4 ms·

An often overlooked fact of the Comedy, is that it actually makes some novel theological arguments and sometimes puts itself in contrast withe Church. This goes

An often overlooked fact of the Comedy, is that it actually makes some novel theological arguments and sometimes puts itself in contrast withe Church. This goes agains the common knowledge that in the "Dark Ages" the Church was tyrannical and oppressive. In fact, the Church of the Middle Ages had an extraordinary tolerance and interest towards discussions, criticism, and contradictions. Counter-intuitively, the later Church of a more "enlightened" age began turning into the intolerant regime we all know about

bryanrasmussen 2y ago
>Counter-intuitively, or intuitively, it is when you start to lose influence and power that you become more crazy and aggressive about maintaining what you have, like the truism that really tough guys don't act all macho, a truly dominant church does not mind the small theological disputations.
riquito 2y ago
... Dante was exiled from the Pope and, if captured, the order was to burn him at the stake Alighieri Dante è condannato per baratteria, frode, falsità, dolo, malizia, inique pratiche estortive, proventi illeciti, pederastia, e lo si condanna a 5000 fiorini di multa, interdizione perpetua dai pubblici uffici, esilio perpetuo (in contumacia), e se lo si prende, al rogo, così che muoia (Libro del chiodo - Archivio di Stato di Firenze - 10 marzo 1302)
- Almondsetat 2y ago
  This was a political exile because his side lost and he was politically active. Very common everywhere and doesn't refute my post
  - Izikiel43 2y ago
    Everything except pederasty seems political, that one seems iffy
  - stared 2y ago
    "Let’s accept every excuse we’re given and accept the Church never burned anybody just for researching science. Scientists got in trouble for controversial views on non-scientific subjects like prophecies or the Trinity, or for political missteps. [...] Did Giordano Bruno die for his astronomical discoveries or his atheism? False dichotomy: you can’t have a mind that questions the stars but never thinks to question the Bible." - Kolmogorov Complicity And The Parable Of Lightning | Slate Star Codex (https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/23/kolmogorov-complicity-and-the-parable-of-lightning/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/23/kolmogorov-complicity-...)
    - Almondsetat 2y ago
      Why are you bringing up someone from the Reinassance when I explicitely said that the later Church got way worse than in the middle ages?
      - stared 2y ago
        It was not my point. The point is that it is (almost) always about politics. Just the Church changed it is the position from a firm one to one for which dissidents pose political danger. I found it surprising, but in the Middle Ages, there was a certain permission for atheism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb5mYqnKFlI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb5mYqnKFlI
  - michaelmrose 2y ago
    Why did you reply to this singular issue where you have a defensible position in theory but not the longer one which absolutely nuked your position from orbit?
- gattilorenz 2y ago
  This sentence is coming from podestà Cante de' Gabrielli da Gubbio, i.e. the equivalent of the city's government, not from the Pope or a religious authority.
  - toyg 2y ago
    Yeah but the pope was the main power behind the ruling faction's coup at the time. It's like saying that the death squads in South America (financed and trained by US agencies in the context of Operation Condor) were not executing US orders.
    - gattilorenz 2y ago
      Very dubious claim, especially given that there is absolutely nothing related to religion mentioned in Dante’s sentence above, and that both Dante and the podestà belonged to the same party (Guelfi), but to opposed factions. Despite referring to the Pope or the Emperor, it is my understanding that the division between Guelfi and Ghibellini, or Guelfi Bianchi and Guelfi Neri, were almost exclusively based on political interests and being able to control power (see for example https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/ghibellini-e-guelfi-in-italia_%28Federiciana%29/ https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/ghibellini-e-guelfi-in-...)
nataliste 2y ago
As an academic student of heresy in the Middle Ages, this isn't a defensible position. The Church of the Middle Ages did not have a tolerance towards discussion, criticism, and contradictions. They had a narrow corridor of discussion that was considered acceptable (i.e. orthodoxy), and if anyone stepped out of line and refused to recant, it was declared a heresy and extirpated. Anyone that did not toe the line of Aristotle, Augustine, and Anselm, were declared heretical and either forced to recant, imprisoned, excommunicated, or executed. To wit: Elipandus of Toledo claimed that Jesus was the adoptive Son of God in his human nature. He was condemned at multiple councils, including the Council of Frankfurt (794), with proponents forced to recant or lose their positions. The Paulicians were a dualist and Gnostic sect originating in Armenia that rejected the material world and Catholic sacraments. They were persecuted by the Byzantine Empire and anathematized by the pre-Schism Church. Berengarius of Tours (ca. 999–1088) denied the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, arguing for a symbolic interpretation. He also was condemned at several councils, including the Synod of Rome (1050), and forced to recant under threat of excommunication. The Cathars also rejected the material world, sacraments, and clerical hierarchy. They were brutally suppressed in the Albigensian Crusade (1209–1229), followed by the establishment of the Medieval Inquisition. Arnold of Brescia (ca. 1090–1155) criticized the wealth and corruption of the Church, calling for clerical poverty. He was executed by hanging and burning after condemnation by the Church. Peter Abelard was accused of heresy for applying logic to theology, as well as arguing against Anselm's satisfaction theory of atonement with the arguably more defensible and sensical moral influence theory. He was condemned at the Council of Soissons (1121) and forced to burn his works. Then there are the Waldensians. A movement founded by Peter Waldo emphasizing poverty, lay preaching, and direct access to the Bible. His followers were declared heretical at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and persecuted throughout Europe. And even Dante was exiled from Florence at the machinations of the Papacy. And these are only the most famous cases. There are countless others not notable enough, nor successful enough to be recorded in any great detail. One example is that of the heretics found in Goslar in what is now modern Germany in 1051: >The heretics "were finally condemned when one of the bishops, more zealous in his presentation of the case than mindful of the dignity of his rank, presented them with a live chicken and ordered them to wring its neck. They refused to kill the bird, and were deemed beyond hope of redemption. Ignoring the arguments and threats of the assembly, they refused to recant and were hanged upon a gibbet." >The execution of these heretics, as near as can be determined by modern scholars, was ordered because it was felt that "their attitude implied a dualist-type belief in the transmigration of souls through the animal kingdom" and suggested that they were Manichaeans. The events at Goslar — and this group was not alone among persecuted Christian groups in the eleventh century C.E. in its refusal to kill animals — are often treated by scholars as an important step toward the twelfth century full-blown assault on heresy by the Church linked to the newly proclaimed death penalty for heresy. The entire point of the Church, throughout its history, is not to have discussions, criticisms, and contradictions. That is what orthodoxy is. Diversity of thought in any fundamental dimension in the Deposit of Faith is schismatic and antithetical to the goals of One, Holy, and Apostolic Church. The attitude that you hold illustrates what Noam Chomsky pointed out in 1998: >"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate." The Catholic Church throughout its history has exemplified this paternal shepherding attitude. Sure, you can explore Orthodoxy and embellish it all you want, but stray outside of what has been set in stone and refuse to "disagree and commit" and you're branded an outcast and your ability to participate vanishes. Good (nulla salus extra ecclesiam) Catholics will say that this is a Good Thing, which is their right, but please, own it as it's a feature, not a bug, and don't try to cloak the history of the Church.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

bryanrasmussen 2y ago

>Counter-intuitively, or intuitively, it is when you start to lose influence and power that you become more crazy and aggressive about maintaining what you have, like the truism that really tough guys don't act all macho, a truly dominant church does not mind the small theological disputations.

riquito 2y ago

... Dante was exiled from the Pope and, if captured, the order was to burn him at the stake Alighieri Dante è condannato per baratteria, frode, falsità, dolo, malizia, inique pratiche estortive, proventi illeciti, pederastia, e lo si condanna a 5000 fiorini di multa, interdizione perpetua dai pubblici uffici, esilio perpetuo (in contumacia), e se lo si prende, al rogo, così che muoia (Libro del chiodo - Archivio di Stato di Firenze - 10 marzo 1302)

Almondsetat 2y ago
This was a political exile because his side lost and he was politically active. Very common everywhere and doesn't refute my post
- Izikiel43 2y ago
  Everything except pederasty seems political, that one seems iffy
- stared 2y ago
  "Let’s accept every excuse we’re given and accept the Church never burned anybody just for researching science. Scientists got in trouble for controversial views on non-scientific subjects like prophecies or the Trinity, or for political missteps. [...] Did Giordano Bruno die for his astronomical discoveries or his atheism? False dichotomy: you can’t have a mind that questions the stars but never thinks to question the Bible." - Kolmogorov Complicity And The Parable Of Lightning | Slate Star Codex (https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/23/kolmogorov-complicity-and-the-parable-of-lightning/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/23/kolmogorov-complicity-...)
  - Almondsetat 2y ago
    Why are you bringing up someone from the Reinassance when I explicitely said that the later Church got way worse than in the middle ages?
    - stared 2y ago
      It was not my point. The point is that it is (almost) always about politics. Just the Church changed it is the position from a firm one to one for which dissidents pose political danger. I found it surprising, but in the Middle Ages, there was a certain permission for atheism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb5mYqnKFlI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb5mYqnKFlI
- michaelmrose 2y ago
  Why did you reply to this singular issue where you have a defensible position in theory but not the longer one which absolutely nuked your position from orbit?
gattilorenz 2y ago
This sentence is coming from podestà Cante de' Gabrielli da Gubbio, i.e. the equivalent of the city's government, not from the Pope or a religious authority.
- toyg 2y ago
  Yeah but the pope was the main power behind the ruling faction's coup at the time. It's like saying that the death squads in South America (financed and trained by US agencies in the context of Operation Condor) were not executing US orders.
  - gattilorenz 2y ago
    Very dubious claim, especially given that there is absolutely nothing related to religion mentioned in Dante’s sentence above, and that both Dante and the podestà belonged to the same party (Guelfi), but to opposed factions. Despite referring to the Pope or the Emperor, it is my understanding that the division between Guelfi and Ghibellini, or Guelfi Bianchi and Guelfi Neri, were almost exclusively based on political interests and being able to control power (see for example https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/ghibellini-e-guelfi-in-italia_%28Federiciana%29/ https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/ghibellini-e-guelfi-in-...)

nataliste 2y ago

As an academic student of heresy in the Middle Ages, this isn't a defensible position. The Church of the Middle Ages did not have a tolerance towards discussion, criticism, and contradictions. They had a narrow corridor of discussion that was considered acceptable (i.e. orthodoxy), and if anyone stepped out of line and refused to recant, it was declared a heresy and extirpated. Anyone that did not toe the line of Aristotle, Augustine, and Anselm, were declared heretical and either forced to recant, imprisoned, excommunicated, or executed. To wit: Elipandus of Toledo claimed that Jesus was the adoptive Son of God in his human nature. He was condemned at multiple councils, including the Council of Frankfurt (794), with proponents forced to recant or lose their positions. The Paulicians were a dualist and Gnostic sect originating in Armenia that rejected the material world and Catholic sacraments. They were persecuted by the Byzantine Empire and anathematized by the pre-Schism Church. Berengarius of Tours (ca. 999–1088) denied the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, arguing for a symbolic interpretation. He also was condemned at several councils, including the Synod of Rome (1050), and forced to recant under threat of excommunication. The Cathars also rejected the material world, sacraments, and clerical hierarchy. They were brutally suppressed in the Albigensian Crusade (1209–1229), followed by the establishment of the Medieval Inquisition. Arnold of Brescia (ca. 1090–1155) criticized the wealth and corruption of the Church, calling for clerical poverty. He was executed by hanging and burning after condemnation by the Church. Peter Abelard was accused of heresy for applying logic to theology, as well as arguing against Anselm's satisfaction theory of atonement with the arguably more defensible and sensical moral influence theory. He was condemned at the Council of Soissons (1121) and forced to burn his works. Then there are the Waldensians. A movement founded by Peter Waldo emphasizing poverty, lay preaching, and direct access to the Bible. His followers were declared heretical at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and persecuted throughout Europe. And even Dante was exiled from Florence at the machinations of the Papacy. And these are only the most famous cases. There are countless others not notable enough, nor successful enough to be recorded in any great detail. One example is that of the heretics found in Goslar in what is now modern Germany in 1051: >The heretics "were finally condemned when one of the bishops, more zealous in his presentation of the case than mindful of the dignity of his rank, presented them with a live chicken and ordered them to wring its neck. They refused to kill the bird, and were deemed beyond hope of redemption. Ignoring the arguments and threats of the assembly, they refused to recant and were hanged upon a gibbet." >The execution of these heretics, as near as can be determined by modern scholars, was ordered because it was felt that "their attitude implied a dualist-type belief in the transmigration of souls through the animal kingdom" and suggested that they were Manichaeans. The events at Goslar — and this group was not alone among persecuted Christian groups in the eleventh century C.E. in its refusal to kill animals — are often treated by scholars as an important step toward the twelfth century full-blown assault on heresy by the Church linked to the newly proclaimed death penalty for heresy. The entire point of the Church, throughout its history, is not to have discussions, criticisms, and contradictions. That is what orthodoxy is. Diversity of thought in any fundamental dimension in the Deposit of Faith is schismatic and antithetical to the goals of One, Holy, and Apostolic Church. The attitude that you hold illustrates what Noam Chomsky pointed out in 1998: >"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate." The Catholic Church throughout its history has exemplified this paternal shepherding attitude. Sure, you can explore Orthodoxy and embellish it all you want, but stray outside of what has been set in stone and refuse to "disagree and commit" and you're branded an outcast and your ability to participate vanishes. Good (nulla salus extra ecclesiam) Catholics will say that this is a Good Thing, which is their right, but please, own it as it's a feature, not a bug, and don't try to cloak the history of the Church.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]