Hi Kirk,

Thanks for that. You have a good point and it is similar to the one I was trying to make earlier about vested interests. People do not want to shift from their comfort zone and look at things objectively. It is much simpler to believe that Christians have always persecuted astrologers rather than look at the complexities of the issue.


Andrew,

All you have done is responded to my arguments with a series of links and quotes from dubious websites. I know I can be argumentative but I draw the line at arguing with a bunch of virtually anonymous people who may or may not have any justification in saying what they have said. It is completely meaningless. I could find just as many sites that say the complete opposite. I never look to the web to do research of this nature. As Deb said to you earlier, you never know what you are getting.

I?ve been wanting to comment in this thread but I?m a bit under the weather with flu at the moment. I only managed to get as far as a response to TS?s post. I?m hoing to catch up with the rest later.

The Catholic Encyclopedia writes:

From the start the Christian Church strongly opposed the false teachings of astrology. The Fathers energeticaly demanded the expulsion of the Chaldeans ?

Yet there is no doubt that astrology was welcomed and prospered because it so closely adhered to the principles of Stoicism which taught that life was fated and regulated by an encompassing Universal Spirit. Of this E.V. Arnold writes in The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethic:

From the 3rd century onwards Stoicism was rapidly absorbed in Christianity. ? It is greatly desired that modern Christian Theologians should be equipped with a better knowledge of the philosophy which more than any other was a nursing-mother to the church

Astrology expressed stoicism, and so it was largely welcomed in Rome and infiltrated all aspects of Roman life.

The Catholic Encyclopedia writes:

In 321 Constantine issued an edict threatening all Chaldeans, Magi, and their followers with death.

Even so, the political edicts against the practice of astrology started as early as 139 BC. Because the ?Chaldeans? who brought astrology to Rome were orientals, and astrology was used to instigate a series of oriental slave uprisings. There were endless political sensitivities connected to the use of astrological prediction, by which even emperors could be brought down. That?s why practitioners of ?judical astrology? have had to walk a tightrope with political authorities throughout history. But astrology as a natural philosophy wasn?t controversial, and is so embedded into the philosophy of Christianity that many influential practitioners have been allowed to ?cross the line? on several occasions before being rebuked.

The Catholic Encyclopedia writes:

Astrology now disappeared for centuries from the Christian parts of Western Europe.

As did the pursuit of many branches of knowledge in Western Europe. Ancient libraries holding great classical works were repeatedly sacked on the basis that they either held the same cultural views of the invaders, or else were the source of falsehood. That?s why the period in which astrology is supposed to have disappeared from Christian teachings (it didn?t) is also known as the dark ages.


From Renaissance astrology:

The Italian astrologer Jerome Cardan was arrested and held under house arrest by the Inquisition under suspicion of violating Sixtus' bull.

By this time Cardan had spent a life time acquiring political enemies. But he was highly respected for his knowledge, including his astrological skill. His enemies descended when he insisted on publishing the horoscope of Christ, even though he had been warned against doing this because he had so many enemies and it was so sacrilegious. No one objected to Cardan being an astrologer per se. At the same time Lucus Garicus, one of the most famous astrologers of the period, was made an influential Bishop. And popes were certainly using astrology. Not just tolerating it, actively using it.

In England, a Protestant country, astrologers were periodically hauled before church courts, although astrologers in London, like William Lilly, appear largely to have escaped prosecution.

For political reasons. Astrologers were mainly protected against church prosecution because the philosophy that supported astrology came from the same source as the philosophy that supported Christianity.

The Victorian era is a different story, but by then no one expected world views to be tied to astrology or Christianity. The links between the two were barely remembered.

I wonder if anyone can remember the details of the Catholic priest who has commented on the lack of contradiction in the two doctrines and had articles published in the ALL?s Quarterly a few years ago. My brain is not very lively at the moment so all I can venture is ? I think it was ?Father? something

Sue wrote:All you have done is responded to my arguments with a series of links and quotes from dubious websites. I know I can be argumentative but I draw the line at arguing with a bunch of virtually anonymous people who may or may not have any justification in saying what they have said. It is completely meaningless. I could find just as many sites that say the complete opposite. I never look to the web to do research of this nature. As Deb said to you earlier, you never know what you are getting.

Had I not responded to your arguments with a series of links and quotes it is likely you would have asserted I had failed to provide any sources to support my position. Most of the links and quotes are from academic and scholarly sources which in turn quote patristic texts and research from related disciplines. I can understand why you would find these sources to be somewhat dubious if not completely meaningless. The links and quotes from the web are mostly from reputable academic sources: I could just as easily have quoted from hard copy, but you often never know what you are getting there either.

No, Christians have not always persecuted astrologers: I have never argued that they did. The term "Christians" is far too ambiguous to support such an assertion in the first place. What I have argued is that there has always been, from the very beginning of "orthodox" Christian belief and practise as articulated by the Fathers of the Church Eastern and Western (i.e., PATRISTIC THEOLOGY), a profound philosophical incompatibility between the astrological worldview and the Christian worldview, and consistent theological condemnation of the practise of genethliacal astrology, idiosyncratic exceptions to this condemnation notwithstanding. To claim otherwise in an attempt to gild the lily in order to make one's case to the contrary is really just too much. Such arguments would never be seriously considered in reputable and established academic institutions, let alone orthodox institutions of theological studies.

His name was Fr. Lawrence Cassiday a good friend of Al H. Morrison. But what has this to do with the roots of the essential dignities?

Maurice.

Maurice McCann wrote:His name was Fr. Lawrence Cassiday a good friend of Al H. Morrison. But what has this to do with the roots of the essential dignities?

Sue commented on a post of mine to the effect that the Christian Church did not set out to destroy astrology. Tumbling Sphinx commented on her response to the effect that it did. The topic is related to the effects of inessential indignities.

To claim otherwise in an attempt to gild the lily in order to make one's case to the contrary is really just too much. Such arguments would never be seriously considered in reputable and established academic institutions, let alone orthodox institutions of theological studies.

You cannot possibly be serious. I have a room full of books and journal articles that suggest otherwise. These debates abound in reputable academic institutions. This isn't something I am making up for the hell of it. Such discussions have gone on for centuries in universities and continue to do so. There is so much interesting information coming from 'reputable academics' that it is difficult to keep up with it. I'm not particularly bothered that you disagree with anything I say but to suggest that such views are not taken seriously in academia is ludicrous.

Sue wrote:

?Have you ever wondered why d?Ascoli?s name is always mentioned ??

For the same reasons anyone of high profile/note is repeatedly referred to. People of magnitude are the ones whose names travel down through time. In a few hundred years, what names will be recalled from the current crusades?

?D'Ascoli was not burnt at the stake for his astrology regarding Christ. This is a fallacy that is often repeated but it is not true. He was professor of astrology at the University of Bologna when he accused Dante of heresy after defending astrologers from Dante?s hell. .?

As I understand it D?Ascoli was burnt at the stake because he eluded his first conviction of impiety (for a commentary on Sacrobosco?s sphere) and was found guilty for a second time - which carried the death penalty - for defending astrology, ie. Dante?s Divine Comedy and Cavalcanti?s work.

Astrology embodies natural cosmological philosophy ? he was condemned for defending his astrological philosophy which was communicated in his work and killed for being found guilty a second time as was the penalty.

?There were political reasons for his demise that had nothing to do with astrology but were partly related to his attack on Dante.?

This appears to contradict itself and what was mentioned earlier. Political reasons, please share? Political (social) enemies could certainly put one in the hot seat on charges of heresy just as strong political allies could spare one, especially if you held a high station in life.

There seems to be distinctions being made for the sake of argument between politics, philosophy, religion, astrology (focusing on the practice rather than the philosophy - the philosophy held manifesting by way of practice, writings, teachings etc), whereas religion at that time WAS science, philosophy, politics ? not personal preference but universal truth. Heresy struck at the heart of that truth as defined by the Church.

?if there are so many others like him??

How many others existed of D?Ascoli?s standing that were around at that time, and how many dared to offend the Church twice?
Death at the stake occurred after a period of persecution. First time found guilty, depending on the crime and your connections, usually involved a penance, wearing conspicuous symbols on garments, property destroyed, pilgrimage etc. People fled under the threat and/or on being found guilty, the crime being anything ranging from not wanting to swear an oath to having a prohibited book in one?s possession etc. Refuse to recant and handed over to the secular authorities for execution.

?Bruno was not burned at the stake for his astrology.?

He was an astrologer who was burned at the stake for his astrological philosophy (denounced for his heretical theories) ? Copernicanism being a factor ? as well as his theology, and he refused to recant.
Galilei also convicted for heresy, large factor being his Copernican writings (Copernicus himself was said to have delayed publication for fear of the Church) ? he recanted but still sentenced to life in prison and died under house arrest.
The Church rehabilitated him after the Pope?s call in 1998 for an inquiry into the Inquisition.

Nostradamus was accused of heresy and as a result fled.
Jerome Cardan accused of heresy and spent several months in prison for publishing a sacred horoscope.
Kepler?s mother arrested as a witch, imprisoned and released after he intervened, his influential position no doubt of help. Marsilio Ficino accused of heresy. And Pico was also condemned, his disputation and works forbidden (thesis heretical ? he?s said to have advocated studying Hebrew & Talmudic sources). On returning from travels (pilgrimage perhaps? ? which was a penance handed out to certain people) he destroyed his poetical works, gave up profane science (looks like he recanted) and dedicated himself to defending Christianity against Jews, Mohammedans and astrologers.

?Savonarola was one of the most outspoken bishops about astrology. He despised astrology. Didn?t stop him from being burnt at the stake.?

How is Savonarola?s burning at the stake relevant to what happened to astrologers who the Church considered a threat to its interpretation of scripture, a threat to its cosmological view? Savanarola may have been outspoken against astrology, but he was very outspoken in his attacks on the Church in Rome and directly defied it?s orders not to preach, as well as defying his ex-communication.

?People have believed that astrologers were persecuted during the Inquisition and put to death.?

Well, I guess because it?s true. There were astrologers persecuted and there were those put to death.
Those with astrological philosophy that didn?t conform to the Church?s philosophy were persecuted. Their books censored, burned, prohibited from being published, read, retained, sold, translated into other langauages or made known to others in anyway which staunched the flow of learning materials readily available. Repression and censorship. But not all copies of ?heretical? books blacklisted (Index of Forbidden Books as at 1948: http://www.cvm.qc.ca/gconti/905/BABEL/I ... m-1948.htm) were destroyed or deleted from circulation. The ?Dark Ages? ? simply disappeared from public view, went underground, behind closed doors.
?It was the Church alone that Christ commissioned to guard the deposit of faith and to decide the true meaning and interpretation of the devine pronouncements.? Astrology runs contrary to this ? in origins, philosophy and practice.

?Of course they tried to throw it into disrepute, just like scientists do today when they go around signing declarations about astrology or write articles about how wrong it all is.?

Scientists who feel the need to do this today don?t usually harass you personally, incarcerate you, force you to wear symbols attached to your garments, destroy your property, prohibit your writings etc because of your astrological philosophy, your cosmological view. It?s a different story today ? but perhaps what such things do have in common is suspicion, fear and a certain absence of understanding.

?As I said, there is very little evidence to suggest that the Church carried out their threats. If the Christian Church went to all the effort of recording their laws against astrology then surely we would have several records of those laws being enacted. We don?t.?

Well, I guess the evidence/records for the above people had to come from somewhere. Galilei ? enough evidence in the Vatican chamber of secrets for him to be rehabilitated. The original summary of the process [trial] of Giordano Bruno was also buried away in there, uncatalogued. The Vatican?s records, trial records, secular records. Church Councils had secular rulers carry out sentences of death ? heresy was a crime against the state. Records (civil) are still being discovered, not to mention those tucked away in the Secret Archives ? and the Archives have also been looted over time with records lost.

That 1998 inquiry initiated by the Pope stated trials of some 125,000 suspected heretics in Spain, with 1 % [1,250] executed ? no mention made of how many were found guilty and sent to jail, died in jail, served penance, had property destroyed, died from starvation because their property was destroyed as a result of persecution etc or fled ? only the executions. Nor was ?heresy? qualified, there were different reasons for the accusation of heresy ? but that sort of information would require first hand access. In Portugal 5.7% [741] of 13,000 tried had been condemned. It offered a small glimpse into what went on in one area, in keeping with what the Vatican was prepared to reveal.

Pope Paul, V: the doctrine of the double motion of the earth about its axis and about the sun is false, and entirely contrary to Holy Scripture. To teach or even read the woks denounced or passages condemned was to risk persecution in this world ? for scientific and philosophic heresy.

As with any threat, it carries as much weight/power as the person (or institution) who issues it.
The threat was as real as the Church that made it, and it was carried out in keeping with the times.
As with all things like this, the one?s we do hear about represent the extreme tip of the ice-berg. It?s the tip of the ice-berg that alerts us to what lies below. It?s the one?s we don?t hear/know about (who?ve escaped detection/capture, or fled persecution etc) that have operated 'below' who helped preserve the works during such times that we benefit from today in addition to what the Church may have allowed into public release at later times.

Deb wrote:

?But astrology as a natural philosophy wasn?t controversial??

Only insofar as it abided by the Church?s view of truth. I think Copernicus? theory presented something of a problem.

??the facts of history are rapidly being eroded away, and there is a continual need for men and women to search out and make known the truth so that it can be preserved for future generations. ?in a generation or two, it may be commonly believed that hardly any persecution occurred during the Middle Ages, and the stage would be set for a repetition. In fact, such persecutions could begin much sooner than we realize.? David A. Plaisted in his ?Estimates of the Number Killed by the Papacy in the Middle Ages?, 2003.

True, history has a habit of repeating. And sometimes can get so caught up in the rationalizing, quantifying and qualifying of the divisions and determining what criteria be used that we lose sight of the source.

Andrew wrote:

?No, Christians have not always persecuted astrologers? What I have argued is that there has always been, from the very beginning of "orthodox" Christian belief and practise as articulated by the Fathers of the Church Eastern and Western (i.e., PATRISTIC THEOLOGY), a profound philosophical incompatibility between the astrological worldview and the Christian worldview, and consistent theological condemnation of the practise of genethliacal astrology, idiosyncratic exceptions to this condemnation notwithstanding.?

I agree.

Inessential dignities ? and essential dignities (lol!) ? either way I think this thread has been illuminated with dignity!

Deb, just a thought but seeing as this has triggered something of a diversion (sorry about that P.Brown) perhaps relocating it to a new thread as you've done in the past might help restore the topic to its essence?

In appreciation,
TS

PS - and best wishes for a speedy recovery.

Sue wrote:You cannot possibly be serious.

Actually, I am. There is a very fundamental philosophical incompatibility between the orthodox patristic Christian worldview and the astrological worldview. Any ecclesiastical scholar of patristic studies in the Greek (or Russian) Orthodox or Roman Catholic traditions will confirm this, though Protestants (including Anglicans) will invariably beg to differ. The patristic rejection of astrology is virtually overwhelming and to suggest otherwise is churlish and uninformed. Scholars outside the Orthodox or the Catholic traditions may argue all they wish, but the witness of the Fathers is unanimous: whether one refers to Augustine of Hippo in the West or to Gregory of Nyssa in the East, the testimony is irrefutable. The reasons underlying their condemnations are many and varied, but there is no doubt that their condemnations are clear and unambiguous, and there is little reason to believe that they would "revise" their views were they with us to do so. The mystical theology of the Cappadocian Fathers may often include references to "symbolic astrology," but their cosmology completely rejects astral influences and the practise of horoscopy.

Oh, and here is another unreliable, meaningless link and quote from the internet (specifically from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, yet another dubious organisation populated by anonymous individuals):

http://www.goarch.org/print/en/ourfaith/article7066.asp

"Our Canon law prohibits people from believing in astrology. In fact, Canon 36 of Laodecia in 369, casts out of the Church people who make, sell, buy or wear the zodiac signs."

Is astrology contrary to Christianity? The answer to this question depends on how one defines both astrology and Christianity.

Christianity covers everything from Catholics to Quakers, while astrology covers everything from forecasting the weather to predicting the winners of horse races. The question is far too broad church.

http://www.copticchurch.org/Texts/Spiri ... 20Wars.pdf

His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, Patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox Church, Judge of the Universe, writes: "Among his (the devil's) lies also is what he says through the mouths of astrologers and those who claim the knowledge of the unknown: whether through astrology, palmistry, geomancy, reading coffee-cups, or fortune-telling by various ways and methods."

I have served (in various capacities) bishops of the Orthodox and (once) Coptic churches. If you were to inform them that astrology is compatible with orthodox, patristic Christianity, at best you would be met with gales of laughter and at worst you would receive a stern lecture which you would not likely forget. The Russians would conclude that you might be suffering from prelest (spiritual sickness) and recommend prayer and fasting.

Okay the following is an opinion, mine, one that led long ago to my excommunicating a certain church, its very opinionated, so if you have tender feelings for organized religion, you might want to skip this post...

the Church (and church founders) have been wrong before, are wrong now, and will be wrong again, world without end. Amen...

to blindly follow the prelates of power lead to crusades, cruelty and subjugation. but then I generally find when you get to asking questions about following someone elses rules for life, you're pretty much in trouble to begin with. I do not understand this desire of some to seek unfallable guidance from fallable sources. (namely humans and human teachings) To me it seems a confusion with the simpler more realistic desire to understand your world and your place in it, but it has somehow been twisted. I also find that asking such a question from a church is sort of like Asking McDonalds about the food at Taco Bell, they dont serve the same food, but have the mistaken impression they are competing for business, when in truth, if I want a hamburger I'm not going to a taco stand, etc... Of course going to a church to ask about the weather seems rather odd to me anyway... dunno why this bothered me today, I've been ignoring this thread, but today it kinda got under my skin.

Okay that's my opinion, others may vary. (gee I didn't swear or throw holy water or anything, I must be getting mellow in my old age)

Granny

granny_skot wrote:Okay that's my opinion, others may vary.

Salman Rushdie recently said: "That old-fashioned philosopher Karl Marx used to say that religion was the opiate of the masses. Now it's the crystal meth of the masses."

Is astrology a symbol system or a belief system? Belief systems need to be defended against infidels and heretics, against critics and skeptics. Belief systems have authorities who issue proclamations that cannot be challenged. Belief systems offer certitude, not opinion and hypothesis. I think the question is not "is astrology contrary to Christianity?" but "is astrology contrary to Astrolianity?"

http://gfisher.org/index.htm

Some food for thought: Many of Lilly's judgments remind me of closely-argued, after-the-fact theological commentaries. Gordon McCrea Fisher, Professor Emeritus at James Madison University, in his book "Marriage and Divorce of Astronomy and Astrology," writes:

U12. Geneva asks (p. 71) " ... exactly what was Lilly so good at? ... some of his admirers had studied astrology for as long as Lilly had done. Yet despite their greater ability in subjects like astronomy, mathematics, Latin, physics, languages, geometry, theology, and philosophy, Lilly remained their acknowledged superior in judicial astrology. He obviously had a knack: but for what? If merely a combination of modern intellectual skills, such as historians often claim of astrology --- part psychology, religion, mathematics, physics, sociology, journalism, etc. --- had been required then surely others would have triumphed. If he were alive now, Lilly would be practicing in none of these professions. I finally decided that this was a genuinely obsolete category. Nothing in the twentieth century is comparable. The answer then became self-evident: Lilly was a genius in exactly the category of knowledge which he claimed as his own --- that of judicial astrology. What skills this comprised when stripped of distorting modern contexts was another matter, one which the remainder of this study will try to explicate." If I understand this claim correctly, Geneva is attributing to Lilly possession of a lost art, and one which evidently stands alone, independent of other kinds of arts and sciences, such as those she listed. Does this mean that Lilly had some facility for some kind of direct revelation obtained from arranging and contemplating what Geneva calls the symbols, or symbolic language, of astrology, which presumably was a kind of medium for his prognostications? My reading of Geneva's work leads me to speculate that what she has shown is rather that Lilly's genius lay mainly in his ability to diagnose and predict major political movements of his time, based (as Geneva quotes him as saying) on careful study and attention to political events and processes, and communicated by him in a clever way by means of astrological concepts and terminology. I wonder, too, whether or not he was also a kind of genius at political propaganda, communicating in his symbolic or encrypted way in the face of strict censorship and extreme punishment for disloyalty to the king, and perhaps also influencing the outcomes which he predicted.

U13. I don't find in Geneva's work a study of predictions of Lilly which failed, as compared to those which succeeded. She does note, however, (p. 184) that "when Lilly found the astrological tradition wanting, he did not hesitate to develop a new methodology using existing astrological formulations. He also expressed his intention of passing it on to his astrological inheritors, an ambition in keeping with his more respectable scientific contemporaries. And finally, there is Geneva's quotation (p. 281) of a statement by Lilly: "my arguments are not demonstrative, or can be made so: I acknowledge my Prognosticks to be only grounded upon conjectural probabilitie, and are not subject to the senses, or Geometricall demonstrations; thus I speak to avoyd carping."

Hmm . . .

the 13th apostle in the satire 'dogma', Kevin Smith screenplay, was played by Chris Rock, whose character suggested that people turn to ideas over beliefs, that people will kill and fight and do obscene things for beliefs, but its hard to work up the same level of insanity over an idea. He also suggested giving up beliefs and getting a few ideas.... I'm afraid I have to agree with him on that one. Karl Marx remarks are too much like his arguement, a belief for which people did obscene things in order to defend and enslave people to his beliefs.

though the suggestions of the movie dogma would be much less insightful if it weren't for all those other strange religious ideas that I've had the pleasure and pain of stumbling through over the years. I must say I do appreciate the insanity of organized religion because its allowed me to think, and given me much to consider. Now if I only had the pleasure of raiding the vatican library... Hmmmmmm, and a few others.

About defense, I dont particularly feel a need to defend religion, because it has so many defenders of its own, but I definitely get strong urges to protect other things, like astrology, because there are too many zealots on the loose (some of them alleged scientists) and the works of those past, however much I may agree or disagree wtih them, need to be preserved. Heck I'd even protect Aristotles works if it came down to it, and we all know I loathe him... of course i may use his tomes to surround those of other authors I'm more fond of, but hey! I'd still consider it my duty to protect them from the ignorant masses.... there is a part of me that thinks book burning should be a capitol offense...

Now about Lilly. One may study surgery for 20 years and still not be as good at it as another person who has natural ability that gives them an upper hand with a kinfe, or study law, and not have that same edge as another who has that natural spark of charisma in the court, etc... just because one studied something and might even be rather good at it, people Like Evangeline Adams and William Lilly are not just made, they are also part natural phenomena, just as people like Babe Ruth or Michael Jordon are. Or look at Nicholas Culpepper, his ability with medicine and astrology is rather amazing. I dont see the fact that Lilly was a better astrologer than some of his counterparts as anything but the natural course of things, where some people are better at somethings than others.

dang waxing philosophical today...

Granny
Granny.