Dear Howard: There is another issue in this mess that seems to be somewhat over looked. There is no question that it was the Church that preserved what was left of the knowledge of the Romans after the fall of Rome. It also provided a ground or corner stone of similar background upon which early modern Europe was to evolve. However; the Church pretty much kept the majority of the population ignorant, poor and in virtual slavery for close to a millennium. Only the privileged class could be considered nominally educated.
The "common man" only knew of God, or about God, through the words of the priests. The Popes and clerics pretty much spoke with the authority of God himself. We are seeing the same kind of thing in the Middle East. You have a small educated "ruling class" that virtually dictates to a generally ignorant population on how to live, and how to die. To this day much of what the Catholic Church believes is not totally founded on "The Bible" but a great deal of credence is placed on the writings and rulings of the Popes. Unfortunately the two do not always line up with each other. It was the printing press and the native language translations of the Bible that exposed this contradiction and in turn brought about an eventual wide spread fragmenting of what was once, one Church, into many. I know there are a lot of details missing from the above, it is hard to decide what to include and what to brush over. But the argument of corruption boils down to the issues of a group of men essentially playing God contrary to what "God's Word" had clearly written. This of course was the fundamental split between Luther and the Church. Luther's epiphany was the scripture that man shall live by faith, the Church was grounded in man being justified by works. This difference was irreconcilable and not open to debate with either side of the argument. One unmovable rock (the Church) , unwilling to accept the admonishments of a single man ( Luther) with a radical idea. What does this have to do with Lute playing, Luther played the Lute, and through some of this Francesco DaMilano was Lutenist to the Vatican. It would be interesting to see how some of these musicians thought, acted, and avoided the intrigue this turmoil was bringing about. Most of the Lutenists/Composers that we know about were employed by Royalty and the upper classes. It would be interesting to see how their careers were moved, shaped, and even ruined by the political/spiritual events happening around them. I remember reading that one of the Glautiers got himself involved in some sort of murder plot. Vance Wood. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Howard Posner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "lute list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 1:56 PM Subject: Re: Church authority in the Renaissance. > Caroline Usher at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > You are citing the worst period from the entire history of the Church > > I'd have thought it one of the better periods. By "worst," I suppose you > mean "most apparently venal," but venality, and indeed, "corruption," would > be far down on my list of factors in considering whether the Church was > "good" or "bad." > > > to cast > > doubt on van Liere's thesis that there was corruption at particular times and > > places, but there were also parallel movements for reform. > > This is not his thesis. It is your concise encapsulation of the facts that > he musters in support of his thesis. His thesis is that anyone who says the > Church was "corrupt" is using deficient reasoning. His underlying premise > is a "no" answer to the question of whether a church corrupt enough to need > internal movements for reform is corrupt enough to be called corrupt. But > the question can reasonably be answered "yes" or "no" depending on what you > think "corrupt" means. Van Liere, who never tries to define the term, is > being intellectually sloppy in accusing anyone who answers "yes" to the > question of intellectual sloppiness. > > > I submit that this > > is an example of what van Liere calls arbitrary use of historical evidence, > > and your view that the abuses should have been corrected more quickly a > > projection of modern expectations onto the past and ignorance of the > > situation. > > It was van Liere who called indulgences an abuse. I took care to express no > view on how quickly the Church should have corrected the "abuse". Such a > view would require an opinion about a) whether remission for sins is > necessary or desirable, b) whether a church can grant such remission, and c) > whether contributing financially to the church is a legitimate way to obtain > remission. I leave such questions to Catholics. > > H > >
