We need more week long holidays!

@RyanReevesM

9 жыл бұрын

That's right, man. Start a petition!

Very enlightening. I hadn't really thought about it, but I sort of assumed that medieval peasants slept on dung and worked 20 hours a day 365 days a year and were rewarded with a kick in the throat from the local baron at Michaelmas. If it really HAD been like that then peasants' revolts would have been a lot more frequent.

Great vid. Carefully articulated. Thank you for sharing!

Interesting. Do you have any more information on how the Industrial Revolution changed the amount of time people had to work? A small number of people got incredibly rich during the Industrial Revolution not unlike today and the Tech Revolution.

Pretty good video @Ryan Reeves. I learned things

You need to make a slight adjustment where you discuss the Catholic understanding of what happens during the sacrament of confession. You made it sound like it is the imposed penance that absolves the sinner. The Catholic understanding is that God's forgiveness and the restoration of grace of the sacrament comes in response to the priest's words of absolution. This is due, of course, to the merits of Christ. There is no equivocation on this point. So why is there need for a penance to be imposed afterwards? That's because even though you're forgiven, God's justice still demands a certain amount of "satisfaction" or reparation for having committed the sin. I'm putting the word satisfaction in quotes because I'm quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church #1459: 'Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g. return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries.) But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is called penance.' As it was explained to me when I was a little boy learning about the sacrament in Sunday school, there are still consequences to sin even after you're forgiven. If you commit a crime and confess it, for example, that won't stop you from having to go to jail if the authorities catch you. If you steal something, the priest may require that you return the stolen object as part of your penance (if you still have it in your possession). There are stories dramatizing the harm of gossip wherein the priest imposes the penance of cutting open a feather pillow and broadcasting feathers along a road, and then going back and picking up each feather. The sacrament takes care of the sin in the heavenly realm, the penance takes care of it here in the physical realm.

@RyanReevesM

9 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the comments. The adjustment you mention is not one I missed just one I did not take the time to flesh out. I would not suggest that satisfaction through penance is due to earning salvation full stop. I do say I can't get into the intricacies here and I'm mostly just using a brief recap of these doctrines in order to correct the misunderstanding of the sacred/secular thing. I also don't go much into Purgatory itself or where indulgences, the role of the merits of the saints, etc. play in here. But you can't say everything when you say anything! :) Part of the issue is telling the story of a variety of late medieval opinions. Part of it is I'm somewhat allowing the Lutheran allegations about penance and absolution to rise to the surface in order to make the Reformation clearer. So Luther will say that 'satisfaction' after absolution is works righteousness--even though the doctrines themselves deny this. But I'm working on several fuller lectures on Luther that will delve into late medieval views on salvation and the life of penance. My goal in those will be to capture the medieval expression of the Christian life more fully, so these nuances will be there.

Here's how Kierkegaard discussed work in 1848. BE SOMETIHING A man who but rarely, and then only cursorily, concerns himself with his relationship to God, hardly thinks or dreams that he has so closely to do with God, or that God is so close to him, that there exists a reciprocal relationship between him and God, the stronger a man is, the weaker God is, the weaker a man is, the stronger God is in him. Every one who assumes that a God exists naturally thinks of Him as the strongest, as He eternally is, being the Almighty who creates out of nothing, and for whom all the creation is as nothing; but such a man hardly thinks of the possibility of a reciprocal relationship. And yet for God, the infinitely strongest, there is an obstacle; He has posited it Himself, yea, He has lovingly, with incomprehensible love posited it Himself; for He posited it and posits it every time a man comes into existence, when He in His love makes to be something directly in apposition to Himself. Oh, marvelous omnipotence of love! A man cannot bear that his ‘creations’ should be directly in apposition to Himself, and so he speaks of them in a tone of disparagement as his ‘creations’. But God who creates out of nothing, who almightily takes from nothing and says, ‘Be’, lovingly adjoins, ‘Be something even in apposition to me.’ Marvellous love, even His omnipotence is under the sway of love! Soren Kierkegaard, Christian Discourses, 1848 Lowrie 1940, 1961 p. 132

SMH..... This demonstrates so vividly what happens when you don't bother to actually read your Bible. The church gets farther and farther afield apart from the Scriptures.