4 ms·

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 discussio

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.

lisp2240 2y ago
> an academic student of heresy And I’m a talking porcupine. Your anti-religious screed is pretentious nonsense.
- nataliste 2y ago
  Can you explain to me how defending freedom of conscience is anti-religious? I'm not against Christ (very much the contrary!), nor in fundamental opposition to the Catholic Church, but what I am against is the unchallenged promulgation of distorting the truth in service to institutions and the meting out of evil for perceived evil. Inquisitors are a necessary evil for the needs of the Roman Catholic Church, but any that forget that a necessary evil remains evil leaves their own soul in jeopardy.
Almondsetat 2y ago
The Middle Ages is a period roughly spanning a millennia. When considering this, the amount of cases where the Church really got their hands dirty is minuscule wrt what happened in the later centuries. Probing this problem is also made difficult by the fact that the Church held both a religious and temporal power, meaning that some things might have been done because of political reasons, muddying the waters. If some guy disagrees with the Church, fine. But if he incites a rebellion against the state? That's more of a civil matter to be dealt with according to the custom of the times (i.e. death). 4 out of 7 examples you brought did not end in death and some others had a political component to them that makes them tricky to analyze. The point is that the Middle Ages were way more tolerant and open to discussiim than what we're led to believe, and that the vast majority of the truly bad stuff that the Church did actually happened later.
- nataliste 2y ago
  Stating that diversity of thought existed in the effectively autocephalous European Church from the 5th through the mid-10th century conflates accidental diversity with intentional. It’s true that the Church was more decentralized in this period, but this diversity arose from a lack of centralized control, not from a deliberate policy of tolerance or openness. Before the Gregorian Reform in the 11th century, the Papacy’s direct influence on 'frontier' archbishoprics was relatively negligible. However, as the centralization of Rome, the Roman Rite, and ecclesiastical subordination to the Papacy took full form, the Church’s suppression of divergent practices and beliefs became systematic. This period saw the emergence of many of the 'truly bad' features often associated with the Church, such as uniform enforcement of orthodoxy and suppression of dissent. See R. I. Moore's The Formation of the Persecuting Society for a full treatment. Your argument is like claiming that Red Hat in the 2000s promoted diversity because independent Linux distributions existed. In reality, Red Hat itself has always been monolithic. The existence of an independent Linux ecosystem that preceded Red Hat does not make Red Hat a promoter of diversity. Similarly, the diversity of regional practices in early medieval Christendom was not a feature of the Church but a byproduct of decentralization, which later reforms actively sought to eliminate. Diversity arising from a lack of control is not the same as cultivating it within an institution. Moreover, reliance on orthodoxy is a feature, not a bug, of the Roman Catholic Church. This reliance has historically been central to the Church's identity and governance. Attempts to portray the Church as inherently diverse prior to the Counter-Reformation overlook its systematic suppression of autochthonous rites and regional practices as centralization took hold. Rather than prevaricating, Catholics need to embrace this reliance on orthodoxy as central to the Church’s unity instead of this kind of revisionism.

lisp2240 2y ago

> an academic student of heresy And I’m a talking porcupine. Your anti-religious screed is pretentious nonsense.

nataliste 2y ago
Can you explain to me how defending freedom of conscience is anti-religious? I'm not against Christ (very much the contrary!), nor in fundamental opposition to the Catholic Church, but what I am against is the unchallenged promulgation of distorting the truth in service to institutions and the meting out of evil for perceived evil. Inquisitors are a necessary evil for the needs of the Roman Catholic Church, but any that forget that a necessary evil remains evil leaves their own soul in jeopardy.

Almondsetat 2y ago

The Middle Ages is a period roughly spanning a millennia. When considering this, the amount of cases where the Church really got their hands dirty is minuscule wrt what happened in the later centuries. Probing this problem is also made difficult by the fact that the Church held both a religious and temporal power, meaning that some things might have been done because of political reasons, muddying the waters. If some guy disagrees with the Church, fine. But if he incites a rebellion against the state? That's more of a civil matter to be dealt with according to the custom of the times (i.e. death). 4 out of 7 examples you brought did not end in death and some others had a political component to them that makes them tricky to analyze. The point is that the Middle Ages were way more tolerant and open to discussiim than what we're led to believe, and that the vast majority of the truly bad stuff that the Church did actually happened later.

nataliste 2y ago
Stating that diversity of thought existed in the effectively autocephalous European Church from the 5th through the mid-10th century conflates accidental diversity with intentional. It’s true that the Church was more decentralized in this period, but this diversity arose from a lack of centralized control, not from a deliberate policy of tolerance or openness. Before the Gregorian Reform in the 11th century, the Papacy’s direct influence on 'frontier' archbishoprics was relatively negligible. However, as the centralization of Rome, the Roman Rite, and ecclesiastical subordination to the Papacy took full form, the Church’s suppression of divergent practices and beliefs became systematic. This period saw the emergence of many of the 'truly bad' features often associated with the Church, such as uniform enforcement of orthodoxy and suppression of dissent. See R. I. Moore's The Formation of the Persecuting Society for a full treatment. Your argument is like claiming that Red Hat in the 2000s promoted diversity because independent Linux distributions existed. In reality, Red Hat itself has always been monolithic. The existence of an independent Linux ecosystem that preceded Red Hat does not make Red Hat a promoter of diversity. Similarly, the diversity of regional practices in early medieval Christendom was not a feature of the Church but a byproduct of decentralization, which later reforms actively sought to eliminate. Diversity arising from a lack of control is not the same as cultivating it within an institution. Moreover, reliance on orthodoxy is a feature, not a bug, of the Roman Catholic Church. This reliance has historically been central to the Church's identity and governance. Attempts to portray the Church as inherently diverse prior to the Counter-Reformation overlook its systematic suppression of autochthonous rites and regional practices as centralization took hold. Rather than prevaricating, Catholics need to embrace this reliance on orthodoxy as central to the Church’s unity instead of this kind of revisionism.