The episode is available through iTunes (podcasts) and online here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qykl
September 27, 2019 in History, Radio, Religion; church & state, UK | Permalink | Comments (0)
Reblog
(0)
|
| |
|
Five hundred years ago today the Protestant Reformation began and changed the world.
It didn't just change the church. It unleashed great social and political upheaval, too, including well as war.
And it's surprisingly relevant even today. In particular, the Western world's emphasis on individualism and the maturation of nationalism were significantly and irreversibly advanced by the Reformation. It also marked the advent of the printing press as a profoundly powerful tool for change. It even affected the evolution of art and music and the development of European languages.
In fact, it's hard to imagine modernity arising in the Western world at all without the Reformation happening first.
The man who started the Reformation did so inadvertently. He had no idea what cataclysmic consequences would follow on from his actions.
Luther is a complicated historic figure. He had a deep, molten anger that energized him much of the time. He was an anti-Semite and could be crass. He was willing to advocate warfare in defense of the Reformation's ideals. But he could be warm-hearted and witty, and he was ultimately motivated by concern of others, not himself.
On October 31, 1517, he posted on what was akin to the university's notice board a disputation aimed at fellow academics. Luther's disputation became known as the Ninety-five Theses. (It was in Latin as the vast majority of published work was at that time.)
The Ninety-five Theses called for reform of the Church, specifically the practice of selling indulgences, which were a bit like documents certifying by Church authority the forgiveness of someone's sins, usually the buyer's but sometimes those of someone else.
Luther was profoundly dismayed by indulgences.
To Luther, indulgences were grotesquely far removed from any kind of spiritual truth that could be found in the Bible, and they were a disgusting abuse of power on the part of the Church and specially the Pope.
He saw them as not merely misguided but abhorrently cynical. The money from their sale was primarily used for the construction of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, the Vatican, something the vast majority of Christians would never see or benefit from in any way.
Luther's revulsion was not merely theological but pastoral. Which is to say that he worried about how indulgences and other Church practices endangered peoples' souls, caused them great anxiety about their chances of getting into heaven. There was also the practical concern that indulgences wasted the peoples' hard-earned money. For Luther, indulgences were a scam, a type of theft.
Luther had spent much of his life before the Reformation in psychological torment—true anguish—about whether or not he was going to get to heaven.
In time, he reached a deep conviction that no one could earn a place in heaven, such as through the purchases of indulgences or even charitable works.
Rather, only by the grace (mercy) of God did one gain eternal life in heaven with God after one dies. The pathway to heaven didn't depend on the strenuousness of one's efforts. No one could get to heaven that way anyway, because all individuals are inherently too sinful, completely unworthy of heaven. But God made eternal life available to everyone nonetheless, and did so through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Luther believed that this truth was plainly provided in the words of Bible. One of the many things he objected to about the Church of his day was how it seemed to obfuscate this direct message of the Bible ("the scriptures") by upholding Church traditions like keeping the Bible in Latin—a language average people did not know—instead of letting the Bible be published in a language of the common man and woman, such as German.
Luther’s ideas caught on and spread quickly throughout Europe thanks to a new technology, the printing press. Before the printing press, written works had to be copied by hand, which made them rare and expensive. But the printing press allowed large numbers of copies of written work to be quickly produced, easily transported, cheaply made, and, thus—when not made available for free—cheaply purchased.
As the ideas of the Reformation took root in many parts of Europe, especially in Northern Europe, and threatened traditional power structures, bloodshed followed, political dynasties were shaken, and countless thousands of people began to live their faith and think about God, themselves, and even their daily lives and their common language differently than Christians had for centuries.
The Reformation is more properly called the Protestant Reformation. Those Christians who like Luther rejected the authority of the Roman Catholic Church and forged ahead with various versions of Luther-inspired Christianity became known as Protestants—those who were in protest against the Church such as it had existed for centuries.
One of the hallmarks of Protestantism became its fractious nature. Different kinds of Protestantisms emerged soon after Luther's decisive act—indeed new ones still emerge now—and often came into intense conflict with each other, even violently so.
You can read more about some of the Reformation's consequences here.
Image: Martin Luther (1529) by the workshop of Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472–1553), oil on panel, Hessisches Landesmuseum Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany.
#reformation500
October 30, 2017 in History, Religion; church & state | Permalink | Comments (0)
Reblog
(0)
|
| |
|
It is the First Sunday of Advent, "Þeos tid oð midne winter" ("This season until midwinter"), as it was described by Anglo-Saxon homilist Ælfric of Eynsham (c. 955 – c. 1010).
Show here is the page beginning the "Blessing for the First Sunday of Advent" in the Benedictional of St Æthelwold, written by the scribe Godeman for St Æthelwold, Bishop of Winchester from 963–984. You can examine the Benedictional page by page through the British Library's online display of selections from the institution's manuscripts holdings.
For a more in-depth exploration of Ælfric's sermon and the Benedictional, see Eleanor Parker's blog post, 'Þeos tid oð midne winter': An Anglo-Saxon Sermon for Advent, of which my post is but a shameless and truncated reworking.
November 27, 2016 in Art, design, Books, History, Religion; church & state, UK | Permalink | Comments (0)
Reblog
(0)
|
| |
|
The BBC Radio 4 series and podcast Moral Maze, a panel discussion program recorded live on the morality of current issues and timely topics, has been hosted since its first broadcast in 1990 by Michael Buerk, whose introductory remarks for each episode are nearly always a tour de force. Their shortened, variant version is posted on each episode's webpage, too.
The July 13, 2016 episode is "Policing Offense", when does personal opinion become morally unacceptable? I've edited Buerk's opening remarks and their published version on the webpage:
As the politics of offence, identity and rights become ever more toxic, they become equally hard to navigate, and the price of transgression is ever higher. We've had laws against "hate speech" for many years now, but are we too keen to create whole new categories of "-isms" to which we can take offence?
If morality rests on the ability to distinguish between groups and make judgments about their lifestyles, how do you distinguish between a legitimate verdict and an unjustifiable prejudice?
Why is it acceptable to say "It's good that the President is black" but not to say "It's good that the next President will be white"? Ditto women. Why is the insult "stale, male and pale" OK, but it wouldn't be if you changed gender and race?
Just when you'd learned to call the sexually ambiguous or at least transient "transgender", you're told the concept of gender is unacceptably binary and hence insulting.
There are exploding tripwires of social acceptability everywhere, with a new vocabulary of perceived offensiveness: "micro-aggression", so-called "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" to protect students from ideas they don't agree with.
It only seems to work one way. Black or brown people can't be racist about whites. Women, if that's not too binary of a description, can't be sexist about men.
Is all this a good thing, stigmatizing and policing prejudice? Is this about defending the powerless against the powerful, or are we stifling debate, making the political personal, limiting people's rights to say what they think, and making identity more important than ideas?
Where do we draw the line between policing the basic principles of equal rights and mutual respect with a capacity to judge people by what lies in their heart? When does personal opinion become morally unacceptable?
Listen to the episode (streaming) or download it as an MP3 here. It's also available on iTunes.
Along with Buerk as chair, the program features four panelists and a series of witnesses. Regular panelists as the time of this writing are Claire Fox, Giles Fraser, Kenan Malik, Anne McElvoy, Michael Portillo, Melanie Phillips, and Matthew Taylor.
(Moral Maze live broadcast, 1994.)
Besides chairing Moral Maze, and co-hosting the ITV program Britain's Secret Treasures, Buerk is best known as the journalist whose October 23, 1984 report on the Ethiopia famine inspired Band Aide and Live Aide.
July 16, 2016 in A good thought, Books, Campaigns, elections, Democrats; progressivism, Economy, economic justice, Equality, rights, liberty, Foreign affairs, History, Media, Radio, Religion; church & state, Science & education, Security; military, UK | Permalink | Comments (0)
Reblog
(0)
|
| |
|
Early zoology courtesy of The Aberdeen Bestiary (1100s, England), University of Aberdeen Library; accession number: MS 24. Special Collections Centre, Bedford Road, Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom.
There is an animal called the beaver, which is extremely gentle; its testicles are highly suitable for medicine. Physiologus says of it that, when it knows that a hunter is pursuing it, it bites off its testicles and throws them in the hunter's face and, taking flight, escapes. But if, once again, another hunter is in pursuit, the beaver rears up and displays its sexual organs. When the hunter sees that it lacks testicles, he leaves it alone. Thus every man who heeds God's commandment and wishes to live chastely should cut off all his vices and shameless acts, and cast them from him into the face of the devil.
March 12, 2016 in Art, design, Books, History, Religion; church & state, Web whorls & eddies | Permalink | Comments (0)
Reblog
(0)
|
| |
|
They have brought gold and spices to my King,
Incense and precious stuffs and ivory;
O holy Mother mine, what can I bring
That so my Lord may deign to look on me?
They sing a sweeter song than I can sing,
All crowned and glorified exceedingly:
I, bound on earth, weep for my trespassing,–
They sing the song of love in heaven, set free.
Then answered me my Mother, and her voice
Spake to my heart, yea answered in my heart:
'Sing, saith He to the heavens, to earth, Rejoice:
Thou also lift thy heart to Him above:
He seeks not thine, but thee such as thou art,
For lo His banner over thee is Love.'
- 20 January 1852
The Poetical Works of Christina Georgina Rossetti, with a Memoir and Notes by William Michael Rossetti (1904), page 148.
Portrait of Christina Rossetti; Gabriel Charles Dante Rossetti ("Dante Gabriel Rossetti"); chalk; 79 × 63.5 cm (31.1 × 25 in)
December 25, 2015 in A good thought, Religion; church & state, UK | Permalink | Comments (0)
Reblog
(0)
|
| |
|
Why is the Pope's Twitter handle @Pontifex?
It's taken from one of his official titles, which is Supreme Pontiff of the whole Church, pontifex being the Latin word that we translate into English as pontiff. Supreme Pontiff in Latin is Summus Pontifex.
Pontifex dates back to long before Christianity, quite likely as far back as Rome's second king, Numa Pompilius (715–673 BC). It meant a member of the College of Pontiffs, the body overseeing Rome's religious practices. The director of the College of Pontiffs was the Pontifex Maximus.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus (c. 60 BC – c. 8 BC), a Greek historian, offered the first etymological explanation that we know of for the term pontifex, writing that it means "bridge-builder" (the Latin words pons and facere), but other interpretations were also offered.
During the reign of Rome's second emperor, Augustus, which started in 27 BC, the office of pontifex maximus became one of the emperor's. It remained an office claimed by all emperors until Theodosius I, Roman emperor from AD 379 to 395. With Theodosius I's Edict of Thessalonica in 380, Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, having been formally legalized—along with all religions in the empire—by the Edict of Milan in AD 313 under Emperor Constantine. Eventually under Theodosius, other religions were banned.
Pope Leo I, whose papacy was from 440 to 461, was the first pope to adopt the title Pontifex Maximus though the bishop of Rome had been referred to as pontifex maximus in a more general sense in writings as far back at the 200s.
During the Italian Renaissance, which started in the 1300s, when the history and culture of ancient Rome was being rediscovered and capturing the imaginations of artists, scholars, and patrons, various popes styled themselves Pontifex Maximus, including in inscriptions on public works they funded, such as fountains, many of which can be seen in Rome today.
But the Pope's official titles don't include Pontifex Maximus. Or Pope, either!
In English, Pope Francis' titles are:
Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the servants of God.
(This post is cobbled together from recollections confirmed by and many specifics I didn't know from various Wikipedia entries.)
September 23, 2015 in History, Religion; church & state | Permalink | Comments (0)
Reblog
(0)
|
| |
|
The monarchy may be inherited but respect is not.
Queen Elizabeth II today becomes the longest-reigning monarch in British history and is the longest-reigning female monarch in history.
Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
And she is popular the world over.
In Britain, 70% of those surveyed believe that the monarchy will be around 100 years from now. The percentage of Brits in favor of abolishing the monarch remains as it was in the 1960s at about 16%. That optimistic view is largely because of the current head of state, now nearly 90 years old.
None of this has been easy, and if people think it has been – well, that only goes to show how adroitly the Queen has played the part.... She has done it because she has acted in character; and it is part of her own character to put her role before her self. — Charles Moore (conservative commentator and journalist), The Telegraph
Constitutional monarchy isn't the system of government any new nation being created from scratch today would choose. But, in Britain, its present form came about very gradually and on balance, I believe, it serves the nation fairly well, though imperfectly, of course. For the vast majority of the Western world that is committed to democracy, equality, and liberty, seeing any advantages in an unelected head of state requires that the position's power also be very limited. Such is the case with the modern British monarchy. Though nothing expressly prohibits it, the monarch's role calls for limited, carefully-calibrated and almost entirely apolitical public comment only, leaving to other public figures the great questions and challenges the UK faces—currently, membership in the EU, immigration, House of Lords reform, etc.
But that doesn't mean that the monarch is utterly powerless or that who the monarch is—his or her worlds, opinions, manner, actions—doesn't matter to the nation, the nation's sense of itself, or the monarchy and its future. If Queen Elizabeth were not the monarch, would the British monarchy itself be less secure? Quite possibly so.
Queen Elizabeth has been remarkably effective by preserving the monarchy through a very strict commitment to public service and symbolism, staying out of the messiness of daily governance, the cut and thrust of partisanship, and the rush-to-the-bottom style of so much electoral politics. During here reign, she's made no profoundly significant slips, accidental or otherwise, to the press or the wrong interlocutor in a moment of pique or carelessness. The same cannot be said relative to all of her children or her husband, Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, but she's remained almost entirely unscathed by the carelessness of other royals.
This doesn't mean she's without opinions or observations, but they aired very judiciously to maximize their already limited potential effect, to select recipients, including 12 British Prime Ministers over the course of her reign so far, who she has met with almost weekly since 1952, or more subtly to the nation and beyond at moments like her annual Christmas Day broadcast. There may be no doubt the occasional less-than-accidental leak to this or that journalist, too.
She has been a constant, calming presence in a country that has often needed one. You have to admire her self-discipline and sense of duty. Some of us may not want a Queen, but we are lucky enough to have had a good one. — Cole Moreton (republican commentator, journalist), The Independent
September 09, 2015 in Foreign affairs, History, Politics, Religion; church & state, UK | Permalink | Comments (0)
Reblog
(0)
|
| |
|
For the philosopher Epicurus of Samos (341–270 B.C.), eudaimonia, that is a full, flourishing life, was achieved ataraxia (peace and freedom from fear), aponia (the absence of pain), and living self-sufficiently among friends.
Ben Gazur's "Why Epicurus Matters Today," an article for The Mantle, argues that "it is time to bring back Epicurus and hear what he has to say."
Gazur summarizes some of what Epicurus had to say:
"The sane and thoughtful pursuit of pleasure is the key to living well."
"Ask of each thing is it natural and is it necessary."
"Practice moderation for the maximization of pleasure."
Gazur:
The problems Epicurus thought he solved are timeless. Human nature changes only slowly and the laws of nature not all. His is a voice that perhaps came into the world too early.
Gazur retells a tale of Plutarch's about a philosophical dinner shared by the Epicurean philosopher Cineas and the Pyrrhus (319/318–272 B.C.), the King of Epirus who was an antagonist of early Rome.
Cineas asked the king, “Once you have beaten the Romans what shall we do?”
“Once the Romans are conquered we shall have all the riches of Italy at our disposal,” Pyrrhus answered.
Cineas paused, probably sipped from his wine and asked, “And what will we do then?”
Sicily is near! It will be an easy victory.”
Cineas thought a moment more. ”And then what shall we do?”
"Then we will take Libya and Carthage,” the king replied.
"What will we do after that?”
"We will secure all of the Greek world under my rule,” the king nodded at the thought.
“But what will we do then?” Cineas asked.
“Ah, my friend,” said Pyrrhus, ”then we shall rest. We will drink wine, and talk philosophy, and enjoy the fruits of our friendship.”
Cineas looked around. They had wine. They had friendship. They were talking. “Can’t we do what you wish now without harming anyone with war or causing pain to ourselves?”
.....
Cineas’s question is one we must all answer. Why are we doing what we are doing? We live such busy lives with so many pressing matters that we never pause to consider what the point of it all is. Might we not be like Pyrrhus, rushing to act before we know why we doing anything at all?
Epicurus was also an atomist and rejected mysticism. He believed that the gods, if they existed, were themselves made of atoms and had no care about or involvement in human affairs.
See: The "Principal Doctrines" — a collection of forty quotes from the writings of Epicurus.
Photo by bijouchatte: Epicurus. (Pentelic marble, late A.D. 100s; Louvre, Paris.)
June 20, 2015 in History, Religion; church & state | Permalink | Comments (0)
Reblog
(0)
|
| |
|
George Frideric Handel is probably best known for his musical compositions Messiah (1741) and Water Music (1717). A lesser-known work of his dates from 1713—the cantata Ode for the Birthday of Queen Anne. It featured a libretto by English poet and Whig politician Ambrose Philips and celebrated both the 6th of February birthday of Anne, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, as well as the 1712 signing of the Treaty of Utrecht, which ended the War of Spanish Succession and was negotiated by Anne's government. In light of the success of the treaty, the cantata styles Queen Anne as a peacemaker.
Anne was popular throughout her reign, in part because of her personal misfortunes. When she became monarch in 1707 at the age of 42, she was gout-ridden, obese, and in nearly constant pain. She had endured 17 pregnancies that resulted in either stillborn children or children who died by the age of four. On the 1st of August, 1714 she succumbed to Erysipelas, "St. Anthony's fire," a type of acute streptococcus bacterial infection, at the age of 48.

(Alto solo with solo trumpet over sustained strings)
Eternal source of light divine
With double warmth thy beams display
And with distinguish'd glory shine
To add a lustre to this day.
(Alto solo, then chorus with orchestra, sing "the chorus")
The day that gave great Anna birth
Who fix'd a lasting peace on earth.
(Soprano solo, then chorus with orchestra)
Let all the winged race with joy
Their wonted homage sweetly pay
Whilst towr'ing in the azure sky
They celebrate this happy day.
[Chorus repeated]
(Alto solo, then alto and solo with chorus and orchestra)
Let flocks and herds their fear forget
Lions and wolves refuse* their prey
And all in friendly consort meet
Made glad by this propitious day.
[Chorus repeated]
(Bass and alto duet, then chorus with orchestra)
Let rolling streams their gladness show
With gentle murmurs whilst they play
And in their wild meanders flow
Rejoicing in this blessed day.
[Chorus repeated]
(Soprano and alto duet with solo oboe and orchestra)
Kind Health descends on downy wings
Angels conduct her on the way.
T'our glorious Queen new life she brings
And swells our joys upon this day.
[Chorus repeated with Alto and soprano, then chorus with orchestra]
(Bass solo, then chorus with orchestra)
Let envy then conceal her head
And blasted faction glide away.
No more her hissing tongues we'll dread
Secure in this auspicious day.
[Chorus repeated]
(Alto solo then chorus with echo effects,solo trumpet and orchestra)
United nations shall combine
To distant climes their sound combine
That Anna's actions are divine
And this the most important day!
[Chorus repeated]
The Stuart Dynasty ended with Queen Ann's death; it began in 1688 when William of Orange of the Dutch Republic (Willem III van Oranje) became William III, King of England, Scotland, and Ireland, as joint monarch along with his English wife (and first cousin) Mary III. In English history, their ascension is referred to as the Glorious Revolution for it was basically a sort of bloodless coup: a faction of English Parliamentarians orchestrated the 1688 overthrow of King James II of England and the invitation to William and Mary to claim the throne. In 1707, upon William's death, Anne, Mary's younger and only living sibling, became sole monarch.
* "forget" in some libretti
Images: George Frideric Handel attributed to Balthasar Denner, c. 1726-1728, (National Portrait Gallery, London); Queen Anne by John Closterman, sometime between 1707 and 1711, (National Portrait Gallery, London).
February 05, 2015 in Art, design, History, Music, Religion; church & state, UK | Permalink | Comments (0)
Reblog
(0)
|
| |
|
Social