems by comparing them to the sins of others? How does this justify the actions of Catholics in Gods eyes?
Besides this, if you believe Roman Catholicism is God’s Church and the only path to salvation then surely you would be more concerned with and hold her to higher standards than those of the rest of the world. Her defense many times seems to be by comparing her to the world on an equal footing. I believe she soils her garments more than cleans them by doing this.
As I’ve said, you can spend your energies defending her by justifying her ungodly behavior or by being concerned with making sure her behaviour is godly.
Why do you ask if it bothers me? The only reason I’m on here and post my opinions is for constructive dialogue…because these things bother me. I wish to please God what else can I do. And no I am not some devious Protestant agent trying to justify their sins by questioning Catholics. I would be considered at this point nondenominational I suppose.
May we finally embrace God’s peace together.

It may be your intent that Christians (Catholics and non-Catholics alike) should hold ourselves to a high standard than the world around us… but you are ignoring facts and, I would dare say, reason.

The Catholic Church has never operated in a vacuum and the power and wealth attributed to it is only mythical and divisive–the world has always proceeded on its own accords and the Church, as ill equipped as it may be, has been the one agency that has influenced changes in the world’s structure in order to produce the benefits that we have enjoyed.

Has there been errors? That is a fact. The Church, though Founded by Christ, is made up of human beings that are susceptible to temporal pressures and stimulus.

To demand that the Church be perfect in its temporal existence would be tantamount to claiming her Divine–though only Christ and the Holy Spirit, that sustain and guide her, are Divine.

If you truly feel anguish for the various failures and desire to aide the Mystical Body of Christ into perfection I welcome your feelings and your angst. However, simply pointing out errors and shutting your mind to reality does not make for much inspiration and ecumenism.

Your presentation seems very hostile to me; it belies the holiness you seek to find in the Body of Christ… have you noticed God’s View of things man?:

18 “Come now, let us settle the matter,”
says the Lord.
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.
19 If you are willing and obedient,
you will eat the good things of the land;
20 but if you resist and rebel,
you will be devoured by the sword.”
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken. (Isaiah 1:18-20)

There will be Judgment, no one will be spared! Yet, God’s intent is not that we fear Judgment but that we abide in Him and maintain that relationship with Him.

You want to share your concerns (spiritual pain and angst), your welcomed. You want to discuss errors and effects, your welcomed. You want to use facts and reason to discuss errors and present solutions, your welcomed. But if you simply want to lump in two thousand years of perceived error with accusations, impregnated with myths and malice, with a selective acceptance of facts… well, don’t expect much more than an energetic rebuttal.

Scriptures are quite clear about the blaming game–God makes no exemptions when error is taught or embraced–He is specially concerned with those in positions of leadership:

47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. (St. Luke 12:47-48)

3 Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. (St. James 3:3)

We are all Call to holiness; each of us will answer to God for our obedience or rejection of His Will.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[setarcos]

…it is a sad situation… is the Church (man) free of error? No. That is why we have the various episodes of unsound issues. Was the Church (man) tied to the temporal values? Yes. Power and Pride was often not relinquished by Religious, Priests, and Bishops alike… Was this rampant? No. Was the Church future dependent on Power and Wealth? No! Was the Church future dependent on control of development, technology, and discovery? No! The Church, stripped from political and military power, has remained in spite of all the onslaught brought about by both anti-Catholics and anti-God agencies.

Did the Church assert her Authority in matters of Faith? Yes! Did she err on the side of Scriptures and Doctrine? Yes! Did she holdfast to error? No!

Is the Church maligned by the poor action of some of her members? Yes!

Is the Church seeking the adulation of the people by pronouncing that she (man) erred in secular involvement (Priest and Bishops emulating the world through financial, political and personal ties)? No! The Church continuous to Teach and hold her Doctrine without change… does this cause her to be a stumbling block for many? Yep!, just as Jesus, her Founder, is!

Maran atha!

Angel

I guess I need to inquire of you what or who exactly do you think comprises Christs “Church”?
So far according to you…
(1)The church is NOT free of error, (2)the church IS tied to temporal values, of which I guess you mean her behavior is based upon the times she finds herself in, (3)power and pride was often not relinquished by priests and Bishops, but this was not rampant, whatever qualifies as rampant to you, (4)the churches continued existence was not dependant upon the accumulation of power and wealth, (5)nor was it dependant upon the control of the development of technology, and discovery, and (6)the church being stripped of political and military power remains despite forces of specifically anti-Catholic sentiments, and anti-God agencies?
(7)She asserted her authority in matters of faith and “erred” on the side of scripture and doctrine?
(8)She did not hold onto her errors though.
(9)The church was maligned unfarely by the poor actions of some of her members, but the church doesn’t seek adulation from her members by declaring her errors, and last but perhaps most important, (10)the church continues to teach her doctrine without error.

I think we are straying some again from my original intentions to voice my opinion In a non-threatening way. It’s a wonder any progressive communication gets done at all. Everyone’s so tied up with proving even their errors to be justified given the so called circumstances that the errors themselves become weapons used to attempt to defeat the perceived enemy. Continued in next post…

 

[setarcos]

Please bare with me. I have a few questions and statements.

By saying the church is not without error (1) , then saying she was unfarely maligned by the actions of a few(9), your either saying the few in error are not representative of the church therefore the church is not in error so you misspoke, or the church is in error because certain members of her are in error and therefor all members share the guilt? This of course depends on how you define church.
If the Church is tied to temporal values (2)then this would seem to imply that the churches values change with the values of the time. If she draws her values from Christ this shouldn’t be the case should it?
My contention concerning (3) is that it may be argued that power and pride was and certainly is still rampant among those in positions in which these things can and are being used most advantageously. If by rampant you mean majority, I’m not sure if your using this as a defense for these sins or what?
Concerning (4), I never said it was. What I am saying is that because the leadership seems to be so concerned with such things as if her continuity does depend on them that the church’s behavior has became something it shouldn’t have. Besides it can be argued that her continued existence as the Roman Catholic Church IS due to taking advantage of connections that were formed with powerful and wealthy secular sources.
As for (5), where did I ever say it was? I’m only saying that the mentality of the leadership caused her to seek control of these things.
How can the church be stripped of military(6) power when she never had a military in the first place? Are you talking about those who she saught to help her further her cause withdrawing their favor? How could she be stripped of worldly political power (6)unless she saught it and or had it in the first place- which ties into my contentions about (3) above?
Does the church that was in the beginning REALLY still exist? Please don’t be peurile with your response.
What do you mean erred on the side of in (7)?
I’m afraid she has held onto her errors (8). In the fourth century St. Basil of Caesara, fed up with sexual abuse -one might use the word “rampant”- in his day that he set up a detailed system of punnishment for clerics who molested boys. Flogging and chains for six months and never again allowed unsupervised interactions with minors. In the 11th century St. Peter Damian wrote a treatise “Book of Gomorrah” that he gave to Pope Leo IX pleading for him to get serious about clergy sexual abuse. Surely over 19 centuries an institution could develop a better system of punishment or preventative measures than to shuffle the affended off to a “retreat” for prayer and reflection then back to affend again and again then bullying the victims? My problem isn’t with crimes being committen by members of the church the’s things are ienviable at times in this world. My concern is with the evil behavior of the “magisterium’s” behavior when dealing with these evils. If the magisterium is the interpreter of the faith then has to apologize for sanctioning actions by the church such as the inquisition, or Galilios so called imprisonment, or the crusades, for whatever reason then how can I trust they’ve interpreted the faith correctly? How can I believe in their leadership? If the Church teaches her doctrine without error then has to apologize for actions she committed based upon her understanding of her doctrine, is the church in error in what she teaches or is what she teaches in error? Perhaps she’s simply teaching one thing but actually doing another? She either isn’t the church she was or needs to change the church she’s became.

 

[buffalo]

This is what’s troubling me about these things. Human nature is human nature…call it what you will but we try one tact to prove a point and when that doesn’t work we adapt to another tact. Catholicism in my experience is no different than any other entity who reacts defensively or offensively to perceived threats to itself. And with the same so called secular methods that any worldly institution would use. Obfuscation, misdirection, minimization of the facts and by implication their effects in the world, character assassination etc. Do you honestly believe some members of the catholic church are not themselves subject to being egotistical or baring of false witness? In this regard the Catholic churches hands are just as dirty as anyone elses.
Is it of no concern that the Catholic Church was at one time in a position to determine what flattering records to keep and which to convineantly “disappear” if needed ?
Witness in our own life times how the leadership has handled the so called priest sex scandles. Evidence was suppressed, victims bullied, hush money payed, victimizers quitely moved elsewhere, where in many cases they were able to victimize again, and on and on. Shameful, worldly behavior. And this in our own lifetime when documents and evidence are much more readily available to the laity than centuries past when the church was often in the position of judge, jury and executioner.
In so focusing on self preservation she has apparently lost confidence in God and his revelations to take care of her and itself, by cocentrating on defending the reputation she has and not concentrating equally vigorously on ensuring her reputation stays “Godly” in the first place.
Thus the church focuses her energies on declaring that this or that was misunderstood, or not as bad as reported. A favorite defense has become to prove that these things have been grossly over exaggerated. Which is only natural i suppose. Let history defend herself with truth after all. If truth can be found in a world teeming with falsehood.
But shouldn’t the Church be as concerned with keeping her reputation Godly in the first place?
I’m hearing things like Galileos persecution wasn’t as severe as portrayed, the Inquisition didn’t involve as many victims as thought, and why pick on the Catholic Church for having some pedophile priests when the world at large has many more…continued in next post.

The author Rodney Stark in non-Catholic.

 

[buffalo]

I think the reason people point out that this isn’t just a Catholic problem is precisely because it is only the Catholic Church being held to account for this stuff. No school system has ever been sued by victims, and no Protestant organization has ever been sued by victims, nor any sports organization or Youth club of any kind - in those cases it’s recognized that the person committing the crime was acting outside the laws of that organization and only the actual criminal is held to account - despite there being orders of magnitude many more perpetrators there than in the Catholic Church. But if someone who happens to be Catholic commits a crime, even if he hasn’t been to Mass in decades, it’s the Church that gets sued; not the criminal.

and the parishioners who had nothing to do with the scandal paid a lot…

 

[setarcos]

I think the reason people point out that this isn’t just a Catholic problem is precisely because it is only the Catholic Church being held to account for this stuff. No school system has ever been sued by victims, and no Protestant organization has ever been sued by victims, nor any sports organization or Youth club of any kind - in those cases it’s recognized that the person committing the crime was acting outside the laws of that organization and only the actual criminal is held to account - despite there being orders of magnitude many more perpetrators there than in the Catholic Church. But if someone who happens to be Catholic commits a crime, even if he hasn’t been to Mass in decades, it’s the Church that gets sued; not the criminal.

There’s a bit more to it than the simple version you state. If you consider the ratios of the numbers of a particular group (non catholic) compared to the numbers of another representative group (catholic) then the differences aren’t as large as thought. Some even seem to indicate that for the specific class of people (priests), versus those of another class in a comparable position of religious authority priests win the abuse likelyhood. Theres too many unquantifyable factors that might effect the actual numbers.

One major difference though is the way the hierarchy of the catholic church is set up. It’s no “secret” that the Catholic Church is/was very secretive and uncooperative in convicting priests for these crimes.

Many organizations are constantly being sued because of the behavior of their so called members. Again it only seems the Catholic Church as an institution is sued more because of the way it’s hierarchy is set up. If an act of abuse may be shown to be committed by a person during the carrying out of the duties an institution has given that person and it can be shown that the representatives could have reasonably prevented(not reshuffling abusers to abuse again) said crime and or be shown to cover up or in some way prevent the punnishment of the perpetrator ,suppression of records for instance, then the institution becomes fair game for a suit. It’s much harder to prove that a Protestant group as an institution with complicity by the leadership does the same thing.

 

[setarcos]

I don’t want to de-rail this thread, but what about what the Church does for the homeless? For those caught in war? For the impoverished? The accusations originally leveled are not, what it seems, are being argued over at the moment. Anyway, just to point out, the members of the Church happen to be responsible for most of the world’s charity. Carry on.

In my opinion charity is done by individuals, not institutions.
It’s a good, beatiful, wonderful thing to be charitable. But we cannot use the advertisement of the amount of our charity to prove anything. Nor should we. Especially when it’s not in question. It only then becomes suspect for ulterior motives other than merely doing good for goods sake. Many criminals have given massively to charity. I would charge you to find any prominate criminal who has not been charitable in one form or another.
Bragging about being the largest may not mean what you feel it meens. Witness the elderly widow who gave the least to the treasury in amount but Jesus said gave the most of all the rich. For she gave all she had. Has the church given all she has? What has she given?

Looking at some numbers, we can actually see how things can be used to prove things one way and yet not be so impressive looked at another way… In 2010 according to Charitable research Network Catholic social contributions (limited to America ) was estimated at $30 billion.
Total expenditures were $168 billion spent on social services charities. This made Catholic affiliated charity approximately 17%, an impressive ratio indeed for one group. This doesn’t include social service expenditures by the government though.
According to the Congressional budget office the federal government spent $588 billion on said services. Part of which goes to foot the bill for Catholic charitable work through social services contracts. According to NETWORK - a Catholic social lobbying group- the feds sent more than $1.5 billion to Catholic organizations over merely a 2 week period.
In 2012 the Economist reported that as much as 62% of catholic Charities support came from local, state, and fed government agencies. So…again I ask, what has she given?
It’s a numbers game. If you want to brag about the manipulation of statistics and brag about being the biggest and best, be my guest. As for me I’ll give what I can. Though it may just be less than the Catholic Church can give.

 

[setarcos]

The author Rodney Stark in non-Catholic.

Please sir, could you tell me what you mean? This seems to be an incomplete statement as related to the quote.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

This happens to be a text essay I have available for on-line apologetics regarding this subject. Feel free to use on your own.

**Middle Ages/Age of Faith = “Dark Ages” MYTH! **

1. “Dark Ages” is rarely used ACTUAL historians, but if they do they confine it to in the context of :

a. “The breakdown of centralized political authority and record keeping in WESTERN Europe circa 450 AD to 850 AD and a decay and abandonment of Roman infrastructure, including: Slave Plantations, long-distance luxury good trade, purely political-military cities, aqueducts, and military roads, all which required a large bureaucratic state to maintain.”

1. The “Dark Ages” happened to WESTERN Europe. While frequently contracted, the Eastern Byzantine Empire was a continuous political and cultural entity until the Fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. While in many ways a stagnant culture, Byzantium never experienced a “Dark Age” despite (perhaps) being more explicitly religious than the West.
2. What might be called the “Dark Ages” ENDED by 850 AD. The feudal kingdoms and dukedoms while still frequently at war with each other had essentially repelled or (In the case of Normandy and Britain) absorbed the outlying raiding cultures and internal brigandage was largely suppressed. This allowed for officials as well as monks to keep records of what was going on-well enough that we moderns and post-moderns have a pretty good idea how early Medieval society functioned and who was doing what and why. By record-keeping criteria alone the “darkness” ended.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

1. The very term “Dark Ages” was a creation of 18th century “Enlightenment” (get the deliberate contrast?) writers, especially Voltaire and Montaigne, who claimed “Darkness and Ignorance” ruled the post-Roman era, and conflated the Dark Ages with the entirety of the European Middle Ages (circa 850 AD to 1480 AD) which was also labeled as “The Age of Faith”. Per these early secularist spin-doctors, the Middle Ages were “dark” because the Church suppressed and deliberately lost the writings of the pagan Greco-Roman world, until rediscovered in the Renaissance (circa 1480 AD to 1650 AD) which in turn lead to the secular-scientific progress of the Enlightenment (circa 1700-1800 AD). The problem of this premise is that it is almost entirely false-to-fact from beginning to end.
2. Being literary types themselves, Voltaire, Gibbons, etc… (and their later sycophants, including HG Wells and Mark Twain) identified literary culture as the identifying characteristic of civilization; No writings=no civilization. By this special-pleading emphasis, the Enlightenment writers ignored or belittled any other development in Western Civilization during these 1000 years of “Darkness”. What the Medieval world managed to do that the Voltaire & Co. couldn’t ignore, they called “barbaric”, “crude”, “superstitious”, “otherworldly”, and “morbid”. The very term “Gothic” for the High Middle Ages (circa 1150-1250 AD) was applied by these critics to the soaring and sublime architecture of Chartes and Rheims as an insulting term (“Gothic” derived from the barbarian Goths who ravaged Rome in the 5th Century).

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

1. What is increasingly clear to historians, economists, sociologists, and archeologists is that Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular had NO part in the post 450 AD collapse OR in prolonging it. The Enlightenment “scholars”, especially Gibbons, fell into the classic post hoc ergo propter hoc (“after the fact because of the fact”) logical fallacy which in this case went “Catholic Christianity became popular and prominent by the 5th century and the Western Empire collapsed in the 5th century, hence, the Church was responsible for the Dark Ages”. The problem with this position is that the decline and fall of the Western Roman Empire had root causes that either long predated the rise of Christianity or occurred independently parallel to its popularity, including but not limited to: vast slave plantations destroying free-holding farms; monetary inflation by the debasement of coinage; “Bread and circuses” draining the economy; frequent military coups and incompetent Emperors; critical population decline; Germanic tribal migrations/invasions; and the erosion of the Roman military system.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

1. A far better argument can be held that the Church delayed the (perhaps) inevitable collapse. By prohibiting to its followers contraception, abortion, and infanticide (all three widely practiced by their pagan neighbors), Catholics slowed the Empire’s population decline (Modern Europe, take note) and increased their own numbers in relation to the general population. During the persecutions of Decius and Diocletian, Roman judges remarked that the Christian officials and soldiers they condemned were by far the most honest and competent of their professions-for an “otherworldly” religion they more than pulled their own weight, especially during the 3rd Century’s pandemics when Christians nursed PAGAN neighbors back to health when other pagans, including physicians, had fled the outbreak.
2. As it was, when the Western Empire did collapse, the Catholic Church, especially through its expanding network of monasteries founded by or inspired by St Benedict, was the only institution that was both widespread and resilient enough to provide the framework for a new, more dynamic, and FREER civilization. Far from keeping Western Civilization in darkness, the Catholic Church kept the flame of civilization alive. Because the pagan Romans had translated very little of the Greek literature into Latin, that was why the Western Church primarily preserved and copied Latin works-the Eastern Church did the same with the Greek writings. When Greek writings became available through Spain in the 12th century, Catholic scholars flocked to Iberia to read them and they were very quickly spread through Europe through the Church-founded university system (see below).

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

1. Even during the 450-850 “Dark Ages”, technological innovations continued, and if not directly invented in the monasteries, were certainly adopted and promoted across Europe by that system. Such innovations that proved critical were water and wind mills, iron moldboard plows, horse collars, and the three-field crop rotation system. Per Mike Flynn, the Dark and Middle Ages gave us:

i. “In no particular order: watermills, windmills, camshafts, toothed wheels, transmission shafts, mechanical clocks, pendant clocks, eye glasses, four-wheeled wagons, wheeled moldboard plows with shares and coulters, three-field crop rotation, blast furnaces, laws of magnetism, steam blowers, treadles, stirrups, armored cavalry, the elliptical arch, the fraction and arithmetic of fractions, the plus sign, preservation of antiquity, “Gresham’s” law, the mean speed theorem, “Newton’s” first law, distilled liquor, use of letters to indicate quantities in “al jabr” [algebra], discovery of the Canary Islands, the Vivaldi expedition, cranks, overhead springs, latitudo et longitudo, coiled springs, laws of war and non-combatants, modal logic, capital letters and punctuation marks, hydraulic hammers, definition of uniform motion, of uniformly accelerated motion, of instantaneous motion, explanation of the rainbow, counterpoint and harmony, screw-jacks, screw-presses, horse collars, gunpowder and pots de fer, that there may be a vacuum, that there may be other Worlds, that the earth may turn in a diurnal motion, that to overthrow a tyrant is the right of the multitude, the two-masted cog, infinitesimals, open and closed sets, verge-and-foliot escapements, magnetic compasses, portolan charts, the true keel, natural law, human rights, international law, universities, corporations, freedom of inquiry, separation of church and state, “Smith’s” law of marketplaces, fossilization, geological erosion and uplift, anaerobic salting of fatty fish (“pickled herring”), double entry bookkeeping, and… the printing press. (Yeah, some of the innovations are political and economic.) .”

ii. m-francis.livejournal.com October 18th, 2009

iii. --But since these weren’t “Literary” the above things and more were ignored by Voltaire, Gibbons, Wells, etc…

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

1. As it was, all the Roman writings copied and multiplied by the Western Church didn’t have that much science and technology in it (other than the medical writings of Galen). They simply were not that interested in understanding nature. They dealt with the world in three ways: Imitating its forms, via Engineering; placating it through Religion and Superstition; or resignation through Stoicism and Epicureanism. Late Imperial technology was hardly any different than late Republic technology. The Roman elite had little to no interest in more efficient and labor saving technology since they had a massive slave population to do the grunt work-never mind that it devalued free labor creating a substantial population of urban poor who had to be bribed with free bread and entertainment-further driving the economy into the sewer over the centuries.
2. Catholic theology was in direct opposition to the Hellenistic idea that honest productive work was somehow “lower” or more “debased” than being an aristocrat who collected rents and may have lifted a sword in war or a stylus in composition, but never a shovel or a hammer. While there certainly WAS an aristocratic-warrior bias from the Roman era all the way to the early 20th century, the fact that Jesus was a carpenter, Peter a fisherman, and Paul a tent maker meant manual labor and craftsmanship was not demeaning-that in fact, such things could be indicators of character rather than its lack. Even a Duke, at least on his better days, had to admit his lowliest land-bonded serf might be a far better Christian than he could ever hope to be. Largely from the “Rule of Benedict”, the Church supported monks in hands-on work and innovation.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

1. The University as we know it developed out of those so-called “Dark Ages” from the monastic or Cathedral schools founded back in the 600s. The Middle Ages development was to expand these schools (already open to all who could afford it or received scholarship) into a charter guild form: the University of Bologna (1088), the University of Paris (c. 1150, later associated with the Sorbonne), the University of Oxford (1167), the University of Modena (1175), the University of Palencia (1208), the University of Cambridge (1209), the University of Salamanca (1218), the University of Montpellier (1220), the University of Padua (1222), the University of Naples Federico II (1224), and the University of Toulouse (1229). University curricula were based in the trivium-the arts of grammar, rhetoric and dialectic (or logic)-and the quadrivium: arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy.
2. The Scholastic Method developed within the Cathedral, Monastery, and later University schools as a rigorous methodology (hence the grounding in the trivium) to examine ANY issue-not just theological ones as Voltaire and company imputed. The Scholastics took the principles of logical analysis and debate inherited from the Greeks and Romans and improved them. The process of analysis, open debate, and sometimes brutal peer review not just within one instruction, but across dozens of universities across Europe (Latin being the language of international communication-so later, Isaac Newton matter-of-factly first published in this “dead” language.)
3. The scholastic method became the basis for the scientific methodology worked out by 13th century Franciscan priest Roger Bacon: Tentative hypothesis of observed events followed by: limiting variables in experiments, control groups, careful as possible measurements and the thorough recording of data, formulation of theory and sharing results with peers for repeatability and review. This method had NOT-in ancient Rome or Greece, or in Islam, India, or China-ever been done before. The simple fact is the Scientific Method we use today was born in and because of a supporting Catholic Civilization and nowhere else.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

1. The ancient Greeks came the closest to developing science before the European Middle Ages, but Greek Science was stillborn by the first century AD. Some early Greek philosophers made some observations of the physical world and made some valid deductions but their approach was not systemic and not part of a like-minded community. Essentially, where Greeks where theoretical they lacked empirical investigation and development and where they were empirical, they lacked theory. Much of what is called “early science” by secularists actually falls in the category of technology or engineering, as this distinction holds true for the Romans, Chinese, Indians, and Islam.
2. By the first century AD, Greek philosophy had largely been diverted from any form of empirical investigation, being dominated by the schools of Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Neo-Platonism. The first two schools were concerned with coping as the world as it is and not improving it and the last with an obsession with other-worldly perfect forms-essentially a variety of Gnostic Monism. It was against THIS philosophical background that the Early Church Father Tertullian complained “what has Athens to do with Jerusalem?”
3. Regarding the famous Neo-Platonist, Hypatia of Alexandria (d. 415 AD) she was NOT a scientist let alone a “Scientist-martyr”. While her brutal murder by Alexandrian Christians was a horrific atrocity by Christians, she was NOT lynched because she was a scientist, or a scholar, or a woman. Hypatia was a would-be peace keeper, trying to intervene in a political feud between a Christian bishop (her student!) and the prelate of the city and paid the price for her intervention in a city where Pagans, Jews, and Christians all participated in vicious mob violence to settle perceived scores. Additionally, there is NO proof that any books or scrolls where destroyed in the events of her murder, let alone the destruction of the library of Alexandria as claimed by Gibbons. Finally, the events of this murder had NO bearing whatsoever of the collapse of the Western Empire which occurred decades later and hundreds of miles away.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

1. Continuing the birth metaphors, “science” as a means and a system miscarried in China, India, and the countries dominated by Islam (including later India). Refuting Jared Diamond’s geographical determinism, these cultures shared all of the advantages supposedly held by Western Europe yet did not develop the scientific method and sustained indigenous technological innovation.

I. In China, repeatedly the Mandarin-Confucian elite would suppress technological innovations to preserve the status quo of the Middle Kingdom and prevailing Buddhist and Taoist philosophies further stifled inquiry into the natural world by believing it was illusionary or utterly inexplicable and unexplainable.

II. In India the dominant Vedic religions (like Buddhism in China) disdained the here and now world as illusion and of no importance.

III. Finally, in the lands of Islam, the Koranic idea that God (Allah) was not bound by any idea of consistency in his own actions, including the created universe, meant that any method which examined the natural world as being amenable to rational inquiry because it WAS predictable and lawful was repeatedly suppressed by religious-political authorities.

 

[jcrichton]

I guess I need to inquire of you what or who exactly do you think comprises Christs “Church”?
So far according to you…
(1)The church is NOT free of error, (2)the church IS tied to temporal values, of which I guess you mean her behavior is based upon the times she finds herself in, (3)power and pride was often not relinquished by priests and Bishops, but this was not rampant, whatever qualifies as rampant to you, (4)the churches continued existence was not dependant upon the accumulation of power and wealth, (5)nor was it dependant upon the control of the development of technology, and discovery, and (6)the church being stripped of political and military power remains despite forces of specifically anti-Catholic sentiments, and anti-God agencies?
(7)She asserted her authority in matters of faith and “erred” on the side of scripture and doctrine?
(8)She did not hold onto her errors though.
(9)The church was maligned unfarely by the poor actions of some of her members, but the church doesn’t seek adulation from her members by declaring her errors, and last but perhaps most important, (10)the church continues to teach her doctrine without error.

I think we are straying some again from my original intentions to voice my opinion In a non-threatening way. It’s a wonder any progressive communication gets done at all. Everyone’s so tied up with proving even their errors to be justified given the so called circumstances that the errors themselves become weapons used to attempt to defeat the perceived enemy. Continued in next post…

The problem lies not just with perception but also with reason.

The Church Founded by Christ and Guided by the Holy Spirit is inerrant.

The Church, which is made up by fallible men (and women) does not exist only in a Spiritual realm but also in the temporal world.

Those agents which are fallible and reside in the temporal plane have and do commit errors.

Atheist and anti-Catholic “Christians” do assault the Church because to both she is a hindrance to their perceptions and beliefs–still, since her members are fallible, even many from within the Church find her to be a hindrance to the liberties they prefer to enjoy with non-Catholics Believers and atheists.

The Church Founded by Christ and Guided by the Holy Spirit Continues in her Duty to Live the Gospel and to Preach to the world the Sound Doctrine of the Faith–in this she, the Church, does not err.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Please bare with me. I have a few questions and statements.

By saying the church is not without error (1) , then saying she was unfarely maligned by the actions of a few(9), your either saying the few in error are not representative of the church therefore the church is not in error so you misspoke, or the church is in error because certain members of her are in error and therefor all members share the guilt? This of course depends on how you define church.
If the Church is tied to temporal values (2)then this would seem to imply that the churches values change with the values of the time. If she draws her values from Christ this shouldn’t be the case should it?

The only way that sin/error does not enter into man is if that person has been fully Graced by the Holy Spirit–in this particular case few in the whole world have been error free since only God is Holy–and those few which have remained in His holiness. How many were saved from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? …there would have been one more if only she would have humbly obeyed to the last second! (Error sips in.)

My contention concerning (3) is that it may be argued that power and pride was and certainly is still rampant among those in positions in which these things can and are being used most advantageously. If by rampant you mean majority, I’m not sure if your using this as a defense for these sins or what?
Concerning (4), I never said it was. What I am saying is that because the leadership seems to be so concerned with such things as if her continuity does depend on them that the church’s behavior has became something it shouldn’t have. Besides it can be argued that her continued existence as the Roman Catholic Church IS due to taking advantage of connections that were formed with powerful and wealthy secular sources.
As for (5), where did I ever say it was? I’m only saying that the mentality of the leadership caused her to seek control of these things.

The dictionary’s definition of rampant is as follows:

1.(especially of something unwelcome or unpleasant) flourishing or spreading unchecked:

Defending the life of people, calling armies to dismantle, asking rulers to think beyond murder and mayhem, presenting alternatives to chaos and corruption, asking for respect and good treatment of poor, children, and females goes a long way from dictating to armies and monarchs that they must respect the hierarchy of the Church.

What history are you immersed that negates the millions of lives that have been lost due to the thirst for power and wealth, the thousands of Priests, Religious, and laity that were put to death to wrench capital and real estate from the Catholics that rightfully owned it? Is that the action of the Church allies to keep her in power and control?

How can the church be stripped of military(6) power when she never had a military in the first place? Are you talking about those who she saught to help her further her cause withdrawing their favor? How could she be stripped of worldly political power (6)unless she saught it and or had it in the first place- which ties into my contentions about (3) above?

…apparently you’ve never heard of feudalism and barbarism–they both have set out to take the world by storm–to dominate and raze it to hades… this has been the reality from within which the Church not only surfaced but flourished.

You seem to insinuate that if “Believers” would hold on to Christian values and remain inert within the world that all will be fine since “good men” will arise and make everything “right.”

Today we have “good men and women” who are making sure the future is secure for all by strangling the Church and all Christian Believers… Do you honestly think that the Church should just remain silent and lock her members behind the doors of the various parishes and when the turmoil passes we should come out and break bread?

Reality is harsh–brutish at times. The Church must continue to battle heresies and to Teach sound Doctrine. Within the Church agents of evil will seek to undo Justice (it has been so from the very beginning). It is the reason why the New Testament was inked (specifically the Epistles).

Does the church that was in the beginning REALLY still exist? Please don’t be peurile with your response.

Yes and no. The Church is organic; this means that there is change, growth that takes place. This happened right from the Sacred Scrolls. The Mystical Body of Christ is One. The Holy Spirit is One. There is but One Lord, One Baptism, One Gospel, One Faith. Hence, the Church does not change.

Man is folly. Man makes up the membership of the Church. Man errs. Man seeks to gain the upper hand from folly by splintering the Body of Christ. Christ Calls to Unity. When man cannot put himself aside for God, the Church falls into error due to man’s folly. The Holy Spirit renovates the Church through men that He raises against the folly that takes inertia within the Body of Christ.

This, is the Church, from Scriptures.

(Just had a site check on max content–truncated to accommodate limits.)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

…What do you mean erred on the side of in (7)?
I’m afraid she has held onto her errors

Issues that were not substantiated with discoveries and proven by experiment and knowledge could not dictate the way that the world (nature, science, Scriptures) would be seen interpreted. Once there was a clear bases of understanding/knowledge the Church would respect what was discovered/learned and apply Scriptural Interpretation and Teaching accordingly.

(8). In the fourth century St. Basil of Caesara, fed up with sexual abuse -one might use the word “rampant”- in his day that he set up a detailed system of punnishment for clerics who molested boys. Flogging and chains for six months and never again allowed unsupervised interactions with minors. In the 11th century St. Peter Damian wrote a treatise “Book of Gomorrah” that he gave to Pope Leo IX pleading for him to get serious about clergy sexual abuse. Surely over 19 centuries an institution could develop a better system of punishment or preventative measures than to shuffle the affended off to a “retreat” for prayer and reflection then back to affend again and again then bullying the victims? My problem isn’t with crimes being committen by members of the church the’s things are ienviable at times in this world.

Since I am not versed in Church History I cannot actually comment on these issues–we could table this until I do some research to find if the accusations are as you’ve stated; regardless, if they did take place there’s no response to such actions except the reality of when they happened and the actuality of what happened.

My concern is with the evil behavior of the “magisterium’s” behavior when dealing with these evils. If the magisterium is the interpreter of the faith then has to apologize for sanctioning actions by the church such as the inquisition, or Galilios so called imprisonment, or the crusades, for whatever reason then how can I trust they’ve interpreted the faith correctly? How can I believe in their leadership?

Again, reality of times and actuality of what transpired–the Church has apologized throughout time for various offenses. The reality of this is that even when she apologizes it is taken as wrong and falsehood is injected into the events that took place hundreds if not thousands of years past.
You seem to be agreeing with the small-minded cretins (taking a shot at them not you) who, during the call to destroy the Catholic Church held that the Pope had to be held accountable for what the Priests and Bishops did; the Church does not rule the world, she never has! People, both in and outside of the Church, have usurped her authority and made claims and have taken actions in her name… we must use reason to separate the two: Church and state/agents.

Understanding the reality and actuality can help a person decide if he/she wants to become part of the Church. No one, in the Church or out, can convince you to become part of the Church. In the past medical practices were barbaric and heinous (not too distant past in the case of the Gestapo and US secret experiments)–do you refuse all medications and do you refuse to seek medical help when warranted?

If the Church teaches her doctrine without error then has to apologize for actions she committed based upon her understanding of her doctrine, is the church in error in what she teaches or is what she teaches in error? Perhaps she’s simply teaching one thing but actually doing another? She either isn’t the church she was or needs to change the church she’s became.

Error is error. Sin is sin. Crime is crime. The Church’s Doctrine of Faith and the actions of man within the Body of Christ have not always been congruent. As you’ve stated, the Church Teaches Doctrine yet its members may not adhere to the Doctrine that she Teaches (just try to tell the millions of Catholics that practice adultery, contraception, abortion, fornication… to abide by Catholic Doctrine which is based on Scriptures, see where that will get you). The fallacy is man’s not the Church’s. Throughout time the correction has been there before the act and after the act.

The difference is that today man is bloodthirsty for God; the Catholic Church is the biggest target and revisionists, assisted by the “reformationists,” will forever exaggerate the offenses of a few of her members while augmenting the damage and misfortunes they have caused.

As I understand it, the Church has apologized for the derailment and pain caused by some of her members… I do not know if she has apologized for every single incident committed or perceived.

Maran atha!

Angel