copernicus didn't public on the revolutions of heavenly spheres until he was on his deathbed because he was afraid of the church

No, he literally dedicated it to the Pope.

It was published by the Church if I recall correctly.

He was not a layman.

He worked for the Church.

Literally everyone worked for the church.

At least that's what the Church would have had.

Except not literally everyone. <:E_:459545659574321152>

If you were a scholar you worked for the Church.

If you were a farmer and paid taxes to a king you also worked for the church as the king usually had his power through God via the Church.

Heliocentrism wasn't rejected by the Church as a whole, it was rejected for scientific reasons and not even by a majority of other clergymen. It wasn't theological.

That's a pretty bad misunderstanding of the three estates system.

If you're a farmer you provide for the second and third estate. There's no mixing.

You don't indirectly work for the Church because you provide food for them.

Unless you can make the case that Copernicus was a farmer and that it's somehow equivalent then that doesn't mean anything.

But he worked for the Church directly.

The backlash against Copernicus was from Protestants mostly, not Catholics. Bet they don't tell you that. 😦

I was just saying that most were endentured to the church in some capacity under the rule of Catholicism.

Protestants said it was inconsistent with theology, so the Catholic Church was like "no we're more consistent with theology" and that affected how they handled Galileo.

Going back to my statement that the counter-reformation debased the Church.

It was all petty squabbles over who was more correct in an issue that had no real answer.

All are to blame.

The real answer is that the Catholic Church scrambled to look legitimate in the face of Protestant criticisms and made a fool out of themselves in the process.

That's what reaction will do to the best laid plans.

Not having a contingency

The Catholic Church really was corrupt in the 15th century for sure, but before that they were doing quite well.

Indulgences are a good thing.

Protestants made indulgences synonymous with bribery to get into heaven.

I think rewards are a good thing.

Indulgence is not.

bullshit it's all made up

there's no scriptural evidence for purgatory

What an indulgence actually is is charity AFTER your sins have been absolved.

The selling of indulgences that we think of today is a Protestant myth and slander.

source?

Source for what?

that that's what an indulgence actually was

You could Google it and find that literally anywhere except maybe burnallcatholics.org

The problem is that nobody does.

They just believe whatever they learned in the two sentences they heard in a high school history class lecture about Protestantism.

It's the archaic definition of indulgence.