What would be the point?
Vatican Warns Against Fundamentalism
- Thread starter Notrump
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fundamentalism
Actually, it's more like the difference between frozen water and some stupid medieval belief in magical evil pixies, but I see your point.
The Catholic Church did not "like keeping people illiterate". Where did you get that notion?
As far as vernacular translations are concerned, recall that the Church's favorite translation, the Latin Vulgate, was (as its name suggests) a translation into the vernacular at the time of its creation. As newer vernacular languages became well established, and Latin fell into disuse except among scholars and ecclesiastics, the Church produced for official pastoral purposes translations of the Bible in various European vernaculars: Anglo-Saxon, ca. 1000; Anglo-Norman, ca. 1350; French, 13th century; German, early 15th century; Swedish, 15th century; Italian, 1472; Spanish, 1478; Dutch, 1545.
"Only doublethink can make it possible to simultaneously accept reasoned, scientific thinking and blind, evidenceless, put-the-conclusion-before-the-argument faith. It's all a bunch of garbage. Y'all go home now."
Possibly from the refusal to permit common people to read the Bible, lest they misunderstand it and fall into heresy or mortal sin.
Good Lord, you don't even acknowledge the reality of the Dark Ages, do you?
Oh, and one last thing:
Since there are no known causes of mental illnesses, and no physical way to diagnose them, it's meaningless to ask medical professionals to rule them out before concluding someone is possessed. There's no way to rule out schizophrenia other than to note that the condition in question lacks the defining symptoms of schizophrenia.
Since there are no known causes of mental illnesses, and no physical way to diagnose them, it's meaningless to ask medical professionals to rule them out before concluding someone is possessed. There's no way to rule out schizophrenia other than to note that the condition in question lacks the defining symptoms of schizophrenia.
You are misinformed. At no time in the history of the Latin Church was there a general prohibition on common people reading the Bible. There have been occasional restrictions imposed (usually locally) in order to combat the proliferation of unapproved vernacular translations (as with the Albigensians and Waldensians). At any rate, there were never any Church policies designed to discourage literacy, and quite a few enterprises to promote it.
The so-called "Dark Ages" are a pet subject of mine, actually. I daresay there are few, if any, posters here who have devoted as many posts to the topic as I - usually in the context of the early history of science and technology (a hobby) or early legal history (a professional interest). I surmise, however, that our opinions on that period diverge.
I believe leaving the Bible in Latin counts.
Nick Bogaerts
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 617
The Council of Trent affirmed the Clementine Vulgate as the only authorised version of the Bible.
Nick Bogaerts
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 617
Careful! The Cathars used the Vetus Latina.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
Last edited:
logical muse
LogMu
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,050
In 1600, the Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno was "Inquisitioned" due to his heretical belief in an infinite universe, an idea which was anathema to the Church. He was burned at the stake for refusing to recant.
Burned at the stake!
Can you conceive of this?
Galileo Galilei was 36 years old at this time. He had already demonstrated his support for a heliocentric system, so the events surrounding Bruno's trial were of no little concern.
He was friends with Cardinal Barberini, who was elected Pope Urban VIII in 1623. It was this friendship with the Cardinal (later Pope) that gave Galileo the confidence to proceed with the writing of his book Dialogue on the Great World Systems, Ptolemaic and Copernican, published in 1632. Unfortunately, the Cardinal was under the impression that Galileo would present his thesis as a hypothesis, and not as fact.
As Pope, he was convinced that Galileo had deceived him, and hence Galileo was brought before the Inquisition in 1633. He was threatened with torture and burning at the stake if he did not recant his ideas that the Earth revolved around the Sun.
Galileo did recant, and was spared the great wrath of the Roman Catholic Church. At the age of 69, he was however placed under house arrest for the rest of his life. His book was placed on the banned book list.
In case you're wondering, no, I didn't copy that out of wikipedia. And it is a simplification. The longer story would tell how Galileo's book had a character represented as a fool who espoused Pope Urban's argument which was then demonstrated to be false. No wonder the Pope was pissed off.
Burned at the stake!
Can you conceive of this?
Galileo Galilei was 36 years old at this time. He had already demonstrated his support for a heliocentric system, so the events surrounding Bruno's trial were of no little concern.
He was friends with Cardinal Barberini, who was elected Pope Urban VIII in 1623. It was this friendship with the Cardinal (later Pope) that gave Galileo the confidence to proceed with the writing of his book Dialogue on the Great World Systems, Ptolemaic and Copernican, published in 1632. Unfortunately, the Cardinal was under the impression that Galileo would present his thesis as a hypothesis, and not as fact.
As Pope, he was convinced that Galileo had deceived him, and hence Galileo was brought before the Inquisition in 1633. He was threatened with torture and burning at the stake if he did not recant his ideas that the Earth revolved around the Sun.
Galileo did recant, and was spared the great wrath of the Roman Catholic Church. At the age of 69, he was however placed under house arrest for the rest of his life. His book was placed on the banned book list.
In case you're wondering, no, I didn't copy that out of wikipedia. And it is a simplification. The longer story would tell how Galileo's book had a character represented as a fool who espoused Pope Urban's argument which was then demonstrated to be false. No wonder the Pope was pissed off.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
I can conceive of this. However, it is false.
His book on the belief on an infinite universe and worlds was a book in which he espoused pantheism.
Now I'm not for burning pantheists at the stake. I sometimes call myself a pantheist. However, pantheism isn't Catholicism; Bruno was not teaching Catholic doctrine. And in those days, that could get you in a lot of trouble.
I'm glad those days are over, but Bruno wasn't burned for his scientific beliefs, but for his religious teachings.
Here's a link:
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Essays/Bruno.html
You believe that leaving the Bible in Latin (as opposed to what - removing it from Latin?) counts as a Church policy designed to discourage literacy? Recall that the Church in different places and times produced a number of authorized translations into vernacular languages, several of which I already identified.
When the Vulgate first appeared and for centuries afterward, it was a vernacular translation. Why, in your view, did the Church produce it?
More accurately, it affirmed the Vulgate as the only authentic version of the Bible. This explains why, ever since then, the only authorized Catholic Bibles besides the Vulgate have been approved translations from the Vulgate (many of which had already been produced). However, according to the online Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Council of Trent, "[n]othing was decided in regard to the translation of the Bible in the vernaculars."Nick Bogaerts said:
Nick Bogaerts said:
Yes, and one of the chief ends for which the Cathars used the Vetus Latina (not to be confused with the Vulgate) was the production of unauthorized translations thereof into French and other languages.
Meadmaker said:
Here is an an older post which, I hope, sheds additional light on the central issues underlying the Galileo controversy.
logical muse said:
Meadmaker has already pointed out the falsity of this claim. Here you can find additional research and discussion of Bruno's case. Robin also contributes some cogent observations on the topic in the same thread.
Last edited:
HeyLeroy
Vegan Cannibal
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2005
- Messages
- 5,567
Last edited:
Your friend is probably already guilty of heresy, apostasy and/or schism, in which case he has already incurred an automatic excommunication according to the Church. Considering that baptism apparently can't technically be voided, I don't think he can hope for much better than that. I can't think of a reason, apart from vanity, why he would care about getting a formal sentence of excommunication pronounced against him - although I once knew a (lapsed) Catholic who also looked into that possibility.
For a Catholic, though, this fellow doesn't seem to have a very solid grasp of Catholic teaching (e.g., "The Church denounces gambling, yet buoys itself with basement bingo").
Nick Bogaerts
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 617
I've only located a single translation by the Cathars, in Occitan, which it would be (number FRBNF35955539 on Gallica). I doubt any French translation exists, though I'm willing to be corrected.