Cette réponse est déjà plus potable...
- Il ne s'agit toujours pas de croisades avant sa mort, j'ai bel et bien lu vos citations. Un seigneur peut bien décider d'interdire légalement le catharisme en ses terres ou au moins lutter idéologiquement contre lui, ce qu'avait fait le Pape Innocent III jusqu'à ce moment là. Le terme croisade est inapproprié et n'est pas mentionné dans votre lien jusqu'à sa mort. Mettons nous d'accord sur cela, et je vous accorderai le fait qu'il s'agissait de faire disparaître le catharisme. Mais par le moyen d'une croisade, ça n'est pas vrai, et ça ne justifie pas son meurtre (dont on est en droit de penser l'origine cathare), ni ne dissimule la fracture sociétale engendrée.
Les "barbareries", le massacre de Bézier ne sont pas mentionné, car il s'agit des croisades contre les albigeois. Or, la vidéo porte sur l'inquisition, et cette mention des cathares est une brève remise en contexte de l'impulsion qu'a eu Grégoire IX pour établir l'inquisition, non pas sur une description des croisades en détail. D'ailleurs, l'intérêt de la chaîne, c'est de mettre en valeur des détails qui ne sont généralement pas soulevés, car celui du massacre de Bézier (et la fameuse phrase apocryphe) est bien plus connu. Il ne s'agit pas du tout de nier les erreurs catholiques mais de la nuancer.
En fait, elles sont même clairement indiquées dans le passage qui montrent en capture d'écran les mesures prises par Grégoire IX, à savoir la prison à vie pour le repenti et la peine de mort pour le persistant. Mais je me doute bien que vous les avez visionné superficiellement.
j'ai simplement dit qu'il s'agissait avant tout d'une lutte des classes prolétaire/bourgeois, ce qui est, -vous m'en excuserez-, communément admis.
- Et bien, il faudrait faire une vidéo à ce sujet -merci pour l'idée- pour vous montrer que la Terreur révolutionnaire était bel et bien alimentée d'anti-théisme, d'anti-cléricalisme, et a causé le détriment de bien des gens de la "classe populaire". Pierre Chaunu n'est pas un ignorant. "Marxisme" est très approprié pour une telle conception binaire de la révolution. Et je maîtrise bien le sens du mot athéisme, merci bien pour la petite leçon d'étymologie. Ne vous sentez pas visé par la citation de Pierre Chaunu alors qu'elle ne critique pas l'athéisme en tant que tel...
Oui... Navré mais c'est justement du géocentrisme.
- Oups, c'est le terme géocentrisme que je voulais utiliser. Je n'ai pas fait attention à cela. Je maintiens, comme Galilée le faisait lui-même, qu'il est discutable que la Bible aurait décrit un tel phénomène comme véritable. En tous cas le géocentrisme était bel et bien scientifiquement soutenu (Tycho Brahe étant un bon exemple), d'où l’exégèse établie de la Bible à l'époque. Assimiler le mouvement des écoles aristotéliciennes à une simple exégèse Biblique littéraliste, c'est méconnaître le contexte historique de ce procès. Mais comme cela est montré, il était admis que l'éxégèse pouvait être remise en question à condition de le prouver irréfutablement, chose qui sera faite bien plus tard. Le géocentrisme demeurait être une éxégèse, orthodoxe en l'état des faits, malléable en présence de nouveaux faits. Il n'y aucune contradiction à cela.
Heilbron, Galileo (p358) Pie VII (en anglais) :
The pope referred the complaint to the Congregation of the Index, which granted the imprimatur, and to the Holy Offi ce, which instructed the Master that by “contrary to scripture” the old inquisitors had meant not “contrary to faith” but “opposed to the traditional reading of scripture.”
- Pour Galilée, on dirait que vous n'avez pas lu la citation, qui confirme tout le message de ma vidéo! C'est son procès initial (durant lequel il n'eut pas de peine) qui avait interdit le fait de prêcher l'héliocentrisme comme une vérité (et non une simple hypothèse, chose que ses contemporains feront sans soucis, pourquoi le nier alors que les sources sont affichées à l'écran?). Le second condamne le fait d'avoir publié un livre en dépit de l'interdiction qui lui avait été faite (en anglais):
And whereas a book has appeared here lately, printed in Florence last year, whose inscription showed that you were the author, the title being Dialogue by Galileo Galilei on the two Chief World Systems, Ptolemaic and Copernican; and whereas the Holy Congregation was informed that with the printing of this book the false opinion of the earth's motion and the sun's stability was being disseminated and taking hold more and more every day, the said book was diligently examined and found to violate explicitly the above-mentioned injunction given to you; for in the same book you have defended the said opinion already condemned and so declared to your face, although in the said book you try by means of various subterfuges to give the impression of leaving it undecided and labeled as probable; this is still a very serious error since there is no way an opinion declared and defined contrary to divine Scripture may be probable.
Therefore, by our order you were summoned to this Holy Office, where, examined under oath, you acknowledged the book as written and published by you. You confessed that about ten or twelve years ago after having been given the injunction mentioned above, you began writing the said book, and that then you asked for permission to print it without explaining to those who gave you such permission that you were under the injunction of not holding, defending, or teaching such a doctrine in any way whatever.
Likewise, you confessed that in several places the exposition of the said book is expressed in such a way that a reader could get the idea that the arguments given for the false side were effective enough to be capable of convincing, rather than being easy to refute. Your excuses for having committted an error, as you said so foreign from you intention, were that you had written in dialogue form, and everyone feels a natural satisfaction for one's own subtleties and showing oneself sharper than the average man by finding ingenious and apparently probable arguments even in favor of false propositions.
Having been given suitable terms to present your defense, you produced a certificate in the handwriting of the most Eminient Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, which you said you obtained to defend yourself from the calumnies of your enemies, who were claiming that you had abjured and had been punished by the Holy Office. This certificate says that you had neither abjured nor been punished, but only that you had been notified of the declaration made by His Holiness and published by the Holy Congregation of the Index, whose content is that the doctrine of the earth's motion and sun's stability is conterary to Holy Scripture and so can be neither defended nor held. Because this certificate does not contain the two phrases of the injunction, namely "to teach" and "in any way whatever," one is supposed to believe that in the course of fourteen or sixteen years you had lost any recollection of them, and that for this same reason you had been silent about the injunction when you applied for the license to publish the book. Furthermore, one is supposed to believe that you point out all of this not to excuse the error, but in order to have it attributed to conceited ambition rather than to malice. However, the said certificate you produced in your defense aggravates your case further since, while it says that the said opinion is contrary to Holy Scripture, yet you dared to treat of it, defend it, and show it as probable; nor are you helped by the license your artfully and cunningly extorted since you did not mention the injunction you were under.
Because we did not think you had said the whole truth about your intention, we deemed it necessary to proceed against you by a rigorous examination.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070930013 ... l#sentence
L'héliocentrisme pouvait toujours être enseigné comme hypothèse (votre "agrémentation" étantune distraction inutile)
avant et pendant:
En 1633, l’année même de la condamnation de Galilée, Kepler est accueilli à
l’université de Bologne, alors que lui-aussi défend le mouvement de la Terre. Comme on le
voit à travers ces exemples la réception et la compréhension de la théorie héliocentrique ne
sont donc pas des plus aisées.
En 1612, sous Paul V, à Rome, les dominicains enseignent en toute liberté que le
Soleil est le centre du monde et que tout tourne autour de lui.
après...
Heilbron, Galileo, p.359-360
In 1651, Giovambattista Riccioli, SJ, published a very valuable compendium of the astronomy of his day, an Almagestum novum, or updating of Ptolemy, which contains among ten thousand other things 126 arguments philosophical, mathematical, and theological for and against Copernicanism (49 pro, 77 contra).149 Among the physical arguments, Riccioli judged those aimed against a stationary sun equivocal, but those against a moving earth decisive. Galileists were too demoralized in 1651 to protest effectively. When Riccioli repeated the old arguments in 1665 several had become bold enough to do so, and in 1669 Riccioli conceded that none of the physical or mathematical a rguments he had marshaled in his Almagest decided the question.
[...]
Riccioli was clear that he rejected Copernicanism in obedience to Rome, not because the Catholic faith required him to do so. It was not a heresy. In the Almagestum novum he had declared, with the permission of his superiors, that the Holy Offi ce on its own could not proclaim a heresy or an article of faith. Only a pope or council approved by a pope could so bind the church. “It is not a matter of faith that the sun moves and the earth stands still on the strength of the decree of the congregation; but only at the most by force of the Holy Scripture on those to whom it is morally evident that this is God’s revelation.” Still, prudence and obedience obliged Catholics to observe the decree, “or at least to teach nothing contrary to it.”151
[..]
During the second phase, 1670–1710, Catholic astronomers gained the right to teach and even develop Copernican theory if they designated it expressly and repeatedly as an hypothesis. Bolder writers, like Honoré Fabri, SJ, picking up on Riccioli’s demonstrations that Copernicanism was not heretical, supposed that the decrees against it arose from prudence and surprise, and that as knowledge progressed they would be amended.153 The censorship allowed the fi g leaf of fi ctionalism. In 1685, the Master of the Sacred Palace reported to the cardinals of the Holy Offi ce that he had required the addition of the words “erroneous hypothesis” to the title page of a book on the Copernican system and to the text the phrase, “Since the Church has declared that the Holy Scripture expressly teaches the contrary, this system cannot be defended in any way.” The cardinals complimented him on his vigilance. But he and they allowed the book’s publication.154 Apparently the effective administrative ruling in 1685 was to tolerate Copernicanism as an ineradicable evil after warning the faithful against it, as modern societies allow the sale of cigarettes bearing a notice of their harmfulness
[...]
J'ajouterai que je ne vous sens pas de bonne foi ni tenu aux fait (mais peut-être que ça n'est qu'un énième quid pro quo), malheureusement je ne peux m'empêcher de vous répondre à chaque post qui ne saurait qu'induire les lecteurs en erreur.