The John Calvin quote is out of context and the veneration of Mary comes from the Gospel of James i.e. a gospel that contradicts history and the Bible. Nevertheless, the "traditionalists" need to stop thinking that simply posting a quote in a certain context will somehow make their theological standpoint true. It wouldn't surprise me if they know more quotes about scripture than the actual scripture itself.
Misremembering what I typed as "some random Hebrew woman" strikes me as religious reverence. "Great is Diana of the Ephesians" comes to mind, given how those people at Ephesus were proto-Catholics of a sort, also considering their graven images of their goddess/idol.
so you can disagree with the Church Fathers (100-500 A.D.), the Theologians (800-1500 A.D.), and the reformation fathers (1500-1600 A.D.), and some how you are still an orthodox Christian following the faith and practices of the early Church?
The Virgin Mary in the Gospel themselves says: "for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed" (Luke 1:48 ).
Was Jesus not an ancient Hebrew man?
Is this not indirectly lowering Jesus to "just another person" so you can exalt Mary to a divine level?
no, it is showing the unfitness of the title "ancient Hebrew man/woman" to describe Jesus and the Virgin Mary. Mary doesn't have to be divine for that title to be inadequate and highly offensive to her dignity
Sorry, are you saying he wasn't? certain posters here would be needlessly accusing you of monophysite heresy already, based on this post.
yes, of course, but I've already talked about how that's wrong. Plus, the theological implications of calling the Mother of God a mere "hebrew woman" are massive and blatant. It is not just about specific titles, or being correct descriptions of creatures, is about not insulting the Holy Virgin. Judging titles based on if they are apt descriptions of things is autistic. You don't call Washington "some guy from New England" because that would be beneath his dignity, and thus insulting. Same for Jesus and "hebrew man", same for Mary and "hebrew woman"
With respect to the Mary "question", there is something to be said from the Reformed claims that the veneration of Mary was done to get pagan worshippers of Artemis, Demeter and Vesta to be more comfortable with worshipping God instead.
Unrelated to Iconoclasm and idolatry but the Catholic Church around the time of the Renaissance for some reason thought it was perfectly moral to put up statues and paintings of naked men and women and frankly immodest things all for the sake of art. There weren't even any out-in-the-open depictions of the Holy Prepuce before the Renaissance but for some reason the Popes of that time fancied themselves patrons of the arts, and that's putting aside all the plain depictions of God the Father in the Sistine Chapel.
Its really a question of degrees. The Renaissance popes are certainly nothing to write home about, but if you are looking at the statue of David (Which was made by the city of Florence' civil government, incidentally, not the Church) and getting aroused, the problem I think is with you rather then with the statue. I will freely admit that Art is dependent on how the observer see's it. What might be purile to you will just be anatomically correct to me.
we would say that reformation itself was not about religion too, but politics. It was all about politics
Yep. It didn't help that Leo X was absolutely as bad as people said he was. Unfortunately the Sack of Rome happened in 1527 under Clement VII, not Leo X, and Clement was a reformer, brought in to fix what Leo fucked up. But the sack pretty much made the reformation permanent, and led to the counter reformation under Paul III. Being an Anglican, I know all about Clement. He was the pope who told Henry "No, you can't just fuck and divorce at will". A bunch of stuff happened over the centuries since. But it really bugs me how the Protestant sack of Rome which had Clement fleeing to the Castle of Angels was studiously left out of all my Sunday schools. Its made me very jaded.
I would define immodesty in art and dress as deliberately, sinfully provocative to the senses and sensibilities. An OnlyFans girl posing naked like Michelangelo's David is immodest because it's for titillation (lol, lmao.) The sculpture itself is only a rendering of the male body in lifelike detail, not as pornography. Would anyone call Vitruvian Man immodest? Should we never depict The Enemy? Art is and should be created for purpose, and Michelangelo didn't make David to excite lust.
To be fair to the Empire, Charles V ordered his army not to proceed with the sack. The soldiers were landsknecht and tercio mercenaries who went off the leash out of greed. Also, here's the REAL propaganda.
I really do hope the church recovers its martial spirit. We really have spent too much time naval gazing arguing over esoteric doctrine and reliving centuries old grievances.
Depends on what the Bible says about whatever issue you're talking about, doesn't it?
What? The Sack of Rome had nothing to do with the Reformed Church. It was Lutheran and Catholic Germans alongside Spaniards/Italians. And the iconoclastic fury was still years away.
We will never (unless God provides) get another Christian warrior class, or for that matter a Crusade. There is no Christian martial spirit without international martial institutions that don't rely on central government to pay their bills. There is no Crusade without an explicitly Christian nation or a Christian social section that can take up arms, fight and command the lives of men. At best we're stuck with enduring the predations of evil and defending what's local and personal to us, especially because Christians in the West now define themselves in opposition to Islamic evil and glowie psyops. We can't be like the durka durkas who blow up babies! Hey, weren't those Waco crazies a Christian doomsday cult? We don't want to be like them.
The First Crusade (And the Children's Crusade, but that's another story) really deserves a Lolcows of History thread, from that German noble who instead of going crusading just went around and killed Jews in Germany to Peter the Hermit having to wrangle an army of illiterate peasants who looted everywhere they went (Even in Byzantine lands) before being broken on first contact with the Seljuks to the actual Crusader leaders themselves who were competing with Komnenos and eachother as much as they were competing with the Seljuks and also pillaged everywhere they went including Hungary and the ERE, if my memory is correct Nicaea/Nicomedia had to be taken in the dead of night by a Byzantine naval contingent with the collaboration of one Crusader leader to spare it from a sack by the besieging Crusaders.
all of the people I mentioned used the Bible to understand the mysteries of the Faith. Saint Thomas has extensive Bible commentaries.
