At 03:15 PM 12/28/00 -0500, you wrote:
>At 03:45 PM 12/27/00 -0500, you wrote:
>> >>>http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/banned.htm
>>
>>
>>ITEM #15
>>
>> From Cardinal Merry de Val, "Forward," in the Index of Prohibited
>>Books, revised and published by order of His Holiness Pope Pius XI (new
>>ed.; [Vatican City]: Vatican Polyglot Press, 1930), pp. ix-xi:
>>[p. ix] What many, indeed fail to appreciate, and what, moreover
>>non-Catholics consider a grave abuse — as they put it
>
>yes, welcome to the modern world where multiple voices get heard. as this
>posting so disturbingly illustrates, there are some catholics who do not
>like to be accused of grave abuses, but do not hesitate to accuse others of
>precisely the same thing... and, when they had power, to use coercion to
>impose such a "reading".
In the Medieval world you think, I take it, that multiple voices did not
get heard? What about he avid reading of Aristotle, Averoes and that famous
Rabbi who wrote the "Guide to the perlexed'? Just becaue medieval catholics
did not agree with everything these men said, did not mean they wern't
heard. But I suppose by "hearing" you mean "accepting" or 'agreeing with';
then you are right; because to the medieval mind the truth was opposed to
error, and both were not merely the verbalization of sentimental preferences.
>
>>of the Roman Curia, is the action of the Church in hindering the printing
>>and circulation of Holy Writ in the vernacular.
>>Fundamentally however, this ac- [p. x] cusation is based on calumny.
>>During the first twelve centuries Christians were
>>highly familiar with the text of Holy Scripture,
>
>you've got to be kidding. if by xns he means layfolk, there is no way
>anyone can say this with a straight face about europe from ca. 500-1200.
>
I can. And I do. What is so shocking? What other books had they to read? If
they could read? And what other books were quotes? If others were on a
weekly basis? How can one glance throught the artistic history of the
period and not find scriptural allusions? I find it quite surpising that
you can say with a straifht face as a scholar what you said. But I see
we're from 2 different ideological worlds. I would recommend reading Philip
Hughes, History of the Church: Christ to the Reformation, 3 Vols, or even
F.X. Funks, A History of the Church, or even such books as Christopher
Brooke's Monasterys of the Word. Monks by the way are laymen, in Catholic
terms. Only priests and decons and bishops are members of the clergy. But
for the record, the Cardinal said Christians.
>>as is evident from the
>>homilies of the Fathers and the sermons of the
>>mediaeval preachers;
>
>not at all evident. leaving aside the fathers (who, in the west, at least,
>were dealing with a vernacular bible, appropriately known as the
>"vulgate"), i wd argue that the sermons of the medieval preachers neither
>assume knowledge of scriptures and certainly no specific, textual knowledge
>of them.
Wow! To brush off the intellectual accomplisment of so many men who spent
so many sundays preacing for their entire adult lives, I find quite
amazing! There are no doubt many scholarly works on medieval homiletics; a
sampling of which would show that there was mention, at least allusion to a
specifi scriptural text in every one; but you'd have to be very familiar
with Sacred Scripture to notice.
>
>>nor did the ecclesiastical authorities ever intervene
>>to prevent this. It was only in consequence of
>>heretical abuses,
>
>heresy, for the historian, is a political category (see Talal Assad's
You are reading a text from a Cardinal, not a post-entlightenment
historian. A good number of historians, for sure, hold the same definition
of heresy as the Cardinal. I cited two as an example above. So your
argument is weak here.
>wanted to fight the cathars, to francis). to invoke heresy as if it were
Francis was never accused of heresy, by Catholics at least; but rather in
papal documents from the reign of Gregory IX to the present is always
praised as a "catholicus et aposotlicus", a "Catholic and Apostolic man".
>an objective category comes back to the problem of "objective
>exegesis." obviously, altho perhaps not to cardinal de val, most of these
>heretics believed that they were reading the texts honestly and
>spiritually, and that the malice came from the church. to assume the
>heretics malice and then use it as a justification for burning vernacular
>bibles, strikes me as a very bizarre defense against the alleged calumny.
Perhaps you are assuming they were assuming. Perhaps they didn't assume and
knew the facts better. Perhaps there is such a thing as objective exegisis.
It may be a shocking possibility that would shake your intellectual world.
But it may be true. And if one is not interested in truth; what value has
academic research?
>>introduced particularly by the Waldenses, the Albigenses,
>>the followers of Wyclif, and by Protestants
>>broadly speaking (who with sacrilegious mutilations of Scripture
>
>good grief. i've heard of lack of exegetical modesty, but this is just not
>acceptable discourse among historians. you can't do good history if you
>treat those who disagree with the catholic church as engaged in
>sacrilegious mutilations of scripture.
>
Can I do "good" history if I study a group who were "cannibals" or is it
"wrong" for me to be so "crude" and "bigoted" as to use such a word to
describe their dietary preferences?! You cannot expect the Cardinal to
accept your indifferentist categories when talking about something so
central to his profession. If Scripture is not sacred then it is not
scripture; and to violate the sacred is sacrilege. Therefore to mutilate
its sense is sacriligeous. But then the Cardinal accepts an objective order
of truth; apart form which even historical research is a waste of time.
>>and arbitrary interpretations vainly sought to justify
>>themselves in the eyes of the people; twisting the text of the Bible to
>>support erroneous doctrines condemned by the
>>whole history of the Church)
>
>ouch. here is where i think we see modernity and the magisterium collide,
If you mean by modernity "indifferentism"; we all live in a modern world,
but not all of us are indifferentists. If you condemn the Cardinal for not
sharing your views on the basis that everyone shares your views, when the
Cardinal does not; there is not much logic in your argument, which seems
circuitous to me.
>their reading of scripture than the priests), she turned to coercion, a
>sure sign of spiritual trouble. (for a good treatment of the shift from
O.K. if you dont' belive in an objectivly true religious order, then why
accuse the Church of "spiritual trouble"; I gues that means that She
disagrees with you. Another circular argument. At least it is ad hominem.
If you think the US govt. has spiritual trouble simply because we have
police who carry guns to coerce our law abiding behavior, then I would
suppose your are that kind of idealist that thinks like Plato that all evil
is ignorance, there is not malice in the world; and so it is sufficient to
teach for there to be a law abiding citizenry.
The rest of your post is indifferentist objections of the same logical value.
Sincerely in Christ,
Br. Alexis Bugnolo
|
