posted
If the land you were on belonged to the church, it collected 10% of what it produced (although it has been shown to have been more in some areas). It was a form of rent. (incidentally, it was also owed to your liege land if the land belonged to him rather than to the church)
[This message has been edited by Silver6 (edited March 25, 2004).]
posted
These are two separate questions, I think. Or are you asking, Did the Medieval Catholic Church have the power to command people to tithe?
Certianly tithing has been and is still a part of Christianity, and as Silver6 noted, a tithe is 10% of an earning. In the Middle Ages, the Church certianly collected tithes, and they certianly owned land, but I don't know if the Church owned any land that they "rented" out. If they did own land, they built on it--a cathedral, a church, a monastery, an abbey, a convent. Now, a monastery, abbey, or convent might have rented out its land--I don't know--and if that's the case the "rent" would have been paid whatever entity rented the land.
How much power did the medieval Church have. A lot! The Pope crowned Charles the Great (Charlemagne) Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire on December 25, 800, which kicked off the great controversy between the Emperor and the Pope--who had the power. In the 12th century, Pope Gregory VII thought that the Emperor had too much power over the Church, and after some very deft political moves he virtually stripped the Emperor of this power. In the Gospel of Luke, during the Last Supper (I think), Christ speaks of two swords, and the medieval Church interpreted this as one sword refering to spiritual power and the other sword refering to temperoral power--and both of them were given to Peter (who Catholic believe was the first Pope). The Church thus believed that it had the ultimate authority over both spiritual and temperoral affairs--power given it by God.
Two more points.
First, remember there are different periods in the Middle Ages--the early Middle Ages, the High Middle Ages, and the Late Middle Ages. The Church had a lot of power in each period, but how that power is used is a little different in each period.
Second, you should probably get a solid history of the Middle Ages, and the one I'd recommend is The Middle Ages by David Knowles and Dimitri Oblensky. I don't know anything about Oblensky, but Knowles was a reputable medievalist in his time.
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited March 25, 2004).]
posted
The church was very rich in those times, and monasteries,convents, abbeys,etc. had more land than was necesary (some people, for instance, would bequeath their land to the local abbey in exchange for the prayers of the monks who were there; they hoped to gain forgiveness more quickly once they were dead. Others would come to live within the abbey; in exchange for being taken care of by the monks-they had a little house within the abbey walls, and a daily allowance of bread and food-the abbey would have the full use of their lands.) Anyway, the point was that the church had a lot of arable land, which it would rent to peasants who farmed it in their names. The church would collect the tithe after that. As for the power of the church...It's a longer question, which is why I didn't answer it. Balthasar is right in pointing out you need a solid reference book. All the same, a few thoughts might be in order here: -the Church was a powerful political entity, as well as material, deriving much of its power from being the representant of God on earth -bishops and archbishops were often younger sons of noblemen who had entered religion in order to forge a career. They often had magnificent palaces, living more like noblemen than like monks, and played a significant part in politics, influencing rulers and local lords. -in villages, there was nothing outside the parish. The church was where the birth and death registers were kept, where everyone congregated on Sundays and saw everyone else. It was not for nothing that the sentence of excommunication was one of the worst: to be excluded not only from one's parish but also from any church was a terrible thing, as it signified exclusion from a community. Also, the local abbot or head of convent (if there was one) would have had the same importance as the feudal lord in the vicinity.
Posts: 121 | Registered: May 2002
|
posted
Someone once asked me how the roman empire was destroyed. and I told them that I didn't know since it didn't happen yet. They still rule the world they just added holy at the beginning and got a bit nicer. (but even that took time.) Look at the spanish inquisition, think on how they collected tithes. (Because nobody suspects the duh duh duhn Spanish Inquisition.)
Posts: 1895 | Registered: Mar 2004
|
posted
The Holy Roman Empire is still in tact? They (who???) still rule the world? Which alternate history have you been reading as fact?
Certainly Catholics have done despicable things in the name of religion--and all too often these things were sponsered by the Church leadership--but if you're going to claim that the Catholic Church rules the world . . . well, that so absurd all I can do is laugh.
posted
I knew the moment I hit Submit that would be misconstrued. I meant they rule the Catholic world. Also the Pope has alot of sway with world leaders. I'm also saying it's not a bad thing. Pope John Paul does many great things. Just because I stick him in a line with Nero and Augusta. (he's also in line with Constantine who is the critical link.) Also the office of Pontiff was a officer in rome. It just happens that the first Pope was a Pontiff. I braught up the Inquisition because it was of Midevial Catholic era. (Perhaps not the Feudal since I don't know what that means but I'm looking for it.) Also the discussion reminded me of the Monty Python quote. Sorry for adding a little contreversy. But it's true that I used the Term "Rule the World" a bit hastily.
Posts: 1895 | Registered: Mar 2004
|
posted
When I break the spine and dog-ear the pages of a book - especially a hardcover, well-constructed book - I call it a great resource.
For me, this is a great, old-but-gold resource: MIDDLE AGES by the editors of Horizon Magazine. Author was Morris Bishop. It was published in the late '60s by American Heritage Publishing Co.
Maybe it's lingering on someone's shelf somewhere. It offers a terrific bird's eye view of all the Middle Ages, plus zooms in and paints lots of details on how all the folks lived - traders, nobles, knights, etc., and the church's role throughout.
posted
Pyre Dynasty, I'm not sure what to make of your post other than the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. You don't seem to know too much about the contemporary Church, the early, or the medieval Church.
But this is a writing forum--not a Catholic history forum--so I'll leave it at that.
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited March 27, 2004).]
quote:I braught up the Inquisition because it was of Midevial Catholic era.
FWIW, the Inquisition never ended, nor was it confined to Spain. It's simply been renamed several times over. According to a 1974 Catholic Almanac I have, "At the beginning of the 13th century, legates of Innocent III were commissioned as the Holy Office of the Inquisition to combat heresy....Pius VI, St. Pius V and Sixtus V further defined the work of the Congregation. St. Pius X changed its name to the Congregation of the Holy Office. Paul VI...gave the new title, Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith...."
And Michael de Semlyen in All Roads Lead to Rome?, "The rehabilitation of the Inquisition of old is something of an article of faith for the Vatican; for the Inquisition is alive and well and, within the restrictive limits placed on it by democratic freedoms, as powerful as ever." He quotes Peter de Rosa, Catholic theologian and former priest: "...the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Inquisition...had been renamed more than once. In 1908, this oldest of Romes' Sacred Congregations, became The Holy Office. From 1967, it changed to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The present Secretary and Chief Executive, the Grand Inquisitor of Old, is the Bavarian Cardinal Ratzinger {circa 1989}, but the President has ever been the reigning Pontiff."
posted
I'd be careful taking what ex-priests say as fact, and though I'm not familiar with All Roads Lead to Rome? it sounds rather anti-Catholic to me. Now, I'm a devout and traditional Catholic, so I have some sort of vested interest in this. All I ask is that you don't take anti-Catholic literature as truth.
quote:FWIW, the Inquisition never ended
What do you mean by "the Inquisition"? If you mean that the Church has never stopped rooting out heresy within the Church--which is tantamount to saying that the Catholic Church wants to keep itself Catholic--then I can agree. But if you mean by "the Inquisition" that if it wasn't for that pesty thing called democracy, the Church would still be strapping people to the rack, well, that's just as absurd as Pyre Dynasty's comments.
At the Second Vatican Council, the Church held up democracy as the best form of government for the modern world because only a democracy can preserve religious freedom.
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited March 28, 2004).]
posted
As a former devout and traditional Catholic, now a born again Bible-believer, I'm a little vested in the topic myself,Balthasar, and it troubles me that anti-anything seems to be equated with intolerance and even hatred. Obviously, if I bowed out of Catholicism, I'm not for it, but neither am I about to burn its churches. And, by the same token, Catholicism is against what I believe, so it's anti-my faith, but so what? How could it be otherwise if it doesn't agree with what I believe?
Ex-anythings have unique perspectives. As an ex-Catholic, I certainly know more about Catholicism than someone who never was a Catholic. And, while a present-something and an ex-something can each carry their own biases, truth is truth, no matter where it's found, which is why I presented correlating information from both sources.
If the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has its roots in the Inquisition, it seems dangerous not to acknowledge it, considering the old saw about ignorance of history dooming us to repeat it. The Holocaust and other modern atrocities remind us that we're not as civilized as we'd like to think. It isn't wholly far-fetched that the Inquisition could be resurrected in all its ugliness, given the right circumstances.
My point was that the Inquisition was confined neither to Spain nor to medieval history, but has transmogrified, since its purpose of rooting out heresy is alive and well, and exists under a different name with a different modus operandi.
I don't believe, though, that the Inquisition had anything to do with collecting tithes, resultant confiscation notwithstanding. There are easier ways to collect ten percent.
posted
I probably should not get into this but when did I ever know when to shut up?
quote:If the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has its roots in the Inquisition, it seems dangerous not to acknowledge it, considering the old saw about ignorance of history dooming us to repeat it.
I'm afraid I'm not really seeing why it matters that the Congregation for the Doctrine had its roots in the inquisition? Is anyone currently being tortured and interrogated? Are we even close to such a state? I'm not saying that a good awareness of history is bad, it is good, but in this case I'm just not seeing any danger.
quote:The Holocaust and other modern atrocities remind us that we're not as civilized as we'd like to think. It isn't wholly far-fetched that the Inquisition could be resurrected in all its ugliness, given the right circumstances.
This is quite true. I am afraid that religious tolerance has always and will always exist. I have a feeling, though, that if the inquisition comes back it will not be the catholics at its center. I think that the lesson from these attrocities is one that needs to be remembered by EVERYONE.
quote: Ex-anythings have unique perspectives. As an ex-Catholic, I certainly know more about Catholicism than someone who never was a Catholic.
Maybe. I'm not saying that you don't know about the catholic church, but it has been my experience that ex-catholics are the most ignorant of the catholic church, often as bad as or worse than non-catholics. The issues that drove them drom the church are often the most poignant in their minds and the only ones they see. I've even seen catholics leave the church because a priest misrepresented a portion of the beliefs. They are not all right all the time, after all, they are only human.
quote:And, by the same token, Catholicism is against what I believe, so it's anti-my faith, but so what? How could it be otherwise if it doesn't agree with what I believe?
Well, the catholic church may not agree with you, but chances are that they are not against you. Despite popular rumor, the catholic church actually believes that anyone can get into heaven. (I don't know the exact wording of the decree...it happenedin vatican II.) I'm not sure this is what you were getting at.
posted
Balthasar, I opened this topic back up because there is apparently no other way to get a message to you.
Could you please email me (at workshop@burgoyne.com or Dalton-Woodbury@sff.net)? I'd like to talk to you about reprinting some of your posts here on Hatrack as articles in a newsletter I publish.
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
