Saturday 29 October 2016

Vatican Catholic Misrepresenting In Praeclara Summorum? Part III


"and your argument for the sake of argument is made precisely to prove that position" (which one has made clear).

Fine, but a concessive clause was made in order to precisely illustrate that certain things do NOT follow against the faith (in large) even from Heliocentrism.

A weak concessive clause, not an "I grant you that", but more "even if I grant you that".

However, to be fair to Dimond brothers, they were probably looking at an official English translation which bungled that precise point. See earlier comments in earlier parts.*


"Benedict XV does not say anywhere that the Earth IS the centre of the Universe"

Nor that it isn't.

He is however arguing for its being irrelevant to the things THAT he is stating, if such were the case.

Earth was the scene of Incarnation, and Dante's treating it such remains edifying. Dante being the larger context.

This is enough for a room that Bendict XV was making an argument, not indeed starting from a position he held as counterfactual and had distanced himself from as such, but from a position which he held to be an adiaphoron, or hoped to be an adiaphoron, and wanted to illustrate as such.

But a Pope in one subordinate clause hoping Earth's position to be an adiaphoron does not equal a clear magisterial statement that it is in fact a licit position about the matter.

By the way, at 7:04, I have STILL not heard Dimond brothers clearly state that In Praeclara Summorum is about Dante and not about the Copernican books and their theorems.


"And he is not saying that he is ... soleley for the sake of an argument proving that the Earth is the centre of the Universe".

No, but by the choice of subordinating conjunction licet, by the choice of sit rather than est, and by the choice of non dicenda sit rather than non sit, he is indicating AMPLY that HE is HERE not concerned to DISCUSS whether Heliocentrism or Geocentrism be the true position.

He is only concerned to establish that the scientific errors of Dante are adiaphora as to his Divine Comedy being edifying.

He takes that in two points, first straighter off, whether praecessus scientiarum, with items such that Tychonian astronomy (which was accepted at the time of the Galileo process, though not by Galileo) suffices as example of this progress of sciences. The second is the more roundabout, and that is what he is refusing to directly discuss, namely if Earth could be not centre of the universe, all he has to say about that being that the question is unimportant in relation to salvific truths embodied in Dante's Divina Commedia.

Be it noted, a Pope wanting a certain point to be treated like adiaphoron, but not directly defining that it is so (which is how Benedict XV went about this matter) is a behaviour reminiscent of Honorius : if he was not a Monothelite, he sinned (as far as following council and Pope St Leo II are concerned) by calling Monothelite controversy an adiaphoron.

But according to usual Catholic theology on papacy not enough to be a non-believer and a non-Pope.


"this should be immediately recognised by an honest person"

If anything should that, it is that an encyclical on Dante is clearly not a magisterial statement bearing directly on the question whether Heliocentrism has become licit to actually believe.

And Dimond brothers have STILL not said a word (that I heard at least) on the fact that the encyclical was on Dante and not on astronomy. An unwary and ignorant person hearing them might get the impression that Benedict XV wrote an encyclical as a direct response to an astronomical query, when in fact he didn't. Or to a query relating to what astronomies are licit for a Catholic to accept, when in fact he did not do that either.

Is that somehow NOT dishonest on their part? What am I missing?

Will they at least admit it later?

8:19 It is true that St Paul's procedure is not perfectly parallel, but it is also true that it perfectly ILLUSTRATES that one can use hypothetical conjunctions before a sentence or clause which by itself, as a complete sentence, would be contrary to that faith - which was the level of parallel that Paul Smith intended to convey against a rash statement meaning ultimately that one couldn't.


"you can then reason FROM THAT TRUTH and assume for the sake of argument"

But the argument in Corinthians is not from the truth that Christ resurrected, but in order to illustrate importance of that truth, from fact of its being central, to a consequence, either Christ resurrected or we are idiots.

This consequence is in and by itself NOT built on the truth of faith which he had clearly stated earlier.


"he did not say anywhere that he believes the truth is that the Earth is the centre of the Universe, rather he simply stated that the Earth may not be the centre of the Universe."

No, he did not SIMPLY STATE that.

And Earth being and not being centre was still not the point.

If he had wanted to state SIMPLY that Earth may not be the centre of the Universe, he would have written an encyclical on the subject, perhaps in 1920 commemorating hundred years of Settele's book winning against the censorship of Anfossi and in a main clause, not a subordinate one state:

**Esse potest (esse facile potest, esse potest et immo probabile est etc) verum, quod terra non sit centrum universi.

He never included these precise terms in a main clause in indicative in his encyclical either, and his doing so (or something clearly tantamount) is what the terms "simply stated" convey to a listener who cannot check what it was.

Because he doesn't know Latin.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Day after Sts Simon and Jude

* Or here : "hanc autem terram quam nos homines incolimus licet ad universi caeli complexum iam non quasi centrum, ut opinio fuit, obtinere dicenda sit, ipsam tamen et sedem beatae nostrorum progenitorum vitae fuisse, et testem deinde tum eius, quam illi fecerunt ex eo statu prolapsionis miserrimiae tum restitutae Iesu Christi sanguine hominum salutis sempiternae." Not equivalent to "translation": "and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ. A real, not official translation: and though one might not be right to say of [our earth etc] that it obtains the so to speak the centre of the complex of all heaven.

Friday 28 October 2016

Quoting Moss, again, With a Comment

It was one thing to remove the bans on the old rites, as ROCOR had done in its Council in 1974: it was quite another to recognise the schismatics as Orthodox. And in such terms! For later in the epistle ROCOR compares the persecutions of the Old Ritualists to the persecutions of St. John Chrysostom, and begs forgiveness of the Old Ritualists as the Emperor Theodosius the Younger had begged it of the holy hierarch! But, as Bishop Gregory Grabbe pointed out after the 1974 Council, the sins of the Russian State in persecuting the Old Ritualists in the 17th century should not all be laid on the Church of the time, which primarily condemned the Old Ritualists not for their adherence to the old rites (which even Patriarch Nicon recognised to be salvific), but for their disobedience to the Church. To lay all the blame for the schism, not on the Old Ritualists but on the Orthodox, even after the Old Ritualists had proudly refused to take advantage of the many major concessions made by the Orthodox (for example, the edinoverie) while stubbornly continuing to call the Orthodox themselves schismatics, was to invert the truth and logically led to the conclusion that the Orthodox Church was not the True Church!

And how is edinoverie different from Uniatism?

How is the Russian condemnation of Uniatism different from the Bespopovtsi condemnation of edinoverie?

Well, perhaps in this : Avvakum retained the position of Gregory Palamas, which Pope Pius IX of blessed memory in 1854 made binding dogma in the Catholic Church.

What was required at edinoverie was giving that up.

However, the position of Photius in Mystagogy cannot be considered as equal with Gregory Palamas, since Photius was ignoring the position, not only of St Augustine of Hippo (whom he had called a saint in Vivliothiki!) but of several saints, including Saint Athanasius, who was not even a Westerner.

Trento - Philaret (Catechisms) : Filioque far older than III Council of Toledo

Trento - Philaret (Catechisms) : Mone hagne, mone eulogemene / Moni agni, moni evloyimeni

Quoting a forum page : Moss vs Romanides

Topic: Who is Vladimir Moss?? is he an orthodox Christian??

Romanides was a canonical Orthodox Christian priest and full professor of theology, whose teachings are have a firm foundations in the Fathers.

Moss seems to be a schismatic, surely he cannot be considered on equal footing with Romanides. He also is the author of "Bolshevism and the Jews (Vladimir Moss)", a text which falls into the domain of obscure conspiracy theories.

I am reminding you that Fr. John Romanides was a priest and therefore he, as the forum rules say, has to be addressed here with his proper clergy title. Further violation of that rule will result in warnings.

Me (outside discussion)
I'm unsubtly reminded of the kind of forum admins and likeminded who insist on calling Antipope Bergoglio "Pope Francis" as if that were his title.

I've read just about nothing from Fr. John himself but considering what he seemed to think about St. Augustine I wouldn't say he had firm foundations in the Fathers.

Me (outside discussion)
Thanks Alpo!

Especially since Gregory Palamas, whom some Catholics are willing to accept also as a Saint, agreed with Saint Augustine.

We all once needed to wash away the stain left on our souls by Adam's sin through Baptism. The Blessed Virgin did not need that.

The least of all
I honestly cant believe why anyone would claim Fr. John as a heretic. The little I have read of him, i have greatly enjoyed and he is an extremely honest (i find) interpreter of the EO/OO split and most likely contributed greatly to the warm relations we have today

Me (outside discussion)
EO/OO = Eastern Orthodox / Oriental Orthodox?

OK, warm relations to Nestorians, Jacobites and Armenian Monophysites ...

His "religion is a neurobiological illness" schtick is very shaky to say the least. Such a concept is nowhere to be found in the Fathers. In some places I think by religion he means "idolatry" but he starts talking about spinal fluid, short-circuit between the brain and heart, etc., it's clear he's using a gimmick to pander to scientism and new-agey "spiritual not religious" nonsense.

Me (outside discussion)

It's the kind of thing KGB used to make Soviet psychiatry spred to the West, via "scientific collaboration".

What has Vladimir Moss to Say about Putin?

Putin is no believer. On September 8, 2000, when asked by the American television journalist Larry King whether he believed in God, he replied: “I believe in people…” Moreover, as George Spruksts writes,

  • “1) he lights menorahs when he worships at his local synagogue;
  • “2) he has worshipped the mortal remains of Kin Il Sung in North Korea;
  • “3) he has worshipped the mortal remains of Mahatma Gandhi;
  • “4) he ‘believes not in God, but in Man’ (as he himself has stated);
  • “5) he was initiated into an especially occult form of ‘knighthood’ (read: freemasonry) in Germany;
  • “6) he has restored the communist anthem;
  • “7) he has restored the bloody red rag as the RF’s military banner;
  • “8) he has not removed the satanic pentagram from public buildings (including cathedrals);
  • “9) he has plans of restoring the monument to ‘Butcher’ Dzerzhinsky [now fulfilled];
  • “10) he has not removed the satanic mausoleum in Red Square nor its filthy contents.”

See : Sprukts, “Re: [paradosis] A Russian Conversation in English”, orthodoxtradition@, 24 June, 2004.

Preobrazhensky points out that Putin “began his career not in the intelligence ranks but in the ‘Fifth Branch’ of the Leningrad Regional KGB, which also fought religion and the Church. Putin carefully hides this fact from foreign church leaders, and you will not find it in any of his official biographies… The myth of Putin’s religiosity is important for proponents of ‘the union’. It allows Putin to be characterized as some Orthodox Emperor Constantine, accepting the perishing Church Abroad under his regal wing. For his kindness we should be stretching out our arms to him with tears of gratitude…”

See : Preobrazhensky, KGB/FSB’s New Trojan Horse: Americans of Russian Descent, North Billerica, Ma.: Gerard Group Publishing, 2008, p. 97; KGB v russkoj emigratsii (The KGB in the Russian Emigration), New York: Liberty Publishing House, 2006, p. 102.

“For those who claim,” writes Professor Olga Ackerly, “that the ‘CIS is different from the USSR’ and Putin is a ‘practising Orthodox Christian’, here are some sobering facts. The first days and months Putin’s presidency were highlighted by the reestablishment of a memorial plaque on Kutuzovsky Prospect where Andropov used to live. The plaque was a symbol of communist despotism missing since the 1991 putsch, bearing Andropov’s name – a former head of the KGB, especially known for his viciousness in the use of force and psychiatric clinics for dissidents. On May 9, 2000, Putin proposed a toast to the ‘genius commander’ Iosif Stalin and promoted many former KGB officers to the highest state positions…

“Important to note is that the Eurasian movement, with ties to occultism, ecumenism, etc. was recently revived by Putin, and a Congress entitled ‘The All-Russian Political Social Movement’, held in Moscow in April of 2001, was ‘created on the basis of the Eurasist ideology and inter-confessional [sic!] harmony in support of the reforms of President Vladimir Putin.’ The movement is led by Alexander Dugin, a sexual mystic, National Bolshevik Party member, son of a Cheka cadre, personally familiar with the so-called ‘Black International’, advisor to the State Duma, and participant in Putin’s ‘Unity’ movement.”

See : Ackerly, “High Treason in ROCOR: The Rapprochement with Moscow”, pp. 21, 25.

Quoted from A HISTORY OF THE FALL OF ROCOR, 2000-2007, by Vladimir Moss

I don't think I am occultist in giving some gematria on a version of Putin's name:


And if anyone say that ASCII Code was not there in the days of St John on Patmos, God eternally knows all which was, is or will be in His creation, and His knowledge as present to us in one century is not cut off from the knowledge of the other centuries. To God revealing Himself on Patmos, computers were not a future thing. They are present to His regard as a present thing, whether he looked on them before creating, or on Patmos or some other time./HGL

Cassandra Hsiao, Student Writers, The Principle

LAT has a subsection (online) called HS Insider.

One writer here is Cassandra Hsiao.

Now, the reason I found her, I'll come back later to. I'll start with some presentation.

HS Insider : For Students, By Students

Cassandra Hsiao : CH is a senior at OCSA (Orange County School of the Arts). Her work has been nationally recognized by the Scholastic Art and Writing Awards and National Student Poets Program. She has been chosen as finalists of playwriting competitions held by California Young Playwrights, The Blank Theatre, Writopia Labs, and Princeton University. Her poetry, essays and reviews have appeared in TeenReads, Jet Fuel Review, Feminine Inquiry, Aerie International and more. She also conducts print and on-camera interviews as a Star Reporter and Film Critic for multiple online outlets. She won a National Gracie Award in Student Online Video Host Category by The Alliance for Women in Media Foundation .

Now, she does reviews of genres:

Post-9/11 world: What caused the rise of superhero movies
Cassandra Hsiao June 16, 2016

And of movies:

‘Storks’ movie review
Cassandra Hsiao September 22, 2016

She keeps a lookout on young actors:

Disney Channel’s ‘Bunk’d’ interviews with Peyton List, Skai Jackson, Miranda May & Nina Lu
Cassandra Hsiao August 20, 2016

And on perhaps even younger philanthropists:

Meet Gabe Eggerling: 13-year-old actor and philanthropist
Cassandra Hsiao August 29, 2016

But the reason I saw her work at all is that she did interviews related to the movie The Principle:

Director of ‘The Principle’ on Kate Mulgrew controversy, geocentrism and filmmaking
Cassandra Hsiao August 8, 2016

And Rick DeLano, producer of ‘The Principle,’ on geocentrism controversy one year later
Cassandra Hsiao August 8, 2016

She also looks at other science stuff too:

‘Voyage of Time’: Q&A with Harvard Professor Dr. Knoll, lead scientific adviser
Cassandra Hsiao October 6, 2016

Best Campaign Slogan for 2016

H/T to Pope Michael:

Vatican Catholic Misrepresenting In Praeclara Summorum? Part II

This morning, where I could listen with headphones, I came a few minutes further, and to a very crucial point. But here I have no headphones. However, here I discovered something which means Dimond Brothers were in better faith than I had previously thought.

// That is obviously ridiculous when you consider the passage in context. //


// He goes in to say « and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe »//

- translation leaves out nuance of licet with subjunctive and the circumlocution by « non dicenda » so translate rather : « and though one should perhaps not say that the earth on which we live is the centre of the universe » - a very far cry from « plainly stating » that Earth may not be the centre. The Dimond Brothers may be directly quoting an official English translation, but if so it is faulty. But see further down on whose fault that is. Hint, Dimond Brothers may be innocent.


// In the midst of his comments //

on another topic

// he clearly states //

or reluctantly admits remote possibility of

// that the Earth may not be the centre of the universe. //


// And if something is a matter of faith, a Catholic is not permitted to say that it may not be true. //

A Catholic knowing that Resurrection of Christ is of faith is not permitted to say « after all, perhaps the resurrection didn’t happen ».

But Benedict XV may have been in doubt on whether geocentrism was of faith and have been unwilling to commit himself.

Obviously, whether geocentrism is materially de fide or not is less clear to our times at least than whether Resurrection happened is de fide or not. So, he could have been in doubt.

And he could have chosen the words so that, if it was of the faith, he would not damn himself or a very attentive reader by direct contradiction or voluntary doubt of a matter of faith.

While also chosing them so as not to give the impression that he was personally as supreme judge in the Church upholding its status as de fide, if such. Like a Patriarch of Moscow under the Stalin thaw or under Brezhnev, he also may very well have been pressed to pronounce himself on a matter where the rulers of Italy hoped to either destroy the faith of embarass the Church through the answer of a Church man. Note, I am not comparing to the worst periods of persecution, like under Lenin and Trotski, that would rather be what happened in the days of Pius IX of blessed memory* and of Leo XIII. I am comparing to the more lenient periods.**


// A Catholic cannot say « if history has proven Jesus is not God » - you could not say that without contradicting the faith. //

For one thing, geocentrism is not as directly as that in the Creed, as divinity of Christ is.

For another, one cannot compare a really plain hypothesis, stated without any shown reluctance, to a hypothesis stated with what could very well be reservations.

A Catholic could say « if Jesus were not God, even so the Church which stated that disappeared and the Church which called Him God remained, so in light of this, Arianism is not possible, due to Matthew 28 : you either have to accept He is God, or accept he was not even a prophet. »

By saying this, I would be showing reservations against the statement « Jesus is not God », namely by using the « if were not » rather than « if is not » form. And the hypothetic syllogism would still be true and a good point in Catholic apologetics. At least insofar as Gospels are accepted as sources for His statements, which Muslims are often not accepting.


// Therefore, Benedict XV’s statement that the Earth may not be the centre of the Universe //

My emphasis. That is like saying I had in my apologetics example above clearly stated that Jesus might be not God. Of course I haven’t.


// This is completely illogical, invalid and false reasoning.//

In other words, Peter Dimond had been told the obvious already by Elaine and by Paul before facing me.


// I’ll carefully explain why. //

Intently attentive.


// You may not call into question a defined dogma.//

But careful examination of the text In Praeclara Summorum doesn’t show Benedict XV was formally calling into question geocentrism. + he may have been doubting what others are now debating, namely whether it was defined or not. He chose the most non-committing wording possible. 5:36 just repeats the point.


// That is what Benedict XV’s statement would be doing … //

Or, as shown, would not be doing.


//… if geocentrism were a teaching of the Catholic Church. //

Supposing we were talking about an undoubted and at the time unambiguously held and upheld clear teaching.

There are teachings of the Church which at certain times have not been so upheld, but which nevertheless must have been such, since later dogmatised, and the Church cannot add teachings in dogmatising, she can only formalise teachings already held.


// But you can make an argument for the sake of an argument, when you have alrady established clearly what your position is.//

Or when you are saying you don’t have a definite position, which is what Benedict XV was basically doing. He was washing his hands like Pilate – but Pilate did not deny the Kingship of Jesus. Or his innocence.

I am sure Benedict XV’s words have already been abused for the purpose here abused by Dimond Brothers. Probably by men like Ott, or by less clearheaded ones than he.

However, in favour of Dimond brothers, I note that the mistranslation "and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought," is on the site of EWTN.

This means that the English speaking world were already facing In Praeclara Summorum in a falsified text variant, a wording which Benedict XV, writing in Latin, had not actually signed. Because it is certain that Church documents were translated into major languages (Documentation catholique in France etc in French is translations of Acta Sanctae Sedis and of Acta Apostolicae Sedis. This means that the mistranslation must have appeared in some English language counterpart of Documentation catholique already in 1921. The year when In Praeclara Summorum was issued on the 600'dth anniversairy of Dante's death and by occasion thereof. Note that the Dante encyclical means we DO have a right to read "theology fiction", like Divina Commedia (despite an error far weightier than pre-Tychonian scientific ones, namely condemning to Hell a man probably identical with a blessed), but of course also like Silmarillion (which departs from the Biblical timeline, and where angelic beings do what Peter Lombard would have called and St Thomas Aquinas refused to call "ministerial creation") or Narnia (where, at least according to author's own representation, in another Universe, God the Son has ANOTHER incarnation). Or fiction about a man being saved after selling his soul (Krabat, by Otfried Preussler - the historic character was probably only though of as having sold his soul by Lutheran peasants, he was a faithful Catholic), or about Apocalypse (though I haven't read Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman). We may read it. Since we may read Dante.

Harry Potter is another matter, since based on a non-Christian and indeed non-Thomistic and non-Theist metaphysics, but also since giving close to instructions and very clear incouragement for practising witchcraft. Not sure if Earthsea would come in hear due to Shamanism (which is the philosophy Ged lives by and the universe he lives in).

Most things by Lloyd Alexander wouldn't, since most are not cosmic in any sense, only political (Westmarch series, The First Two Lives of Lukas-Kasha, Vesper Holly series - where last book celebrates the good emperor of Brasil who liberated slaves) and what is cosmic, namely Prydain series has another precedent for being licit : the precedent of Thélémaque and so many other works by Christians (I just learned of Chaucer's The House of Fame the day before yesterday) and it is fairly classically a featuring of pagan deities in mythological setting. Even more, the only pagan deity actually given in the series is Arawn, and his depiction agress better with "all the gods of the pagans are demons" than with Arawn in Mabinogion.

So, In Praeclara Summorum AND other things mean we may certainly read most books labelled as fantasy. Not saying this is the case for Harry Potter or for some sci-fi stories by Ted Chiang (Tower of Babel and Hell is the Absence of God). But in general, we can read fantasy whether written by Christians (Dante, CSL, JRRT, see In Praeclara Summorum) or from a Pagan persepective (Prydain or Thélémaque) or from a perspective of agnosticism, like Lloyd Alexanders, as long as it doesn't directly prone doubt in existence of God. As I don't think they do. There may be specific reasons for avoiding specific works, notably Harry Potter.

I mention this, because some of the guys really towting In Praeclara Summorum as proof for saying "heliocentrism doesn't sin against the faith" at the same time also tend to say "theology fiction" (as I term it) = confabulating about matters of faith = forging heresies (or committing a kind of sacrilege by treating matters of faith as material for fictional writings).

It is conspicuous that Dimond Brothers are NOT saying about In Praeclara Summorum the one obvious point, that we may read Dante's Divina Commedia. They are only trying to take a secondary point and squeeze it into the definitions of being a formal definition that Heliocentrism is licit. One can just as easily, nay even better, say that Humani Generis is a formal definition that Evolution is licit, provided one doesn't deny Adam and Eve were first human's and Adam's soul was specially created by God. In one of his Letters, Tolkien congratulates himself on being guided by the Church after resuming what his parish priest had resumed Humani Generis as - that being just that point. And that is ALSO not what the document actually states. But it is less dishonest to do so with Humani Generis, which Dimond Brothers rightly reject, than with In Praeclara Summorum, where the subject is totally other than the question of cosmology and it only comes up as a side issue.

However, as to their treatment of the side issue, as said, I had accused them of falsely translating a Latin document, when in fact they were probably following someone else's false translation into an English document. Something tolerated, apparently, in 1921, as much as when later "Missal of Paul VI" has a Latin original stating "pro vobis et pro multis" and an English, Spanish, French translation stating "pour tous", "pro todos", "for all". Sth "Benedict XVI" rightly did away with. Even if for other reasons he's more suspect of being Antipope Ratzinger.

Back in 2013, I was not aware that Dimond Brothers were not mistranslating themselves. THIS I owe to repair their honour, though my attack on it was by mistake and sloppy ignorance of a fact. And a corresponding paragraph has been inserted as a visible comment in the correspondence post.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts Simon and Jude

* Note what I am doing here. Antipope Wojtyla « beatified » Pius IX. If I had said « Blessed Pius IX » I would have been giving impression that definitions by Wojtyla are somehow affecting the faith. If on the other hand I had said just « Pius IX », I would have been giving the impression not only that Wojtyla was no Pope (which is true), but also that he was wrong in considering Pius IX as a holy man. That I do not. Not because of Wojtyla, but because of « blessed are you when they persecute you for my name’s sake », Matthew 5, I think.

** The cessation of formal perecution came with Mussolini. In that sense, he can be compared to Gorbatchev, Ieltsin and Putin. However, unlike these, he also banned abortion, so he was better than any of these. Even if he also supported some low intensity continuing persecution by anticlericals in Fascist Party, as noted by Non abbiamo bisogno.

Thursday 27 October 2016

Vatican Catholic Misrepresenting In Praeclara Summorum? Part I

There is the correspondence we had. Note "mhfm1" = "Most Holy Family Monastery, profile 1" or sth.

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : On : Benedict XV, To/From : mhfm1, Dates: 29-VII - 4-VIII-2013

Now, there is a fact that they had made a video previous to this.

The Theological Status of Geocentrism

Note, comments have been disactivated. I halted it at 1:37.

In that encyclical he plainly states that the Earth may not be the centre of the universe.

OK, will they accept the matrimonial ruling of Florence Fourth Lateran Council as indicating that the theory of four humours is valid? The generations each branch need have passed from a common ancestor were being reduced from seven to only four. The REASON given is the four humours:

Moreover the prohibition against marriage shall not in future go beyond the fourth degree of consanguinity and of affinity, since the prohibition cannot now generally be observed to further degrees without grave harm. The number four agrees well with the prohibition concerning bodily union about which the Apostle says, that the husband does not rule over his body, but the wife does; and the wife does not rule over her body, but the husband does; for there are four humours in the body, which is composed of the four elements.

This is a quote from canon or chapter or paragraph 50.

Now, a decree of this kind is supposed to be doctrinally sound.

Especially, if, as in this case, the decree is perpetual. Quoting further:

Although the prohibition of marriage is now restricted to the fourth degree, we wish the prohibition to be perpetual, notwithstanding earlier decrees on this subject issued either by others or by us. If any persons dare to marry contrary to this prohibition, they shall not be protected by length of years, since the passage of time does not diminish sin but increases it, and the longer that faults hold the unfortunate soul in bondage the graver they are.

In other words, the decree claims infallibility in at least moral theology.

This document is clearly superior in order of dignity to a mere encyclical of a following Pope, such as Benedict XV.

Also, the four humours are here given as a direct REASON for the new discipline, which, as said, claims infallibility.

Nowhere in In Praeclara Summorum is Pope Benedict XV directly claiming infallibility. What is more, not only is "Earth may not be the centre of the universe" not the topic, but it is not even a reason, merely a concession. A very obvious concession due to his speaking in a very loudly confident heliocentric Italy. One can compare what Papacy suffered from 1870 on to what Russians suffered from 1917 on. And one can compare Mussolini to Gorbatchev. That is, the year of In Praeclara Summorum, the Church was acting in a persecution. A bit like Russian Patriarchate when going MUCH further and directly endorsing Evolution.

So, the best Benedict XV can give the critics and perhaps persecutors of the Church is a concessive clause in the subjunctive?

If Benedict XV "plainly states" - namely as a canonic fact, a doctrinal clear possibility - that Earth could be moving around something else and around herself each day, which is what not being the centre of the universe comes out to, how does Lateran IV, when speaking with a clear claim of infallibility, not "plainly state" that the body has four humours, that it is composed of four elements?

If that passage can be an obiter dictum in Lateran IV, how can the very roundabout phrase "licet ad universi caeli complexum iam non quasi centrum, ut opinio fuit, obtinere dicenda sit," which by my own translation is "even if it be (sit) not (non) necessary to say of her (dicenda) that she obtains so to say the centre to the complex of universal heaven as the opinion was" not be an obiter dictum?

Actually, even if I mistranslated slightly in heat of argument and fatigue, and "non dicenda" should be taken as "not apt to say of her" rather than as "not necessary to say of her" (though literally "non dicendum est" is "it is not necessary to say", it is often used as "it is necessary not to say" or "it is not apt to say"), it is still an oblique clause in a totally different argument. It cannot be compared to Pope Leo XIII reference to phenomenal language (without specifying how it would apply to geo-/helio-debate!) which is to the point, but without a clear favour to heliocentrism. It comes in "licet non dicenda sit". That is one removed from "plainly stating.

By 2:15 Vatican Catholic has referred to a person thinking the Pope "only mentioning it in a hypothetical argument".

But, he refuses to disclose that In Praeclara Summorum doesn't have topical room for being an outlet for a definition on Earth's position. It is still about "even if not this and this and this" (as Vatican Catholic resumes), we are dealing with an even so "Dante's Divina Commedia is an edifying book" - which was the exact subject of In Praeclara Summorum, as it was issued with occasion of a Dante jubilee.

2:34 "that is obviously ridiculous when you consider the passage in context, as we pointed out in the e-exchanges".

Here is the passage he wants to quote:

If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ. Therefore the divine poet depicted the triple life of souls as he imagined it in a such way as to illuminate with the light of the true doctrine of the faith the condemnation of the impious, the purgation of the good spirits and the eternal happiness of the blessed before the final judgment.

And here is the Latin original:

Quod si de caelestibus rebus scientiae pervestigatio progrediens aperuit deinceps eam mundi compositionem sphaerasque illas, quae veterum doctrina ponerentur, nullas esse, naturamque et numerum et cursum stellarum et siderum alia esse prorsus atque illi iudicavissent, manet tamen hanc rerum universitatem quoquo eius partes regantur ordine eodem administrari nutu quo est condita Dei omnipotentis qui omnia quaecumque sunt, moveat et cuius gioria plus minus usquequaque eluceat: hanc autem terram quam nos homines incolimus licet ad universi caeli complexum iam non quasi centrum, ut opinio fuit, obtinere dicenda sit, ipsam tamen et sedem beatae nostrorum progenitorum vitae fuisse, et testem deinde tum eius, quam illi fecerunt ex eo statu prolapsionis miserrimiae tum restitutae Iesu Christi sanguine hominum salutis sempiternae.

But the opening of the paragraph could refer to Tycho Brahe refuting solid spheres and to more celestial bodies being found (Moons of Jupiter, Pluto, and so on) and - here I have a misgiving - he could have believed at least conditionally that unlike St Thomas and Dante thinking celestial bodies are moved by angels, that the mechanistic view of their motions, the Newtonian-causes only one, was correct. However, he could also have referred to a Nova proving stars are not sempiternal. They don't remain unconditionally unchanging, barring miracles of their creation and perhaps falling down (Matthew 24, if taken literally about stars rather than typologically about bishops, and the "falling from heaven" of their apostasy).

Here I'll have to end for this evening, internet time is running up.

Tomorrow, if God speeds my intention, we'll see what Vatican Catholic does with the paragraph.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Vigil of Sts Simon and Jude

Wednesday 26 October 2016

Medieval Related, Mostly, on Quora (part V)

1) Some Fun on Quora, I · 2) Some Fun on Quora, II · 3) Some Linguistics on Quora (III, still fun) · 4) Creationism vs Evolutionism on Quora, IV, still fun · 5) Medieval Related, Mostly, on Quora (part V)

How would medieval people react to a modern pop-song?

There are two options.

He could dislike it. He could also try to figure out the rhythm.

Either way, he would probably think there was sth wrong about the text and try to make a song with some meaning to the text.

Marketa B. Linden Windsor
Interesting. I guess they will like it I mean those real songs, not manufactured pop electro tunes. They were noisy in their time and singers with lute were stars of the courts. Also the medieval dancing had band consisting of 4–5 members of the capela.

Deleted Answer
"They simply wouldn’t understand the appeal in the rhythm."

We are talking about a time in which Richard the Lionhearted was notorious for walking back and forth in Church clapping his hands to the rhythm of the monks chanting.

Whether they liked the rhythm or not, they would easily have picked it up.

Deleted Answer
"Pop songs as we know them are a distant child of Jazz music."

With some heavy dilution from 18th C popular music, such as Gilbert and Sullivan.

Deleted Answer
"Music as we know it in general only take roots in the twentieth century and its revolutionary cultural shifts."

Er, no. Vivaldi and Mozart very certainly DO belong to "music as we know it in general" and so does by now modern performance of Medieval music.

Deleted Answer
"Medieval people would even have a hard time understanding 18th century music, although it might understandably be easier to their ears,"

Rather harder. Less rhythm and more difficult chords. Elvis would have come much easier than Wagner, especially in Parzifal or Tristan und Isolde.

Deleted Answer
"so it’s safe to say they would frown at ours even more because it belongs to a post-modern society which culture is completely unknown to them."

You are basically presuming musical styles are progressing in a straight line, and more centuries between equal more alien musical style. That is not the case.

Cole Nielson
I'll assume you mean midieval Europeans. During the midieval times, nearly everyone was a Christian. And almost nobody could read, so it was up to the Church leaders to tell the people what the Bible said. As such, it became corrupted, and the people believed every word that their church leaders spoke. With that in mind, those times were not tolerant times. Being gay was enough to get you killed. Let's say these time traveling midieval people heard the song "Only" by Nicki Minaj. Well, they wouldn't understand it. Our slang in pop is so very different from their speech that they'd be completely lost. If we could finally explain that she is talking about how she has big boobs a big butt, and that she likes to have her ass eaten, they'd react with complete disgust. They'd call for the pop singer to be killed. Then they'd realize that a sizable portion of musicians today are African Americans. That would outrage them, and they'd want to kill them.

Where do you get this disinformation about Medieval times?

There is ONE close to fact statement.

Cole Nielson
Being gay was enough to get you killed.

Not really, but committing sodomy was. However, some tend to use the word gay as meaning “someone who has committed sodomy”.

Slang is not news, it is not as if a “visitor” from Middle Ages would have easily picked up standard English and then be totally confused by the slang.

Cole Nielson
During the midieval times, nearly everyone was a Christian.

There were fairly large Jewish and here and there smaller Muslim minorities. Btw, they were not greater fans of sodomy than Christians were. I suppose btw, that you are not talking about everywhere in Medieval times, but about Latin Christendom.

Cole Nielson
And almost nobody could read, so it was up to the Church leaders to tell the people what the Bible said.

Almost nobody could read would perhaps describe the peasants (who were a majority). It being up to Church leaders to tell what the Bible says is pretty much still the case, even among modern Protestants where everyone has learned to read (though you haven’t learned to spell Medieval, also spelled Mediaeval, Mediæval) and everyone has a Bible, it is a thick collection of works and most people don’t have the time to doublecheck every passage which might be relevant for a question and so trust their Church leaders - except those who basically make up their own religion.

Cole Nielson
As such, it became corrupted,

Why? When, where and how?

Cole Nielson
and the people believed every word that their church leaders spoke.

If the Church leaders do have Apostolic succession, and are not straying from orthodoxy, basically we should. Luke 10:16.

Cole Nielson
With that in mind, those times were not tolerant times.

If your only standard for “tolerance” is how the gay community has it, well, they weren’t. Apart from that, tolerance varied on various issues and was often greater than in our times. For instance in spelling vernacular languages, among those who did learn to read and write.

Cole Nielson
Let's say these time traveling midieval people heard the song "Only" by Nicki Minaj. Well, they wouldn't understand it. Our slang in pop is so very different from their speech that they'd be completely lost.

I don’t know about “Only” by Nicki Minaj. I do know about Elvis Presley. And I am supposing the guys had had some time for linguistic adaptation, otherwise it’s like playing an English pop song to a monoglot French speaker. Well, they would consider Elvis obviously bawdy (“I have only one girl, one in every town I go”) and would either enjoy it or be shocked according to personal outlook, precisely as now.

Cole Nielson
If we could finally explain that she is talking about how she has big boobs a big butt, and that she likes to have her ass eaten, they'd react with complete disgust.

Committing sodomy was punishable with death. Always and everywhere at least in theory. But sado-masochism in heterosexual relationships was not so. I think some would be disgusted, as I am, at openly inviting her boyfriend (?) to be violent, but no one would have been shocked enough to burn her as a witch or forbid her every opportunity of singing everywhere. Some towns would have banned her, others wouldn’t.

Cole Nielson
They'd call for the pop singer to be killed.

No. They might at worst call for her to be banned from town and go look for another town with worse taste.

Cole Nielson
Then they'd realize that a sizable portion of musicians today are African Americans. That would outrage them, and they'd want to kill them.

Medievals had a certain concept of courtesy in common with Dixie culture. But NOT the racism. It would not have outraged them a bit.

Indeed, if they found out a large portion of the Afro-Americans were Christians, it would have made them go “Alleluia, the Crusades were successful!”

Mike Tero
Medieval wouldn’t like it, but Bach or Handel would appreciate it, I think, as most of the modern western music (including the classic Rock-n-Roll) is largely based on their immortal work.

“Medieval wouldn’t like it,”


[No answer, so far]

Basit Ishaq
Probably seize the singer and start a treatment for witchcraft.

  • 1 Why?
  • 2 What do you mean by “treatment” for witchcraft?

[No answer, so far]

Christopher Webster
They would probably dance like lunatics, like we do.

It sounds like a fairly correct guess.

[Nevertheless, Christopher Webster's answer was collapsed as needing improvement - while it is rather perfect.]

How would medieval people react ot 21 century life?

imagene that medival people from 9th or 13th century are transported to 21th century how would they react seeing all the wonders of technoligy and others gadgets in modern world!

If the location from which they came were Western Europe, the one from 13th C would be less surprised or impressed than the one from 9th C.

Also, from 13th C he would have less linguistic problems.

I think the real shock for both would rather be how people lead their lives : sodomy, contraception and free love, abortion, and if you survive that, there is Child Welfare and there is Compulsory school and there is Psychiatry threatening just around the corner.

What kind of people kept being nomads during Late Middle Ages in Europe?

Matt Riggsby
Very few kinds of people practiced a nomadic lifestyle in late Medieval Europe. Post-Roman Europe was never particularly friendly to nomads, and the landscape was fast closing to that kind of existence.

Europe’s biggest population of regular movers were probably herders, and those weren’t enormously nomadic. To the extent that they were nomadic, they typically practiced transhumance. Rather than moving great distances over the landscape, often trying out novel destinations, they’d go between a small number of fairly fixed locations, such as regular summer and winter grazing fields. This happened predominantly in relatively hilly regions like the British Isles, the Balkans, and parts of Iberia.

By the late Middle Ages, the Romani had also begun to appear in Europe, entering via the Balkans in the 14th century, they had made it to the British Isles and Spain by the early 16th. They were an odd case precisely because they were wanderers, without clear allegiances which were important in an increasingly settled and orderly Europe. Their treatment varied widely, from expulsion on pain of death to a sort of official toleration of the kind of vagrant lifestyle which would result in punishments for others.

Beyond those, wanderers were largely individuals: homeless vagrants, itinerant peddlers and entertainers, brigands, the occasional religious ascetic, and others difficult to classify.

Martine Dekker
Agreed, many people, like pedlars or ‘players’ (actors), travelled during the warmer months, but most of them had a semi-permanent home they returned to in winter. The only true nomads were those formerly referred to as gypsies.

How were nomadic people treated in the Europe Middle Ages?

Do you mean Gipsies?

They were at one time given a Papal Bull consecrating as their right and even duty to live nomadically, since their Copt Ancestor had refused hospitality to the Holy Family when they were on the Flight to Egypt.

Note, though ethnic origin of Gipsies is in India and they left it centuries after Holy Family came to Egypt, they passed through a place called “Little Egypt” in the Balkans, in Greece I think, and its owner was a Copt. He might have adopted them so they took such an obligation (really extant in his family or they misunderstood it) from him.

Due to the Papal Bull, they were less badly treated than before, and also less badly treated than afterwards, when Popes lost their power and the story in the Bull came to be disbelieved.

Bruno Garcia
Gypsies are the main group, but, correct me if I am wrong, there was more, right?

How does one person adopt a whole people?

How does that make them be called for his ethnicity?

“Gypsies are the main group, but, correct me if I am wrong, there was more, right?”

I have heard there were both Roma and Sinti, both Gypsies and Tatters.

That is possible. It is also possible the Tatters (and Tinkers are more Tatters than Gipsies) are a branch of Gipsies claiming back then to not be such in order to get preferential treatment.

In Sweden the first Tatters arrived under Gustav Wasa, after the Middle Ages.

“How does one person adopt a whole people?”

The one man has LOTS of land. The people has FEW chieftains. He adopts those in return for letting them live on his land, as long as it remains possible.

“How does that make them be called for his ethnicity?”

Adopted chieftains would probably have noted he was Copt and called themselves accordingly.

Anyway, the time when Roma stayed in “Little Egypt” was the time when words like “Gipsies” and “Egyptians” came to be applied to them.

Bruno Garcia
I dont understand why you changed to bold font in the end, I mean no disrespect, I am sorry if I sounded like that.

Thanks for the response, man, I appreciate you taking your time and effort to enlighten me, I aam sorry if I offended you in any manner.

The bold font was a mistake, did not know how to avoid it. One word was just bold font and then the rest were too. Sorry and you didn’t offend me at all.

Bruno Garcia
Its ok, we all do stuff like that, thanks again for your answer.

You are welcome. And thanks for understanding.

[The bold font not shown on the blog post.]

Would it be possible for the entire population of Europe to be wiped out by Black Death during the late Middle Ages?

If it was the population of as small a thing as a single village, yes.

Btw, “during the late Middle Ages” should be corrected to 1347 - 1350.

After 1350, it is still late Middle Ages, but not a great time for the Black Death epidemic. It had done its worst by 1349, at the very latest 1350.

Pieter Buis
After the fist wave of plague people figured out quite an effective countermeasure against the plague.


You’ll probably notice that secondary plague occurrences only struck local areas and never managed to spread like the first wave did. On top of that there are very few ‘plagues’ that have a 100% mortality rate, even things like modern day Ebola have a survival rate however small it might seem to us.

It was by quarantine that last plague in France was eradicated under Louis XV.

Are you sure it had been around so long as just after Black Death?

At least you were hardly shot at with a musket by the royal army for breaking it in plague years after 1350?

[Pieter Buis has not answered yet, I hope he will, since I am genuinely curious.]

Andrew Harrison
No, for two reasons. A plague that kills everyone it infects quickly runs out of carriers for the disease. The second is genetics. Genetic diversity ensures that plagues will fail to kill certain people. This is how immunity to plagues is created amongst the populace, as once they have been infected, they can never be hurt by the disease again.

Do you think Europeans got a generally better immune system after the plague as those with weaker immune systems were wiped off?

I mean, allergies, which are running amuck these days, are also a consequence of an over the top well functioning immune system.

Andrew Harrison
No, it just means the immune system can fight off that specific virus. Expose descendants of black death survivors and descendants of unaffected groups to a new plague, and the death rate will look very similar. Our modern immune systems are actually weak and small due to an over dependence on modern medicine. The systems are not forced to be strong, so they aren't strong. Allergies may be a symptom of these weak immune system.

I am talking about two parallel processes.

Btw, Bubonic plague is not a virus, but a bacterium.

  • 1) Survivors who had been exposed had developed immunity, personally, against getting Bubonic plague or Yersinia pestis again.
  • 2) Survivors would be those who had stronger immune systems, partly by life style and partly by heredity. Dying in plague (and later in pocks etc) would have been those either having weak immune systems by lifestyle or by hereditary factors.

This second process would have given Europeans a better immune system on the average as far as heredity is concerned.

Allergies are not a symptom of weak immune systems, they are an immune system being too eagerly on the watchout. Your reason for modern immune systems being weak was only lifestyle related and does not take hereditary factors into account.

Roman Huczok
No, I actually studied epidemics as part of my degree, and I'll try to explain the maths simply.

In the case of the black death, you have three basic groups of people, susceptibles, that's people who've never had the plague. Infecteds, people who currently have the plague (actually there's a fourth one for people who have it but aren't showing symptoms yet, but for simplicity we'll ignore those), and the recovered/removed, recovered being people who survived and removed being people who are dead, mathematically they're the same. There's also the consideration of births and natural deaths (which we'll consider to have no effect because the plague hit fast, and it makes our calculations unnecessarily complicated, it literally changes the numbers by less than 1%), and finally changes in the contact rate through quarantine, making the plague even less viable.

Now, at first there will be a very small number number of infected, and the rest will be susceptibles. Thus anyone encountered by an infected will be susceptible, and we'll have an epidemic as the disease spreads rapidly (but I think I recall that the number of infected for the black death will never go over 25% of the population). Susceptibles will move to the infected, and encounter more people, but infected will not seek out susceptibles, as the number of infected and removed people increase, it becomes less and less likely for an infected to encounter a susceptible. This was demonstrated wonderfully at my university, ultimately the first three rows became infected and then removed, but almost no-one in the back four rows was infected (the removed were asked to sit down again after infecting people). I think the worst case scenario, with everyone who becomes infected ultimately dying, and a second epidemic which results from the maths if you include more factors, 12% of people are never infected.

What was the life expectancy of someone during the black plague?

Lower than before or after.

The deadly plague was in the middle of which of the centuries?

The XIV Century, a k a the Thirteen-Hundreds.

Actually, by 1350, it was over, so, just before the Middle.

Pedro von Eyken
The XIV Century

How often did people die in medieval wars?

You mean, I suppose, how often when alive when a war started they were dead when it ended and because of it rather than being alive after it or dying during but of unrelated causes.

I got a book about Gustavus Adolphus when I was ending ninth grade. It gave some background about Thirty Years War.

It gave century by century for Europe how many who had died in this or that century precisely because of wars. Starting with 1200’s.

The century with least deaths (somewhere around 12%) was 1200 - 1300.

Then there was a rise up to 1600–1700 with Thirty Years War (at around 38%?). Then there was a fall, 18th and 19th Centuries were more peaceful, in Europe itself. Then came a new peak in 20th C (40% or sth?).

So, basically, less often than in later wars.

Alan Cowperthwaite
They only died once!

[True enough, and questioner could have been understood as if that was the relevant answer too - that is why I gave a disclaimer about how I took it.]

Jaskaran Singh
People died in medieval wars a lot, although it wasn’t usually because of the fighting itself. Diseases and starvation usually killed most people off, and the fighting only exacerbated this. During sieges, people usually ended up starving because supply lines were cut off to the city that was being besieged. Medieval wars also tended to spread diseases, such as the Black Plague. The Black Death was endemic to southeast China until the Mongols brought it from there to Caffa, a booming trade center on the Black Sea. They besieged Caffa, and they threw plague-ridden bodies over the city walls. The people of Caffa were then infected, and people started to flee, especially merchants. A group of Genoese merchants left Caffa, but rats carrying fleas with bubonic plague were also on the ship, and the plague spread to Genoa. From there, it spread throughout Europe on trade routes. It was also spread in France and England because of the Hundred Years’ War. England invaded France, and the plague had reached France. The Pope at Avignon had tried to dispose of the dead bodies from the plague by throwing them into the rivers, but it only spread the plague further. The French and English both equally suffered from the plague, and the English soldiers brought it back to the mainland when they returned home.

You are talking mostly about only two wars, the one which launched and the one which further spread the Black Death.

Note that most Medieval wars were not those two and that Middle Ages had more years than 1347 with the siege of Caffa and 1348 / 1349 with Hundred Years’ War.

The Catholic Church owned an enormous amount of land in Denmark prior to the Reformation. Was it also the case in Sweden?

I don’t know what you mean by “enormous”, but I know the bishops, the Church, the monasteries had received lots of donations.

This meant that a Church carreer was a viable option not necessarily tied to very great piety.

But calling the amount “enormous” sounds as if there was sth wrong with this.

Stefan Hill

The church owned a lot of land. The reformation ment that the king, Gustav Vasa, took all church land and made it state property. The confiscation was brutal and devestating.

Actually, no, Gustav Wasa restored lots of land from Church to the nobility whose ancestors had donated. That is how he got the support of the nobles.

Other things were confiscated, like Churches. This means the State could tax Church bells (which triggered one “rebellion” against the “king” Gustav Wasa), tear down Churches, decide who (namely new Protestant clergy) could reside in a Church previously Catholic, protect Protestant clergy when they committed sacrilege after sacrilege and so on.

Also, the taxes to the Church were mostly confiscated to the Crown. Of the “tithe”, namely 10% of harvest and of a few other things, only part had gone to the parish priest previous to Reformation. That was still “the priest’s tithe” (1/3 of 10% most dioceses). However, the other parts, “bishop’s tithe”, “Church tithe” and “poor men’s tithe” (each 2/9 of 10%) were confiscated into state administration and renamed “Crown tithe”.

Why, after Luther translated the bible to German, did the Catholic still listen to the pope? Wouldn't it make more sense to go off the Bible instead?

The questioner presumes that the Popes either didn’t know the Bible, despite knowing Latin, and despite knowing the Bible being a requirement for Catholic clergy, OR that Popes, despite knowing the Bible, didn’t care about it.

The questioner at least seems to presume that Protestants go directly by the Bible rather than listening to their clergy.

That is not quite the case.

Also, the questioner seems to presume Luther’s translation into German was the first one. Before his, there were 14 Catholic versions in High German and 4 in Low German (that is the dialects ranging from Dutch in the West to Berliner Platt in the East). They were all approved by the Church and read by Catholics also other than clergy, most of whom saw no reason to become Lutherans due to reading the Bible. And I mean printed versions, since we are talking versions from Gutenberg to Luther.

Daniel Douglas
Catholic and former Evangelical

Catholics believe that Christians should learn both the Bible and the traditions of the church. See 2 Thessalonians 2:15: "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings (or "traditions") we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." Catholics furthermore do not believe that the Bible is inerrant or that it is entirely intelligible for interpretation by a single person. Thus, trusting in one's own understanding of scripture, especially if that is contrary to the traditions of the church, simply doesn't make sense to a Catholic. The Bible is part of the puzzle, but the centuries of teachings of church leaders and theologians since the Apostles are also valuable.

“Catholics furthermore do not believe that the Bible is inerrant”

Oh yes, we do.

“or that it is entirely intelligible for interpretation by a single person.”

By a private interpretation.

How many is less important than whether interpretation contradicts the consensus of the Fathers or doesn’t.

As to Biblical history, that was not the issue, Luther and Catholics agreed basically on the timeline, the issues were trickier parts like exact conditions for the sacraments or for salvation.

Daniel Douglas
Do you know what the difference is between inerrancy and infallibility? The Catholic position is infallibility, but not inerrancy. The Church holds that the Bible teaches “solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.” It does not hold that every statement of the Bible unrelated to salvation is true, such as the scribal errors regarding who really killed Goliath or how many times a patriarch lied to foreigners about his wife being his sister.

Analyse the quote you just gave:

“and without error”

That means inerrancy.

Infallibility is for the Magisterium, but Bible itself is inerrant. And that is the position of the infallible magisterium.

“It does not hold that every statement of the Bible unrelated to salvation is true,”

You cannot presume any part of the Bible is STRICTLY unrelated to the salvation of each and every man, even if not talking about common conditions or causes of salvation.

“such as the scribal errors regarding who really killed Goliath”

Why not scribal errors on whether Judas was a traitor or wrote an NT Epistle, while we are at it? There were two Judas, Ischariot and St Jude, among the Twelve. There was also more than one Goliath among the Philistines.

“or how many times a patriarch lied to foreigners about his wife being his sister.”

Technically Abraham didn’t lie. Sarah was in a way his sister. I think half sister.

ANY statement of the Bible will, if analysed, give grounds for considering it true or at least no grounds for considering it false.

Scribal error is ONLY for cases in which another reading exists.

Luke could theoretically have a scribal error on stades between Jerusalem and Emmaus, since one text has 160 stades rather than 60 stades. However, that is a Syriac text.

Seth being born when Adam was 130 could very well be a scribal mistake for his being born when Adam was 230, since the LXX has it so. And traditional Christmas chronology has its basis in LXX.

You may have thought of VULGATE being infallible, but not inerrant. But that is only one of the versions, even if the most promoted one and specifically defended as infallible. BIBLE - each book in autograph and at least one extant version - is inerrant.

Justin Eiler, Former Christian, former seminary student
A lot of them didn't listen to the Pope any more. Problem is, there's a lot in the Bible that isn't very clear, and a lot that isn't very nice. When Germans stopped listening to the pope, they got into arguments about who was right, and who was wrong--and those arguments led to the European wars of religion.

It was not precisely a pleasant time to live in Europe.

I agree that Reformation led to a century of War. Which led to societies trying to prevent further wars by removing the religion, by doubting the Bible. We have just had a century or two or more caused by those societies conflicting with the Christians, mostly Catholics or Orthodox.

Sean Patrick Maiorca,
I an an Orthodox Christian

The Catholic Church claims they put the Bible together which the Orthodox does as well- due to the fact the cannon of the NT which everyone uses was put together in a council before the schism. As a result in both of our view to properly understand the Bible one has to read it in the light of Holy Tradition and that to read the Bible with out this understanding is to just sit down and make up the meaning as we go along.

[Again an answer which was great but which some quorans got marked as needing improvement and collapsing.]

Amy Dawson
This is a history question rather than a Bible question, however in my opinion it would be for these reasons:

  • 1) Power. People within the Catholic church in high positions didn't want their land and their influence and lifestyle to be taken away from them.
  • 2) Tradition. People had done things a certain way, the same way their parents have done it, the same way the ruts have run for all the history they had known. It's similar to why people seem so racist these days. They don't really have anything against a sexy tan, they are just comfortable with the way things are and don't want to discomfort themselves.
  • 3) Illiteracy. Not many people read the Bible. Whether it be lack of education, not being able to find the time, being confused about the context, they didn't really have a chance to understand what it really meant. These days, like my blue-font Bible, there's a little introduction of when each section was written, who wrote it, why it was written. They didn't have that. I could imagine it being really hard to work out on your own. The Pope seemed smart and get things. May as well listen to someone who sounds like they know what they're talking about than read a book you don't quite understand.

Let’s take it one by one.

  • 1) “People within the Catholic church in high positions didn't want their land and their influence and lifestyle to be taken away from them.”

    It couldn’t be they actually believed Catholicism to be correct Bible interpretation too?

  • 2a) “People had done things a certain way, the same way their parents have done it, the same way the ruts have run for all the history they had known.”

    It couldn’t be that they were doing things like Christians had done since Jesus and Apostles or so?

  • 2b) “It's similar to why people seem so racist these days. They don't really have anything against a sexy tan, they are just comfortable with the way things are and don't want to discomfort themselves.”

    Actually, Protestants being more secularised were also more prone to Racism.

  • 3a) “Illiteracy. Not many people read the Bible. Whether it be lack of education, not being able to find the time, being confused about the context, they didn't really have a chance to understand what it really meant.”

    How many have that on their own even now?

  • 3b) “These days, like my blue-font Bible, there's a little introduction of when each section was written, who wrote it, why it was written. They didn't have that.”

    Catholic Bibles provided that, though not exactly of same “modern scholarship” type. And both Catholics and Reformers provided those.

  • 3c) “I could imagine it being really hard to work out on your own.”

    But working it out on ones own was precisely what the Reformers said each Christian could do!

  • 3d) “The Pope seemed smart and get things. May as well listen to someone who sounds like they know what they're talking about than read a book you don't quite understand.”

    Seems to be a very universal sentiment, including among today’s Protestants. Though these will not always admit it.

Paul Koreen
Translating from Latin and Greek to German doesn’t change the content already taught in the Church. Just because I can read a medical book doesn’t mean I should be performing my own surgery.

The challenge the printing press created (and it is not a bad thing necessarily) is that people lack the context for what they are reading and pull themselves off course. Martin Luther never anticipated this - while he was eager to get scripture in the hands of the layman, he expected people to still accept Catholic interpretation on most things and his where he differed. Keep in mind he was hoping to remove a number of books but failed, so it is still the books deemed by the Catholic Church in your new Testament. Unfortunately, you are missing Old Testament books :( Therefore there is nothing the Pope himself isn’t following as well.

Also consider that anyone introducing new theology is ignoring Scripture of their choosing, for example Martin Luther not heeding Jesus's warning about a divided house has resulted in tens of thousands of denominations and mini sects.

What are some of the things the government asked from the populace during the Middle Ages?

  • Obedience.
  • Keeping peace.
  • Being honest in business.
  • Taxes.

What were the eating habits of the Middle Ages?

Esp. breakfast, lunch and dinner foods, frequency of meals, size of meals, types of food

  • 1) Breakfast was either non-extant or water or beer.
  • 2) Forks were not used before the very end. In polite society, you held knife in right hand and cut off meat around the part you pinched in left hand, which was then dipped in sauces and put to mouth.
  • 3) Sauces were more likely to be vegetable broths of a certain thickness, basically stews, and less likely to be béchamel if that even existed.
  • 4) Potatoes and tomatoes didn’t exist, carrots, beetroots, fruit did.
  • 5) Food was more likely to be sugared in some way, for instance by adding honey or raisins, even in main dish totally apart from question of dessert.

These are the main differences I come to think of.

Did the Medieval Europeans use the scientific method?

They certainly used A scientific method, but whether they used THE scientific method, that depends on how you define it.

If one rule is “saying goddidit explains nothing” that is a rule in another scientific method than the one used by Medieval Europeans.

Robert Harvey

Read about Roger Bacon, Galilleo, etc.

Even the alchemists formed theories and tested them in experiments.

Galileo was technically after the Middle Ages, as usually delimited.

Third Level of Views 200 - 499