4 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2022
    1. He accuses them of trying to conceal what they are really saying by holdingthat these things are true according to philosophy, but not according to Catholic faith, as ifthere were two contrary truths, and as if the truth of Sacred Scripture were opposed to thetruth of the sayings of the accursed gentiles. And so, lest such imprudent speech lead thesimple into error, having taken counsel both with doctors of theology and other prudent men,Tempier strictly prohibits such things and totally condemns them, and excommunicates allwho presume to teach or defend them in any way whatsoever, or even to listen to them.

      This speaks to our prior annotations, that church and science, while they can co-exist, more often than not, they cannot share the same beliefs, or work together, without some sort of clash.

    2. n 1210 a synod conducted under Archbishop Peter of Corbeil for the Archdioceseof Sens, which included the Diocese of Paris, prohibited teaching Aristotle’s books onnatural philosophy at Paris whether in public or in private, along with commentaries on the same. In 1215 the papal legate, Cardinal Robert of Courçon, while reorganizing theprogram of studies at the recently founded University of Paris, prohibited masters in artsfrom “reading,” i.e., lecturing, on Aristotle’s books on natural philosophy along with theMetaphysics and Summaeof the same (probably certain works of Avicenna and perhaps ofAlfarabi). The prohibition did not apply to private study of these works, nor did it apply tothe theology faculty, where one finds a gradually increasing use of the new philosophicalworks.

      I find this interesting de to the fact that the head of the school, was specifically "calling out" many arts faculty, due to the teaching's of Aristotle, since these did not fit within the teaching's of the Bishop. With this being said, this is something that would never be allowed nowadays. However, my question is, is that, why focus the arts faculty? It seems targeted just towards them? Were they the professors that taught Aristotle more often? Or outwardly discussed more "outlandish" ideas?

    1. Religion cannot be understoodapart from politics, and vice versa.1 "The function of the state was toguarantee the well-being of the Muslim religion, so that all who livedwithin the state could be good, practicing Muslims."2 Where religionis strong, as it was in medieval Islam, it is likely to dominate secularactivities, such as natural philosophy. To avoid this consequence, atleast one of the following conditions would be essential: (1) regardnatural philosophy as a discipline that is distinct and independentfrom theology; or (2) a secular state protects natural philosophy; or(3) religious authorities regard natural philosophy favorabl

      I find this very interesting. Their ideas as a religion was to not cut out science and politics completely, but to almost welcome it along side their beliefs. It seems to me they used a natural theology approach?

    2. Even whenthe church asserted supremacy over the state, however, it never attempted to establish a theocracy by appointing bishops and priestswho were also to function as secular ruler

      This is something I think nowadays we see often. It's interesting to see that even when the church held supreme, they still had no intention of creating a "government" in which the rulers had others praise god, or they praise god themselves. Now, I feel as if we have officials where if they stand for a certain side, and have that religious background people vote for them in hopes of bringing church ideas to the government.