| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 15, 2007.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that Summis desiderantes affectibus, a papal bull promulgated by Innocent VIIIin1484, was re-published as the preface to Malleus Maleficarum?
| |||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 5, 2008, December 5, 2009, December 5, 2011, December 5, 2012, December 5, 2014, December 5, 2015, December 5, 2016, December 5, 2018, December 5, 2019, December 5, 2021, and December 5, 2022. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
This should go to Wikisource. Gentgeen 22:44, 19 May 2004 (UTC)Reply
Is its proper name just Summis desiderantes? --Brand спойт 12:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
The text of the bull will establish its incipit. Whether the conventional incipit, usually two words, is a complete grammatical unit or or whether it appeals to Wikipedians' logic is immaterial. Though there's no firmly consistent usage in the professional articles that are called up at JSTOR by searching "Summis desiderantes" (which brings up "Summis desiderantes affectibus"), we might do well to move this article to Summis desiderantes. At least Wikipedia doesn't incorrectly capitalize it — Summis Desiderantes Affectibus — as I see in some articles. --Wetman 00:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
{{cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(help) (in Latin) (in English) (bibrec) (editor's home page)Kors and Peters reprint the English translation from Burr, but Burr doesn't seem to say who did the translation. --Jtir 17:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
How many people prosecuted?? I have read as many as 25,000 women were burned. Quis separabit? 16:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
In as much as the source information for this section of the article is attributed, I still find it hard to believe that the RC Church would distinguish between white and black magic. Seems to me the Church would be more disposed to wanting to discredit all forms of magic altogether and to dismiss all of them simply as false.
"The early Church distinguished between "white" and "black" magic. The former was generally dealt with through confession, repentance, and charitable work assigned as penance.[4]" 174.89.81.76 (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Any idea how the witches responded? I'm asking because I assume their reaction is lost to history; good or bad proper or not, the church wouldn't care to document it. Liberty5651 (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Montague Summers's translation of the Bull (the second link under the external links section) gives the date of 9 December on the final paragraph. However, the lead section of this article says that the Bull was issued on the 5th of December. This can't be simply because the original text used the Julian calendar whereas this article uses the Gregorian calendar because the Julian calendar is behind the Gregorian calendar, not ahead of it. Can someone explain this discrepancy?