Dreadnought

I'm always open to having my preconceived notions overturned by evidence. The reason why I here may seem more skeptical than usual is the method employed which, in my estimation, involved a shifting of the burden of proof through setting a trap which one person blithely fell for and, rather amusingly, some sheep still seem hellbent on commiting intellectual suicide in the same fashion. I find discussions are more productive when the cards are put on the table in an orderly fashion instead of being produced with dramatic gestures.

Antipope Innocent II

Exactly. For most of the Nineteenth Century the Middle Ages was the neglected poor relation of European history and the proper study of this whole 1000 years only really got started in the Twentieth Century. Unfortunately the popular perception of the period developed in the Nineteenth Century, so what scholars and students of the period take for granted sounds like radical "revisionism" to the average person because it's so counter to what "everyone knows".

"Everyone knows", for example, that the Holy Inquistion burned witches on the orders of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. So when you explain that the Witch Craze was a largely post-Medieval, Renaissance phenomenon, that it barely involved the Inquisition, that it was mainly pursued in Protestant countries and that it most commonly involved secular rather than religious tribunals people get rather confused.

That's not what happened at all. I used the example of the flat earth in response to Angelo because I honestly thought that this myth, at least, was becoming recognised as a myth, so I used it as an example of a pseudo historical myth based on prejudice. I didn't count on there actually being people here who still believed in the medieval flat Earth myth, let alone that they'd be so obstinate as to continue arguing for this myth in the face of clear evidence. No "trap" was set - it was an offhand BTW comment in another thread. It only turned into this discussion when people seriously tried to dispute what I said. If I had intended to start a discussion on this topic I would have done so in its own thread from the start. This discussion began quite incidently. And as for people who "seem hellbent on commiting intellectual suicide" - I can't help it if people leap into debates without doing their homework.

aa5874

Well, tell me what shape did they believe in? The earth, according to Pythagoras, Ptolemy, Copernicus, Galileo, or the Sacred Scriptures?

Jehanne

I don't think that I am "wasting space", a claim which, seems, a prelude to censorship on your part as moderator. Copernicus wrote to Pope Paul III. We all agree on that, right? Paul III never replied, to my knowledge at least. And, he certainly never issued a Papal Bull:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/index.htm

This is significant, considering that Paul III did issue a Papal Bull called Sublimus Dei. As I will say again (and here, I am "wasting space"), the Magisterium, the Pope, who was recognized as the supreme authority during the entire Middle Ages on Holy Scripture, never issued a de fide statement or even a "theological opinion" on the geometry of the Earth, unlike the Copernican model of the solar system, where a de fide pronouncement was issued. Never once were the opinions of the early pre-Nicene fathers repudiated by the medieval Popes or Church.

Jehanne

The Church did burn witches as part of the Inquisition! It was just that "witchcraft" was, prior to the Renaissance, viewed as being part of heresy than as a separate "sin" of witchcraft. So, when Jehanne la Pucelle ("Joan of Arc") was burned on May 30, 1431, the sign above her head read, "idolator, heretic, apostate, relapsed." The "idolator" was the Inquisition's accusation that Jehanne had practiced witchcraft. See the 12 Articles of Condemnation here:

http://www.stjoan-center.com/Trials/sec18.html

WishboneDawn

I honestly think it's not worth answering this.

You've chosen a modern protestant frame through which to view the Medieval Catholic Church. You're running MS DOS and insisting we make our Vista apps run on it and when we can't you continually blame our apps rather then taking a hard look at your OS.

(that's what you get when a geek makes metaphors)

Jehanne

No, but I am sure one of his theologians in his Court at Rome read it, probably a bishop or cardinal, certainly someone who knew theology! After all, it was a novelty in those days for any new book to be published!

One must wonder why Copernicus waited until his death bed to publish his book! Pope Paul III's authority was not limited in this matter! He could have made a de fide statement, if he wanted to, just as he did in Sublimus Dei. Or, he could have had the bishops at Council of Trent address the matter. Instead, he decided to do neither. Why? Because he probably did not care. This is something that all scholastic theologians recognized, by the way, the supreme and infallible authority of the Pope.

Jehanne

But, you also need to keep the proper perspective on the Medieval Church. Scripture was not interpreted "willy-nilly" but only and solely through the infallible Pope and the bishops united with him, especially in the setting of a church council, such as the Council of Trent, whose canons were viewed, until recently, as being infallible. Everything else that was written by the theologians was considered to be theological opinion.

Stephen T-B

I would like to make a comment here if I might.

Ignorance and superstitions have attended every age, I suppose; they are always to be found in their most unadulterated forms among the poor and uneducated, just as much today as in times past. It is as though a great gulf lies between the Great Unwashed and the intellectual elites, and this is certainly seen in many modern societies where astrolology, religious fundamentalism and other superstitions flourish at the same time as the international scientific community forges ahead into esoteric realms which the lay person doesn’t even begin to understand.
It would not, therefore, surprise me if scholars were to discover that while an intellectual elite in Mediaeval times accepted that the Earth is spherical, the peasantry gave it little thought, and when they did, assumed it was what it looks like - flat. A priesthood largely drawn from that same background might be expected to have colluded with such beliefs - and I wonder if it isn’t too fanciful to suggest that they have their parallels in present-day fundamentalist Protestant preachers (particularly those in the States) who believe in a six-day creation, the Flood and other mythical Biblical tales.

I am struck by the fact that these priests need to be reminded that the “natural philosophers” whose explorations of the natural world paved the way to the discovery of evolution and the work of the biologists, geologists, paleontologists, cosmologists and other “ists” which pushed “divine intervention” into the tiny crack it now occupies, were nurtured in a Christian tradition.
But not necessarily a Roman Catholic one. In fact, almost certainly not a Roman Catholic one. For while it may be the case that the Church accepted a spherical world, and eventually the idea that it was not the centre of the universe, she stuck resolutely to other Biblical traditions, including the Flood. Hence the restrictions placed upon Jean-François Champollion who deciphered part of the Rosetta Stone.
(I suppose this is an historical fact; it was an element in the BBC’s 2005 series on Egypt. In the episode about Champollion and the Stone, viewers were told that in 1824 Champollion wanted to make an expedition to Egypt to test his ability to read the hieroglyphics on ancient monuments. Tthe Church offered to finance it, on condition he never revealed any findings that contradicted the teachings of the Church. But one of the tombs he investigated dated from the fifth dynasty and predated Noah's Flood. The BBC’s synopsis states: “Champollion is awestruck by this knowledge and, several decades before Darwin, this was a discovery that threw into doubt the very date of creation.
“But unlike Darwin, Champollion has to keep it to himself and it is a revelation that must go with him to his grave”).

The spherical world vs Flat Earth question aside, the Church’s record for embracing naturalistic explanations which counter Scriptural doctrine is not, I think, a particularly good one.

James Hannam

Hi Stephen,

I find it very odd that someone who claims to be an opponent of superstition and believes in the progress of science would be so blase as to quote an example on the basis on a drama they once saw on TV. This is the whole problem we have here. People who should know better (you) completely eject their critical faculties when they hear something that agrees with their biases. Go away and find an academic biography of Champollion and see what it says about religious objections to his work. It is tedious to find people who base their worldview on stuff they saw on TV lecturing us on the importance of the scientific method. I saw a show on Channel 4 by David Rohl saying that Egyptian history is wrong by 500 years and actually proves the bible. I saw another from Graham Stanton saying that Atlantis is real. At least these programs were documentaries rather than a drama series!

FWIW, I have no idea about Champollion but I do recognise worthless evidence when I see it.

Best wishes

James (pka Bede)

Read Chapter One of God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science FREE