Progressive Islam And Reform

Progressive Muslims have produced a considerable body of liberal thoughts within Islam[1][2] (الإسلام التقدمي or "progressive Islam"; but some consider progressive Islam and liberal Islam as two distinct movements [3]). These movements can be classified best according to their methodology of reform to two groups, a group which depends largely on Re-interpreting the traditional texts which constitutes Islamic law (ijtihad)[4], and a more liberal approach of a group that even questions the authoritative status applied to texts by the Traditional Islamic Scholars, resulting in the case of Quran Alone Muslims in rejecting the islamic nerratives of the sayings of Muhammad (Hadith) completely.

The most liberal muslim intellectuals who focussed on religious reform include Sayyid al-Qimni, Nasr Abu Zayd, Abdolkarim Soroush, Mohammed Arkoun, Mohammed Shahrour, Ahmed Subhy Mansour, Edip Yuksel, Gamal al-Banna, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, and Faraj Foda, the last two were killed after Apostasy claims.

Liberal Muslims generally claim that they are returning to the principles of the early Ummah and to the ethical and pluralistic intent of their scripture, the Qur'an.[5] They distance themselves from some traditional and less liberal interpretations of Islamic law, as they consider these to be culturally based and without universal applicability. The reform movement uses monotheism (tawhid) "as an organizing principle for human society and the basis of religious knowledge, history, metaphysics, aesthetics, and ethics, as well as social, economic and world order."[6]

H/T: Liberal movements within Islam See also: Anarchism and Islam

Todd Friel's Absurd Comments About Brian MacLaren

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Commentary:

At 0:54 Brian says that he is a plethora of denominations as truly Jesus is not limited to our denominational identity---I don't see why Todd thinks that's so wacky.

At 1:45 Brian explains that Jesus and truth aren't limited to Christianity as Jesus is truly Lord of all regardless of their beliefs. (See John 4:1-15 and TheoPoetic Musings: Intensive Gospel Study: John 4)--also, see this video:

---apparently Todd doesn't agree that Jesus is Lord of all. Also in 2:19 Brian believes in the orthodox view of holistic truth---apparently Todd heretical-ly rejects holistic truth.

At 2:46 Todd once again fixated on judging others' beliefs brings up hell---though I can agree with Todd that hell is a real theological concept---we still mustn't judge others beliefs just as Jesus didn't tell the Samaritan woman that she was going to hell for not believing as the Judean Jews did.

At 3:33 once again Todd speaks nonsense---dominioninism and Kingdom theology are not one in the same. Kingdom theology is putting the Lord's Prayer in action. Todd and his cohorts at Way Of The Master are dominionists trying to coerce people into buying into their conservative political views such as their anti-evolution/anti-abortion in all cases ideologies by setting guilt traps---see http://www.wayofthemasterradio.com/podcast/2008/10/14/october-14-2008-hour-2/ for example. Brian is not a dominionist and he is correct Jesus spoke more about life here on earth rather than an afterlife.

Todd at 3:36-4:10 misconstrues the Gospel as being about 3 propositions only, which he says scripture states---but he is wrong of course---scripture states that Jesus alone is the Gospel. Preaching, repentance and faith are means to viewing the Gospel (Jesus) but not the only means---Todd left out love, service, prayer, etc. Also---Luke 4.18-19, quoting from Isaiah 61 states:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.”

Brian in 4:12-5:56 raises the issue of redemptive violence in the act of crucifixion which is a valid assessment---even if I don't entirely agree with his conclusions as Jesus willing sacrificed Himself in the face of evil and the world's violence. Todd however arrogantly chastises Brian by saying atonement by blood is the only way which eventhough I believe in blood atonement---I believe people are free to question the necessity of such a violent act of forgiveness. However, Todd's beef is not that but Brian's support of the Christus Victor view of the atonement (which is what the Early Church believed and is supported by scripture ie. I Corinthians 15: 53-58) rather than the Penal Substitutionary view of atonement, which Todd idolizes, because John Calvin first formulated the theory in it's present day form (by reading in legal terms into the bible---because Calvin was trained first as a lawyer before becoming a Magisterial Reformer).

In 6:46-7:31, Todd as usual appealing to Charles Spurgeon (who believed in the Calvinist heresy of individual predestination) to try to somehow prove that Brian is a heretic. It's interesting considering Todd's heretical fungelical teachings such as: that all sins are sins of the flesh fighting against the spirit/the flesh is evil, which is nothing short of Neo-Manichaeism and semi-Docetism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What are your thoughts?

Learn All The Church Councils: From The Early Ecumenical Councils To Vatican II

Here is a timeline of all 21 Councils in Church History:

MAJOR COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH---Source: Daily Catholic.Org

The First Council of Nicaea

Though the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15 and Galatians 2) was the first Church Council, attended by the Apostles, the first Ecumenical (world-wide) Council was called by the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great with Pope Saint Sylvester I sitting on the Throne of Peter as the 33rd successor of Christ's appointed Apostle. The site was the city of Nicaea, just south of Constantinople in Asia Minor. The greatest periti was the Bishop of Alexandria, Saint Athanasius who, amidst his struggles with the Arians, argued convincingly for condemning Arius and, as a deacon, St. Athanasius was at the forefront in defining the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Heavenly Father.

The First Council Constantinople

Fifty-six years after Nicaea, the Roman Emperor of the East Theodosius I convened the second General Council. Because of friction between the emperor who was headquartered in Constantinople and Pope Saint Damasus I, located in Rome, neither the Holy Father or his papal legates attended. Already the split between East and West was manifesting itself. 186 bishops did attend. Most notable were Doctors of the Chur Saint Gregory Nazianzen and Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, who with the Council Fathers, reaffirmed the First Council of Nicaea and defined the Consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, thereby condeming the heresy of Macedonius.

Council of Ephesus

Fifty years after the First Council of Constantinople, Theodosius' son Theodosius II ruled as emperor. He was much more inclined to hear the Church, influenced by his saintly sister Saint Pulcheria and, in harmony with Pope Saint Celestine I, a third General Council was called in Ephesus in the southern tip of Asia Minor. Over 200 bishops attended, declaring the Divine Maternity Dogma of the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God. Also, led by Saint Cyril of Alexandria, the Council defined that Christ has two natures - Divine and human, but only one Person which is Divine. This affirmation condemned Nestorianism and deposed Nestorius, who was the bishop of Constantinople. The Council also affirmed the Council of Carthage held for the local Church in 416, thus condemning Pelagius and his teachings.

The Council of Chalcedon

Twenty years after Ephesus, Saint Pulcheria played a key role in the fourth General Council; this time influencing her husband Marcian, then the Roman Emperor of the East, to coordinate with Pope Saint Leo the Great in convening it at Chalcedon in Thessalonica just northwest of Constantinople. Once again a false teaching was at the heart of the meeting. This time Monophysitism (the false teaching that Christ had only one nature) was at the forefront of controversy. It was taught by the Abbot Eutyches who also sought discord, causing confusion so that the Council asserted that Constantinople should be on an equal basis with Rome ecclesiastically. Vigorously opposing this and Eutyches, Pope Leo determined in his Dogmatic Epistle of October 10, 451 that the See of Peter in Rome is and always shall be the Seat of Primacy with no equal and that Eutyches was a heretic. Leo was proclaimed the 'Soul of Chalcedon' and the Council agreed unanimously that through Leo, Peter had spoken and Eutyches was condemned.

Second Council of Constantinople

Just over a century after Chalcedon, heresy was running rampant and the Roman Emperor in Constantinople Justinian I decided it was time for another General Council. The Second Council in Constantinople condemned the "Three Chapters" which was a collection of statements by three deceased disciples of the deposed Nestorius. The Council determined that the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and Ibas of Edessa were soundly condemned. This Council also affirmed the condemnations declared at the Council of Carthage in 416 and previous condemnations by Popes of heresies.

Third Council of Constantinople

117 years after the Second Council of Constantinople, the Emperor Constantine IV decided it was time to call another General Council, especially in light of the growing threat of Islamism. In agreement with Pope Saint Agatho, the Council was convened with again over 200 bishops. The heresy of the time was Monothelitesism which falsely taught that Christ only had a Divine will, rather than a Divine and human will. It denied the perfect harmony of the two wills within the one Divine Person. Pope Agatho died during this Council and his successor Pope Saint Leo II continued it, approving the decrees of past Councils and taking to task one of his predecessors Pope Honorius I for not keeping the heresy of Monothelites in check, specifically not challenging the Patriarch of Constantinople Sergius who was spreading the heresy. St. Leo's actions set a precedence for calling into question error by previous Pontiffs and confirmed that a Pope can be in error when not speaking from the Chair of Peter - ex cathedra.

Second Council of Nicaea

Just over a century after the Third Council of Constantinople, a 7th General Council was necessary in 787 to deal with the heresy of Iconoclasm. The Council was called by the Empress Irene - the widow of the late Emperor Leo IV and mother of the Emperor Constantine IV - to head off the growing unrest with the Eastern Bishops who were spreading the heresy of Iconoclasm fostered by Emperor Leo III. The latter had been fiercely condemned by Pope Hadrian I, as well as his predecessors Popes Gregory II and Pope Gregory III. A great Doctor of the Church Saint John Damascene had also defended images as a means of reverence. At the core was the growing split and resentment between East and West.

Fourth Council of Constantinople

The issue of declaring Photius a heretic was paramount for the Fourth Council of Constantinople which was called jointly by the Emperor Basil and Pope Hadrian II in 869. Photius had openly criticized clerical celibacy, challenged Pope Saint Leo III's crowning of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor on Christmas of 800, and questioned the Filioque of the Creed. Photius was condemned by the Council. 200 years later the Great Eastern Schism became official when Michael Cerularius closed the Latin churches in Constantinople and was excommunicated by Pope Saint Leo IV in 1054. Also of concern at the Council was the growing Saracen threat.

First Lateran Council

The first General Council after the Great Eastern Schism was held in Rome for the first time at the Lateran Basilica in 1123 and convened by Pope Callistus II. At issue was the Lay Investiture controversy between secular power and ecclesial power. The Council confirmed the Concordat of Worms that had been signed the year before between Emperor Henry V and Pope Callistus II. This assured all elections of prelates and abbots would be made by ecclesial authorities solely with the Emperor having approval only in Germany. The Council declared priests in the Latin rite must remain celibate.

Second Lateran Council

It was necessary to call a second General Council just 16 years later because of the Papal schism in which Pope Innocent II declared null and void all acts and decrees by the deceased antipope Anicletus II. The Council also condemned the heresies of Peter Bruys and Arnold of Brescia as well as enacting reforms suggested by Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who also preached a crusade against the threat of the Crescent Moon of Islam.

Third Lateran Council

Pope Alexander III called the third Council at the Lateran Basilica because once again a General Council had to be called to undo the damage done by antipopes Victor IV and others. The Council also set the election of the Roman Pontiff must be by two-thirds of the majority of cardinals voting, establishing the Sacred Conclave as the voting body. The Council condemned the heresies of Albigenses and Waldenses.

Fourth Lateran Council

In 1215 Pope Innocent III called the Fourth Lateran Council 36 years after Lateran III had closed. This Council was the most absolute and most impacting of all ecumenical councils to date. Nearly 500 prelates, as well as the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem, and close to a thousand abbots including Saint Dominic attended. Here Innocent, trying to recover from the immense sadness three years earlier of the failed Children's Crusade (5th Crusade) , successfully regained his power. It marked the pinnacle of papal power in medieval times. It was Innocent who defined ex cathedra - from the chair of Peter and who declared in that position that "There is but one Universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation." The Council officially set in stone the term 'Transubstantiation' for the mystery of the bread and wine confected into the body and blood of Jesus Christ and reformed disciplines of ecclesiastical life, as well as directing all Catholics to partake in the Sacraments of Penance and the Holy Eucharist no less than once a year. Lateran IV also condemned as anathema once more the heresies of Albigensianism, which taught marriage and the sacraments were not needed, and Waldensianism, which taught that the laity could perform the same duties as a priest when said priest was in mortal sin.

First Council of Lyons


30-years after Lateran IV, Pope Innocent IV called the First Council of Lyons in 1245, having been forced to flee Rome for the refuge of Lyons France at the invitation of the holy French Monarch King Saint Louis IX. The latter was designated to lead the Seventh Crusade against the infidel Saracens. Though only 140 bishops were at Lyons, it had the support of the Patriarchs of Antioch, Constantinople, Venice and the Emperor of the East. The Council reinforced the excommunication Pope Gregory IX had imposed on Frederick II, the slacker emperor who had betrayed the trust placed in him. He was deposed. Great concern was also given to the Mongol hordes invading Europe and the loss of Jerusalem to the infidel, as well as problems with lax clergy.

Second Council of Lyons


In 1274 Blessed Pope Gregory X called the Second Council of Lyons, which teemed with 15 cardinals, 500 prelates and well over a thousand clerics and dignitaries including Saint Bonaventure. Another great Doctor of the Church, Saint Thomas Aquinas passed to his Heavenly reward enroute to the Council. This Council's main docket was the attempt to reunite with the Eastern Church, but it was only temporary and the schism grew wider after the solidification of the Dogmatic Filioque in which it was reaffirmed emphatically that the Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father and the Son. Also addressed were regulations for Papal election and how to recover Palestine from the Turks.

Council of Vienne


Six years into the 'Avignon Exile' (1305-1377), the Council of Vienne lasted two years. It was called in 1311 by the first of the Avignon Popes Pope Clement V in the city of Vienne just south of Lyons. Though the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria joined the Pope, it was a noticable difference from the last Council for far fewer bishops and dignitaries attended. Nevertheless, the council suppressed the Knights Templars and Jacques de Molay, the one who laid the satanic seeds of Freemasonry. They had abused their privileges after the Crusades. Politics also played a huge role in this council with King Philip IV ruler of France being reinstituted in the Church after his legendary excommunication battle with Clement's predecessor Pope Boniface VIII who had issued his famous ex cathedra bull Unam Sanctam. The Council also condemned various heresies.

Council of Constance

Just over a century after the Council of Vienne the 16th Ecumenical Council was called in the French area of Switzerland in 1414. Because of the Great Western Schism the legitimate Pope Gregory XII abdicated the Papal throne during the Council at the Emperor Sigismund's request for the sake of unity so that the Council could sort out the mess and end the Schism amid the confusion of the multi-popes which included the anti-popes of Avignon - Benedict XIII and John XXIII. The latter had called a Council in Pisa in 1403 which was not recognized because of its illegality. The Council took control and elected Pope Martin V to the seat of Peter in 1417, three years after the Council was opened. It brought to an end the Great Schism and opened a whole new can of worms with the struggle between papal power and conciliar power. Condemned were the heresies of John Wycliffe and John Hus, the tip of the iceberg that would erupt a century later.

Council of Florence

Though it is called the Council of Florence, it began in Basel, Switzerland, called by Pope Martin V. But Martin V did not live to open it. Instead his successor Blessed Pope Eugene IV opened it and met open resistance from many of the bishops. Therefore he dissolved the Council, moving to Ferrara, Italy in 1438 because of the schismatic bishops who elected the antipope Felix V. In 1439 the bubonic plague forced the entire Council to move again, this time to Florence where it was closed eight years later in 1447 by the Eugene IV. Though the Greek Church agreed to accept Filioque, it was shortlived for the infidels conquered Constantinople six years after the Council closed and, demoralized, the Eastern Church stuck to their stubborn agenda. The most stunning aspect of this Council was that Papal Authority triumphed over conciliar authority. Pope Eugene IV, backed by the Council proclaimed infallible the dogma of no salvation for anyone outside the Church in his noted Papal Bull Cantate Domino.

Fifth Lateran Council

Despite Blessed Pope Eugene IV's Papal Bull Cantate Domino problems abounded less than a century later. Thus Pope Julius II, trying to recoup the scandals caused by previous pontiffs - specifically the Borgia Pope Alexander VI - called the 18th Ecumenical Council, returning to the Lateran for the Fifth Synod in 1512. When Julius died, his successor Pope Leo X carried on the Council. No doctrine was proclaimed with all decrees primarily disciplinary in trying to stem the tide of Martin Luther and others who were outwardly rebelling against the Church. Though the idea of a Crusade against the Turks was brought up, the problems with the growing Protestant Reformation occupied the agenda. The Council reaffirmed the superiority of the Pope over conciliar powers.

Council of Trent

The greatest and longest of all the major ecumenical councils was convened by Pope Paul III on December 13, 1545 in the mouintain village of Trent in northern Italy. There were 25 major sessions that spanned eighteen years under five popes - Pope Julius III, Marcellus II, Paul IV and Pope Pius IV who closed the last session on December 4, 1563 with Pius IV issuing a Papal Bull on February 7, 1564 confirming all that was declared at Trent. Pope Saint Pius V completed the commission of Trent, reforming the Roman Missal with his De Defectibus and Quo Primum writing the Catechism of Trent based on all the decrees of Trent and also set up a commission to issue a more exact edition of the Latin Vulgate Bible. The Council issued the most dogmatic and reformatory decrees ever, specifically on the Holy Eucharist, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments plus reinstating traditions always held 'Catholic.' Trent was the ideal Counter-Reformation to the Protestant Reformation where Protestantism was condemned as anathema along with Martin Luther and other reformers who had bolted the Church. Moral discipline was emphasized and reinforced in order that Holy Mother Church regain the respect and authority intended for the Church Christ founded and passed down through His infallible, perennial Magisterium of the Church, preserving the Truths and Traditions of Holy Mother Church in the Sacred Deposit of the Faith.

First Vatican Council


Many consider the First Vatican Council as the longest ever because, in truth, it has never been closed. Convened by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1869 with 803 of the hierarchy present from the universal Church, it only had four sessions, all reaffirming the course of Trent. In the 4th Session on July 18, 1870 the Council affirmed the dogma of infallibility of the Sovereign Pontiff.

Second Vatican Council


The last of the Ecumenical Councils was, indeed, not only the most controversial but the very portal for allowing the ambiguous language of the documents to open a Pandora's Box that has proven over the past 40 plus years that there are no fruits per Our Lord's words in St. Matthew 7: 15-20. Because of the heresies promoted so subtly, we have the ruin today, not of the Roman Catholic Church per se, but of the man-made church that began in 1962 and broke away from the one true Church founded by Christ in order to join the over 33,000 false sects that have rejected what the Son of God mandated, thinking man knows better than the Divine. This has resulted in so-called church leaders and others to interpret dogma and doctrine in a Protestant light with an emphasis on humanism, ecumenism, religious liberty, and collegiality in an effort to conform to the modern world rather than the world adhering to what the Church had always taught. This is, in effect, The Great Apostasy foretold in sacred scripture and by saints, and Our Lady, most notably at Quito and LaSalette. From this council came the realization of the abomination of desolation Jesus warned of. This council convened by John XXIII on October 11, 1962 and, despite the latter's pleas to "Stop the Council!", it was carried on by his successor Paul VI for three more years, closing on December 8, 1965... (Note: I do not agree with the source's views.)

Sunday---Oct. 5, 2008

THOUGHTS ON CHRISTIANITY AND HOMOSEXUALITY

So I made a hand-out for the class I visited the past 2 Sundays, which consisted of thoughts from this post, this one, this one and this one and a thought from an unfinished modern revision of Fosdick's Shall The Fundamentalists Win?:

To stand in the unconditional loving service of God and others, the church must first stop acting as if it or bible translations are the Holy Spirit---as if any human, human cultural biases or human institution can restrict and regulate, whom the Holy Spirit wills to call to ministry or in general---for a lot of people (mainly Fundamentalists and bible literalists) actually believe that they can usurp the authority of the Holy Spirit from willing, whom the Holy Spirit wills to call to the ministry or in general and/or that it is their task to determine whom can and can’t be called to the ministry or in general instead of the Holy Spirit alone---and in so telling the Holy Spirit what to do, they not only commit idolatry (ecclesiolatry [worship of the church] as well as bibliolatry [worship of the Bible/Bible Literalism or treating the Bible as a Golden Calf] and poimenolatry/clericalism [pastor worship]), but also worse than that it grieves the Holy Spirit (the only unforgivable sin). As Christ is the True pillar of the church for us and in giving the Great Commission, Christ excluded no one from ministering the Gospel, serving and being served including gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders and both women and men of every culture, climate, race, type and personality. Secondly, in the Bible, the unfolding of God’s will and self-disclosure of God’s self-revelation, in the Person and work of Christ---we find that God was most fully revealed as being Love itself---for Christ is Love---as Robinson (influenced by Paul Tillich) wrote: "For it is in making himself nothing, in his utter self-surrender to others in love, that [Jesus] discloses and lays bare the Ground of man's being as Love" (ibid., p. 75, italics added). He also wrote: "For assertions about God are in the last analysis assertions about Love" (ibid., p. 105)--- (Honest To God -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A.T._Robinson). When we divinely encounter Christ as Love for us, in the advent of the proclamation of scripture---we see all of Christian ethics is contingent upon the moral axioms of the Higher Law of Righteousness, Love, Grace, Mercy and Forgiveness---the Golden Rule and to love God completely and to love one’s neighbor as one’s self. If the sum and substance of Christian morality and ethics then is this---then why should we read Christian morality out of a vacuum with no insight, inquiry and reference to the Higher Law, on which the line of all Christian morality is drawn? For what profits one to have morality without love? For all of Christianity is rooted in loving service---just as Brennan Manning says*---quoting from Barbara Doherty: "Love is service. ‘There is no point in getting into an argument about this question of loving. It is what Christianity is all about---take it or leave it. Christianity is not about ritual or moral living except insofar as these two express the love that causes both of them. We must at least pray for the grace to become love.’" (*-pg. 29 of A Glimpse Of Jesus: The Stranger To Self-Hatred) (Yes, indeed, we must pray for the grace to become love for those who were created with homosexual proclivities and not that we (heterosexuals) were not born homosexuals nor had to face the issue of our own sexuality, in the face of bigotry and prejudice---for that is just as the Pharisees prayed. [Luke 18:9-14]). Or as the Catholic theologian, Hans Urs Von Balthasar said: "Love alone is credible."

---which I also used some of in my John Study. And the one whom mentioned Leviticus thanked me for my material, which is good---because most of that class wanted to study the subject, so being the resident theologian of a moderately progressive slant---I thought I'd share my thoughts.


Dr. Hawkins And The Communism Of The Early Church

My grandma said that Dr. Hawkins taught her class and talked about the Communism of the Early Church. The Early Church were indeed pre/proto-Marxists in a sense of communalism---a Christocentric community centered around Love and Truth and this is supported by verses such as these:

Early Christian Communism
Christian communists trace the origins of their practice to the New Testament book Acts of the Apostles at chapter 2 and verses 42, 44, and 45:

42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and in fellowship [...] 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (King James Version)

The theme is reiterated in Acts 4:32-37:

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. 36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, 37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet. (King James Version)

Also, Jesus radically taught the prophetic vision of Jubilee Economics. It wasn't till much later and afterward when the Roman Empire got baptized by the Constantinian shift of Christianity producing a dualistic statist epistemology---Caesaropapist Christendom and it's false dichotomy/tautology that states:

that to follow God and do God’s Will on earth one had to unquestioningly follow the pope and the state---and that those whom unquestioningly follow the pope and the church were following God and doing God’s Will on earth. This was/is such a potent concept that anyone who questioned the pope/state was considered not only guilty of heresy, but treason as well. (This is still true in today’s Christendom/statist churches, in which patriotism, citizenship and God are elevated as equal terms---which is nothing but sheer idolatry of the state and the culture of the state.)*---It can be summed up in an us vs. them mentality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*- This false tautology has changed hands via the Reformation, so that for the pope one can substitute the Bible, whereas the state part remained the same. This false tautology is clung to by Fundamentalist Bible Literalists, who are ignorant of the origins of the Bible and have an aversion to Modern Biblical Scholarship (which is verifiable by facts)---which doesn’t support their blind assumptions and presuppositions (which are born out of arrogance). We’ve heard it said that to question one part of the Bible is to question all of the Bible and God---despite the fact that those saying this only read certain verses in manmade translations of the Bible uncontextually and try to harmonize what can’t be harmonized---whereas Biblical Scholars read the whole Bible in the original languages and acknowledge the errors and contradictions of the Bible. Modern Biblical Scholarship, also, shows more and more that the Bible is more fully of human origins rather than a divine origin (though the Scriptures are still somehow God inspired), which annoys Fundamentalists/Bible Literalists---because if God did not ordain their bigotry (which God in Jesus did not) then they have no right to divide humanity, in order to feel morally and spiritually more superior to the rest of humanity.

---that some form of proto-Capitalism was embraced.

One other view of the Church's shift in accepting and embracing things it once did not is that the Church expected Christ to return again soon but when that didn't happen after years and years the Church became more materialistic as the Roman Empire once was. More to explore: here.