Is the word "medieval" anti-Catholic?

[Maccabees]

amarischuk:

The Medieval church resembled more the loose affiliation of the orthodox churches than the present ultra-montain Catholic church. Of course there were the Waldensians and Hussites as well though. But why let a little thing like the facts get in the way of the truth?

Adam

Oh gee are we really going to nit pick here.
Even at the beginggin of christian history there were competing factions from orthodoxy ie Judaziers, gnostics, ebionites, dontatist, manichees, etc etc
In fact the competing factions such as the Waldensians and Hussites were of much smaller percentage than in the christianity of the second and third century when the sectarians were acutally formidable threat to orthodox christianity during the early middle ages one would be correct in saying it was as close as to a catholic monolith in the known western world. Of course the period when Orthodoxy and Catholcism where united prior to the split was the closest to world wise catholcism in the known world. But even then you have the nestorians and arians which where outside of the church. We can be nitpicky forever here there was never a time where christianity was a pure monolith without a competing faction even in the pages of the new testament paul speaks of other factions as does the episltes of John and Jude etc.
But comparatively speaking the midle ages in the west was as close as one could get to a unified monlith of catholcism.
ANd yest the Pope was a leading force in christianity well before the middle ages.

 

[serendipity]

Maranatha:

Since the word was created at the beginning of the 19th century for the purpose of being derogatory I don’t feel it can be reclaimed.

English is not that old a language, so I wouldn’t consider the term “new.” I have not heard of it being used or created purely for derogatory until this thread.

 

[atsheeran]

Maranatha:

1. The word was created at the beginning of the 19th century when the struggle between the secular enlightened (I don’t concede that word either) philosophies and Christianity was new and the secular philosophies were considered modern. Religious enlightenment was considered superstition.

Where did you hear that this word came from the 19th century? That is not my understanding at all. My understanding is that it was a word adopted during the middle ages. It was adopted because the people at the time truly believed they were in a sort of “middle” time in between the coming of Christ and the end of the world. (I actually read that recently in a childrens’ book while in the waiting room of my wife’s doctor’s office!)

The root of the word is the Latin word “medius” which means middle. So I think the word itself seems pretty neutral.

1. The word is usually mispronounced. It should be pronounced “medi-eval” but is usually pronounced “mid-evil”.

This seems to support my contention that the word is not in itself anti-Catholic, but has been given an anti-Catholic connotation.

 

[Faithful_2_Rome]

I misconstrued the question…I thought it was refering to the “times”… No…the word itself isnt evil

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**

Maranatha:

I would use the term Middle Ages to indicate the time form the fall of Rome to the French revolution. Both events mark a change the prevailing governing systems. The first is the end of empire and the second is the beginning of the modern state.

**

Renaissance also implies a reemergence of the arts after a period of suppression. I contend that the middle ages were not dark (devoid of advancements in science) and the arts were not suppressed except when they supported heresy.

**## I would be inclined - if I were a professional historian - to apply “Middle Ages” to the period 610 to 1683 - from the Hejira or Flight of Mohammed, to the relief of Vienna by King John Sobieski. **

**284 AD to 610 AD - Late Antiquity, perhaps ? **

**Choosing periods is ultimately impossible, because they overlap, and what is significant for one culture (itself a slippery concept) may be unmeaning to another. As well as because countries pass through “Middle Ages” & “Dark Ages” at different rates and times - it’s easy to forget that the Muslim kingdom of Cordova in the 1150s was far more civilised and a far more distinguished centre of learning than Paris was, or Rome. **

**Another problem is is that so much historical study is centred on Europe - which is unfair to the great civilisations of India and China, to name only two. And another, is that it is implicitly related to Christ, if only by its dating. But in His own lifetime He was not of any great importance. **

**Certain centuries do seem to be rich in certain types of people: the 500s BC was the century of Confucius, Buddha, Pythagoras, Zoroaster, and the prophet called Second Isaiah. That’s a lot of religious and ethical genius for one century. **

 

[Maranatha]

atsheeran:

Where did you hear that this word came from the 19th century?

encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=medieval

 

[Maranatha]

Gottle of Geer:

[snip]

**Choosing periods is ultimately impossible, because they overlap, and what is significant for one culture (itself a slippery concept) may be unmeaning to another. As well as because countries pass through “Middle Ages” & “Dark Ages” at different rates and times - it’s easy to forget that the Muslim kingdom of Cordova in the 1150s was far more civilised and a far more distinguished centre of learning than Paris was, or Rome. **
[snip]

From that point of view, I’m not sure it’s a middle age but its certainly not a Dark Age.

From Christianity’s point of view, the US, and even more-so Europe, is in a Dark Age. It’s impolite to talk about religion never mind evangelization.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon9.gif

 

[Digitonomy]

First known use of this word is cited as 1827 according to Merriam-Webster.

 

[philipmarus]

**Another problem is is that so much historical study is centred on Europe - which is unfair to the great civilisations of India and China, to name only two. **

With respect to India in the words of great Catholic historian
Warren Carroll:

For the primary characteristic of Indian history, before and outside the impact of the west, is that it hardly exists; and the reason it hardly exists is that almost bothered to write it, because in view of the endless cycle of rebirth and illusory nature and/or positie evil of all temporal activity of existence, which Indian philosophy taught, there was no point in writing it. No Indian writing of any kind, earler than about 250 B.C survives; nor is there good evidence of any great lost written works before then.

Taken From V. 1 of The Founding of Christendom
by Warren Carroll, P.160

 

[Scott_Waddell]

I prefer the term Age of Faith for this time period. Colloquilly, the word is non-offensive (or at least has become so through much use), but why settle for that when you can Catholic it up?

Scott

 

[caroljm36]

Historians now use the terms early middle ages, high middle ages, and late middle ages. Or something like that. The whole medieval-Dark Ages terminology is passé among specialists in this field. I’m not sure what happened, some revisionism obviously, but this is a mark of heightened respect of the times and a little more critical thinking about what came afterward. Trevellyn, for example, credited the Church fathers and later scholastics with teaching intellectual subtlety to a very crude age, and preserving and reproducing the classics through all the barbarian invasions.

 

[Maranatha]

caroljm36:

Historians now use the terms early middle ages, high middle ages, and late middle ages. Or something like that. The whole medieval-Dark Ages terminology is passé among specialists in this field. [snip]

I agree, although when a term is being used it should get defined. These definations are very subjective.

 

[doubtingsoul]

caroljm36:

Historians now use the terms early middle ages, high middle ages, and late middle ages. Or something like that. The whole medieval-Dark Ages terminology is passé among specialists in this field. I’m not sure what happened, some revisionism obviously, but this is a mark of heightened respect of the times and a little more critical thinking about what came afterward. Trevellyn, for example, credited the Church fathers and later scholastics with teaching intellectual subtlety to a very crude age, and preserving and reproducing the classics through all the barbarian invasions.

I am a specialist in this field, and I can tell you that my colleagues and I routinely use both the series of terms listed above and “medieval,” although absolutely never “Dark Ages”. More often, however, a more specific designation even than the ones you listed is used, such as “the Anglo-Saxon period” or “post-conquest England”. I have never found the term “medieval” to be offensive, and I have never actually heard it suggested before that it might be. When the term is used accurately it carries no value judgment.

Further, seeing as the English language is well over a thousand years old, a word coined in the 19th century is very new indeed. Seeing as the 19th century also marked an explosion of interest in the past, and the growth of “medievalism” as a field of academic intereset, I find it hard to believe that the word had a distinctly negative connatation in its origins.

As to the pronunciation of the word, “mid-evil” is a perfectly ordinary linguistic phenomenon. It is simply a regressive palatialization of the intial vowel, similar to the process by which, for many speakers of English, the words “pen” and “pin” sound alike.

Certainly the word can be used in a negative sense, but so can almost any word if that is the intent of the speaker.

 

[Theodred]

The old Gilson-ites up in Toronto still call it the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, so I figure the term ain’t all that passé yet.

 

[JimG]

RobedWithLight:

He is probably referring to the current highly centralized structure of authority in the Catholic Church centered in Rome/Vatican.

Gerry

I think that the word is “ultramontane.” But being familiar with the Church, and having worked for the federal government, I am pretty certain that the Church is considerably less centralized in its day to day workings than is the U.S. govenment.

(And even at that, the government is considerably less centralized than most people seem to think. It’s mostly just bureaucrats doing their own thing. The Vatican bureaucracy is much smaller, and canon law is laughably compact compared to the U.S. Civil Code.)

 

[Contarini]

atsheeran:

Where did you hear that this word came from the 19th century? That is not my understanding at all. My understanding is that it was a word adopted during the middle ages. It was adopted because the people at the time truly believed they were in a sort of “middle” time in between the coming of Christ and the end of the world. (I actually read that recently in a childrens’ book while in the waiting room of my wife’s doctor’s office!)

Well, I would gently suggest that this is probably not the most reliable source. I have never heard of the term being used in the Middle Ages themselves. The basic concept is usually attributed to the Renaissance, but I’m not sure the word itself was used at that point (early 19th century sounds plausible enough, although the phrase “Middle Ages” was certainly older than that–Gibbon used it in the 18th century). The explanation you read is plausible but I don’t think it’s true, though I’m open to correction. I think that the term was pejorative originally. But so were a lot of other terms. “Gothic” for instance was also coined in the Enlightenment era, to indicate that medieval art was barbaric (like the guys who sacked Rome). But today we speak of the glories of Gothic architecture. In the same way, avoiding the term “medieval” because of its origins seems a bit paranoid.

If we’re going to fight terms let’s fight the ones that are still obviously pejorative or complimentary. “Dark Ages” has mostly been killed among historians, and hopefully people like me teaching Western Civ can help kill it among ordinary folks as well (though I do use the term for a period in Greek history after the fall of the Mycenaean civilization). Rather than attacking “medieval,” it would be more reasonable to go after “Enlightenment” as a term for the arid rationalism of the 18th century. Then we could tackle “Renaissance” with its connotations of rebirth, which as C. S. Lewis pointed out don’t really give the right picture of the era (I have a more positive view of the Renaissance than Lewis did, but I agree with him that the popular image of “rebirth after the Dark Ages” is nonsense).

In Christ,

Edwin

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Exporter]

IMHO, the word medieval was coined sometime after 1700.

Do you think the writers of the years 700 to 1000 AD sat around and said, “Hey, guys, we are living in the Medieval Period”. Yes it has a Latin root, but the “language of learning” of the 1600s and the 1700s was Latin. So why not a Latin root?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Verbum:

Hi, Maranatha,

“Medieval” is not anti-Catholic, but “Dark Ages” is. There was nothing dark about Medieval times, except perhaps in the interval between 500 and 800, when the times were very unsettled due to the Barbarian invasions. Even then, it was the church, especially the monasteries, who supported the development of agriculture and preserved the ancient writings and traditions.

Verbum

No.

History is sometimes defined as “The study of Man through written documents.” Historians referred to the period after the “fall” of the Roman Empire as the “Dark Ages” because there were so few written documents to illuminate their studies.

It is the failure of literacy (because of the conquests of illiterate barbarian tribes) that forms the Dark Ages, and it was the Catholic Church, which kept literacy and books alive during that period, that brought the Dark Ages to an end.

It is no irony that the great historian Arnold Toynbee defined the Dark Ages as being “From Boetheus to Abelard.” Abelard, of course, was a Catholic scholar.