- This topic has 5 voices and 27 replies.
-
Posts
-
Finally, it's under Henri VIII and the French Revolution that the importance of the Church was significantly reduced to a spiritual field only. The XIXth and XXth centuries eventually established a more or less complete separation of power between the Church and the secular power.My first intention was only to remind you about the context of that time: you may admire such a system for its efficiency and the probably best response to a given situation but except if you belong to the nobility or the church, I don't think that your ancestors would share your feudal enthusiasm ... 😉
These are all suitably enlightened sentiments, but have no place in an analysis of feudalism. How does bringing up enlightenment sentiments remind us of the context of the early or late Middle Ages? The concept of natural rights is an eighteenth century invention as I mentioned earlier. Therefore talk of the various estates is superfluous to talk of feudalism. Medieval man was secure in his own knowledge of the order of things and natural or human rights was not one of those things that anyone was discussing. A person was born to his station and lived his life within that station with little movement between estates. The serfs probably did not much think about how bad off they were anymore than the noble thought about it, it was just the way things were. It is disingenuous at best to try to project enlightenment and modern thought onto medieval peasants.Notice also that nobody is admiring the system so much as talking about the way it worked.
Well, I didn't bring any enlightenment view about the feudal sytem related to the organisation of the Church during that time.The role of the Church in the feudal system is a fact, just like I described it.The Church has always had a kind of dilemma between its religious function and its secular importance which started during the Roman Empire and throughout the decline of Rome, the migrations and the emergence of Germanic powers.The Church was the only preserved link between the "golden age" of Rome and the end of what was called "The Dark Age". According to the Roman fascination that most of German monarchs had, it can be understandable that some key-players in the Church were seduced by the feeling of power instead of their initial mission and the salvation of the souls.Why do you think the Reformation occurred if there were no such confusion ?
Well, I didn't bring any enlightenment view about the feudal sytem related to the organisation of the Church during that time.The role of the Church in the feudal system is a fact, just like I described it.The Church has always had a kind of dilemma between its religious function and its secular importance which started during the Roman Empire and throughout the decline of Rome, the migrations and the emergence of Germanic powers.The Church was the only preserved link between the "golden age" of Rome and the end of what was called "The Dark Age". According to the Roman fascination that most of German monarchs had, it can be understandable that some key-players in the Church were seduced by the feeling of power instead of their initial mission and the salvation of the souls.Why do you think the Reformation occurred if there were no such confusion ?
I am confused ??? I cannot follow the argument you are trying to make here. I am also not aware of any dilemna within the church regarding secular and spiritual power. The church both claimed and exercised both for most of its history.
Why do you think the Reformation occurred if there were no such confusion ?
Although this doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand, don't you think the Reformation occured (among other reasons) because of a rise in literacy and also in the growing sentiment of being prophets (like the OT prophets) who spoke out against the establishment? I don't think the Reformation had all that much to do with confusion in the Catholic Church.
According to the Roman fascination that most of German monarchs had, it can be understandable that some key-players in the Church were seduced by the feeling of power instead of their initial mission and the salvation of the souls.
I do think that missions of political and spiritual power were at play in the papacy for quite some time, no doubt because of the authority the popes had in determining who would be emperor. But (not that you are necessarily saying this) I don't think that it is correct to frame the issue of political/spiritual tension as one which was a "Catholic" problem. We can see that John Calvin exercised strict political power in Geneva in the mid-16th century, which suggests that state and religious control were not items that could be simply sifted apart. If we go back to the Romans, we can see far more state/religious co-mingling that we see in the Christian world. I think that the issue is sometimes pinned to the papacy of the Middle Ages, but in truth the phenomena was far wider than this.
Aetheling,In reading the syllabus and research paper guidelines for a class I am currently taking I ran across this advice from my professor and immediately thought that it would apply in this thread. This is not an attack on you personally but I think this advice is best applied to your characterization of the church and its role in society very well. Here goes:
Avoid making broad statements about people, societies, cultures or groups. Do not stereotype. Judge people's actions within the context of their society, moral code, legal system, economic position, religion, culture, etc. Remember that humans are complex and so are societies. DO NOT assign 2009 mores or value judgments to people of other periods or cultures. Critically analyze their actions within the context of their times and against their value system. In other words, why did they do what they did? What was their motivation or justification? What was the result or consequence? How were their actions perceived by contemporaries, peers, adversaries, and descendants? How have value systems changed over time and what caused these changes?
Remembering context is one of the most important things we can do as historians. I have tried to make this point in numerous threads on this board and am inevitably accused o making ad hominem attacks. It is incumbent upon us as historians to judge past acts by the accepted values of the time. It is not enough to indict the Inquisition for what we see as its abuses, at the time it was considered a legitimate tool of the state and church. It is important to evaluate the inquisition or any other historical activity in light of the culture and values in effect at the time, I can never stress this enough and some people just don't get it. I do not think you are one of them, I just think you are blinded by your personal sense of right and wrong.This is the last and best bit of advice he gives in my opinion and I agree wholeheartedly:
An historian must be objective, analytical, and critical, otherwise he/she is merely a propagandist.
Dear Scout1067,I fully agree with your quotes, especially the last one :
An historian must be objective, analytical, and critical, otherwise he/she is merely a propagandist.
😉
By the way, did I mention the Inquisition ?? Furthermore, I look forward to your argumentation if what I wrote about the Church and feudalism is wrong. (without quotes or theoretical excerpts but facts) 🙂
I brought up the Inquisition as an example, and an example only of an act unpardonable today but considered reasonable at the time. Therein lies my agreement with the statement about looking at history in context, present values have absolutely nothing to do with historical analysis.I am not disputing you claim of the Church holing both temporal and spiritual power under Feudalism just your analysis. I dont see how the church's position is very relevant. Peasant's did not care whether the lord was an abbot or a knight, their lives were essentially the same regardless of who was lord. In fact, I would have to research it but I bet peasants did better under the church than secular nobility because of church's charitable works would be more available if you owed service to an abbey, convent, or bishop versus a typical manor.
I dont see how the church's position is very relevant.
I would have to research it
I bet
Do you mean Do as I say, not as I do? ???
I dont see how the church's position is very relevant.
I would have to research it
I bet
Do you mean Do as I say, not as I do? ???
In what way? ???We are starting to tail-chase here.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
