On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 11:38:06 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
Post by William HydePost by KevrobPost by Paul S PersonOn Fri, 24 Jul 2020 23:53:38 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho JulkunenPost by QuadiblocStill: back in the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church held absolute power.
Over what?
Over most, if not all, of Western Europe. And parts of Eastern Europe,
although a lot of that was Eastern Orthodox.
Post by Juho JulkunenPost by QuadiblocEventually, as the result of events that happened around the time of the
Renaissance, that broke down.
What were these events, and when was the Renaissance?
The timing of the Renaissance varied by country. The Renaissance
itself was the rediscovery of the Ancient World -- Ptolemy and others.
In some cases, in Arabic translations, although eventually manuscripts
in the original Greek were found lurking about here and there. Muslims
also produced some new ideas, such as algebra, which spread to Europe.
It eventually did produce more modern forms of thinking, such as what
we now call "science" (as opposed to, say, what Plato called
"science").
However, the /major/ event shaking Papal power was the Reformation.
The more unified kingdoms, to be sure, were developing a sense of
identity as, say, "Englishmen" or "Frenchmen" and thier kings were
seeking to rule as they saw fit, but the Pope could put an entire
kingdom under the Inderdict and then declare a Crusade against it,
which gave him the ability to force compliance. This all gets very
complicated in detail.
--
The power wasn't absolute. "Secular"* authorities could and did
resist the religious center of power. Constantinople/Byzantium
broke with Rome in 1054, as much over political differences
as theological ones.
Or as they would have it, Rome broke with Constantinople. It had been a while since Byzantium had a military presence in Italy. There had been serious disputes before, but with Byzantine troops a hundred or so miles away unity prevailed.
IIRC, the cause of the split was the "filioque" clause. The story that
makes the most sense, given the nature of the creeds, is that this was
needed in the West to exclude certain heresies -- and not desired in
the East as encouraging certain others. This is all very mushy, I must
agree.
Post by William HydeAs I recall there were five patriarchs in the old church. Rome claimed to be supreme, Constantinople argued that it and Rome were equal, the others inferior. Alexandria put itself on a level with R and C, Jerusalem claimed special status, while Antioch insisted that all five were equal.
I once read (and may still have) an interesting book: the report of an
official (in the sense of recognized by both bodies) joint
Lutheran-Roman Catholic group exploring the Papacy. It made some
interesting points:
-- over time, the importance of a bishop's see varied with the
economic importance of its location
-- by the second or third century, it became apparent that Rome was on
the right side of every controversy
The Bishop of Rome started out in the most prominent city in the
Empire. Being on the right side of every controversy led to a
principle that the Bishop of Rome's position was always the right
position. Things developed from there.
Post by William HydeSee also the earlier Photian Schism.
Post by KevrobRulers appointed bishops, and fought with church officials
to keep that privilege.
Even "saint" Edward the confessor was careful to see that the right people were appointed. Henry II of England was less so, resulting in endless trouble for him and centuries-long pilgrimage money for Canterbury.
Prior to the Reformation in the Western
Post by KevrobChurch, if a ruler couldn't win an argument with a Pope, he
could get his own Pontiff!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avignon_Papacy
That was, admittedly, "going nuclear' for the day.
At one point in this mess no less than three men claimed to be pope.
Well, three credible ones. There were, and are, probably many more.
I'm not sure how far back the current situation goes. The Popes ran a
pretty tight ship, hierarchically speaking [1], from the days of
Avignon to Vatican II. Vatican II, as others have noted, produced some
activity along these lines, as many of its changes were not welcomed
by the more ... traditional ... clergy.
[1] There was a lingering belief that a high-level Church Council
could override the Pope, but that was disputed. And the morals of some
of these Popes were, to say the least, deplorable.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."