"'...full-rank Consecrates may dispute freely within the bounds of doctrine.'" (VI, p. 249)
Everyone should be free to dispute. Free disputation bounded by doctrine is a contradiction.
Medieval European philosophy was bounded by doctrine. Indian philosophical systems are classified as either orthodox, accepting the Veda, or unorthodox. I googled for images of Indian philosophy and found several lists which, however, cannot all be made legible here. Below are three summaries of the six orthodox systems. The three unorthodox systems are Jainism, materialism and Buddhism.
18 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Not quite true, what you said about Medieval philosophy in Europe. My recollection, from what I read about St. Thomas Aquinas, was that Scholastic would propose arguments for Propositions A, B, or C. And then the arguments against those propositions. And finally argue for Conclusions they believed correct. Nor do I believe that anything which is TRUE is contrary to what Catholic Christianity teaches.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But surely the conclusions were not allowed to be "heretical"?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And any heretical arguments offered in a system like this would be proposed before the arguments against. Nor would I expect convinced Christians to propose arguments or conclusions they believed were false.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But would it have been healthy not to be Christian?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, because I believe Christianity, ESP. Catholic Christianity, to be TRUE.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We seem not to be communicating here. What would have been the the fate of a medieval European philosopher who argued that Catholicism was not true?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then I misunderstood you. Such a person of the kind you are talking about, did not exist, that I know of, in the Medieval era. The closest I can think of being Abelard, whom we see, incidentally, in Anderson's story "House Rule" (altho I have my doubts about the accuracy of his portrayal of Abelard). I know he got into disputes and controversies, and was apparently mutilated, for personal reasons, by one of his enemies.
I think Duns Scotus was another Medieval philosopher who got into disputes and controversies. But, if I recall correctly, neither he or Abelard were condemned by either Church or state.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Then maybe the people condemned for heresy were not philosophers or were not condemned because of their philosophy? Roger Bacon and others were imprisoned because of their beliefs.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I know too little about Friar Roger's case to comment on. And I don't know of any others from the Medieval era. And philosophical controversies COULD be fierce, such as the debates between the Nominalists and their critics.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Savonarola. Albigensians. Precursors of Protestantism. Protestants when the Reformation did take off.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But, IIRC, Savonarola was burned by the Florentines for political reasons, when they tired of his theocratic rule of Florence. And the Albigensians were not philosophers, but heretics both Church and state thought dangerous. If I recall rightly, Pope Innocent III was dismayed by the brutality of the Albigensian "Crussade" and its appalling leader, Simon de Montfort.
And Protestants did their full share of persecution and more! As far as I'm concerned they were the aggressors in the first place, starting with Martin Luther's notoriously venomous attacks on the Church.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I do not believe that there was freedom of thought in the Middle Ages! Sure, the Albigensians were not philosophers so what were they? Oppressed peasants? Something was making them dissatisfied with the way things were. And church and state were hardly independent of each other in those days. Of course Protestants persecuted but that's no answer, surely? Queen Mary burned Protestants. At school, we heard about Thomas More being beheaded but was he involved in penalizing Protestants before that?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
It's been a long time since I read much about the history of philosophy in the Middle Ages, but I deny that there was no freedom of thought at all. Maybe not as much as either of us would like, but it did exist.
The Albigensians were dualists who sprang from the Bogomils, and they in turn from the Manichaeans. IIRC, their beliefs included the existence of two equally powerful gods, one good and one evil. And that the world and everything physical and material was loathsome and disgusting. And their practices were considered subversive of society. And they certainly were not proto-Protestants!
Yes, St. Thomas More, while he was a judge under Henry VIII enforced the laws penalizing heretics. And the persecution of Protestants under Queen Mary I was grossly exaggerated by anti Catholic propagandists, as Philip Hughes made plain in his three volume THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND.
And I disagree with what you said about Church and state not being independent of each other. And there was a long history of secular rulers trying to bring the Church in their states under their control. I need mention only the Investiture Controversy in the Holy Roman Empire or Henry II of England's Constitutions of Clarendon, to name two examples.
And I agree it was wrong for Simon de Montfort to brutalize the Albigensians or for Queen Mary to persecute Protestants, even to the limited extent that happened. Need I mention how the anti Catholic Penal Laws were far worse than anything Mary I did?
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No, I don't agree that it is relevant to say that either side was worse than the other.
The Investiture Controversy happened precisely because bishops were feudal lords, thus church and state were intertwined.
"Laws penalizing heretics" means no real freedom of thought and also church-state unity. Do you know what penalties More imposed on heretics?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I still disagree, re "church-state" unity. All that means is that sometimes Church and state cooperated.
No, I don't know what the penalties were for heretics, under English law, in the early 1520's, during the time More was most active as a barrister and judge.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul and Sean!
What would have been the fate of a medieval European philosopher who argued that Catholicism was false? If he was a Jew, he just might have been able to get away with it; I remember reading of a correspondence between a Jewish convert to Catholicism and a Catholic convert to Judaism, each accusing the other of having abandoned truth for error. That was unusual, though, since for the most part, Jews were permitted to exist as non-Christians, but were expected to keep quiet, and not proclaim that the Christian majority was wrong. A baptized Christian who openly argued that Christianity was wrong likely have been in trouble, although there could be more tolerance in some places than others. I remember reading of one Medieval English king who made heresy a crime to please the Church; before that, a heretic in England could have been excommunicated, but presumably would not have been subject to being put to death in a ghastly way by the secular authorities.
If a medieval philosopher was a Muslim like Avicenna, his works might have received respectful study at Catholic universities, but I doubt whether he himself would have been as welcome. Islam had its Christian minorities (Christian majorities during the earlier periods of Muslim rule), but, with a few asterisks on the generalization, Christendom did not have tolerated Muslim minorities.
As to Thomas More, one can admire his courage and commitment to the truth as he saw it without being unconditionally fond of the man. According to what I’ve read, he not only enforced the law, but was enthusiastic about crushing heresy, and accepted the position of Lord Chancellor partly so that he could use it to crack down on heretics, and have them impaled if they did not repent. Henry VIII, a royal sociopath whom I do not admire, gave protection t9 some heretics, as they might be useful in his conflict with the Pope.
Best Regards,
Nicholas
Nicholas,
When I was growing up, More was praised as a martyr. I heard afterwards that he had had heretics executed but I was never sure of the facts or details.
Paul.
Kaor, Nicholas!
Thanks for giving us one of your always interesting comments. I don't disagree with what you wrote here. I was interested by your comments about the Medieval Jewish/Christian converts who accused each other of error and worse. And I have a vague recollection of Avicenna AND the Jewish philosopher Maimonides being read seriously and with respect at Catholic universities.
Needless to say, what ever educated or upper class Christians thought, wished, or did, Jews in Medieval Europe still lived a frequently insecure life, at risk of suffering violence and pogroms from the mob. Because that, alas, was exactly what happened.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment