Languish.org

Skip posted this on face book, I thought I would share.  It's from the National Review, so Hans would be happy.

QuoteWhen the sins of the Catholic Church are recited (as they so often are) the Inquisition figures prominently. People with no interest in European history know full well that it was led by brutal and fanatical churchmen who tortured, maimed, and killed those who dared question the authority of the Church. The word "Inquisition" is part of our modern vocabulary, describing both an institution and a period of time. Having one of your hearings referred to as an "Inquisition" is not a compliment for most senators.

But in recent years the Inquisition has been subject to greater investigation. In preparation for the Jubilee in 2000, Pope John Paul II wanted to find out just what happened during the time of the Inquisition's (the institution's) existence. In 1998 the Vatican opened the archives of the Holy Office (the modern successor to the Inquisition) to a team of 30 scholars from around the world. Now at last the scholars have made their report, an 800-page tome that was unveiled at a press conference in Rome on Tuesday. Its most startling conclusion is that the Inquisition was not so bad after all. Torture was rare and only about 1 percent of those brought before the Spanish Inquisition were actually executed. As one headline read "Vatican Downsizes Inquisition."

The amazed gasps and cynical sneers that have greeted this report are just further evidence of the lamentable gulf that exists between professional historians and the general public. The truth is that, although this report makes use of previously unavailable material, it merely echoes what numerous scholars have previously learned from other European archives. Among the best recent books on the subject are Edward Peters's Inquisition (1988) and Henry Kamen's The Spanish Inquisition (1997), but there are others. Simply put, historians have long known that the popular view of the Inquisition is a myth. So what is the truth?

To understand the Inquisition we have to remember that the Middle Ages were, well, medieval. We should not expect people in the past to view the world and their place in it the way we do today. (You try living through the Black Death and see how it changes your attitude.) For people who lived during those times, religion was not something one did just at church. It was science, philosophy, politics, identity, and hope for salvation. It was not a personal preference but an abiding and universal truth. Heresy, then, struck at the heart of that truth. It doomed the heretic, endangered those near him, and tore apart the fabric of community.

The Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Yes, you read that correctly. Heresy was a crime against the state. Roman law in the Code of Justinian made it a capital offense. Rulers, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw them as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath. When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had stolen a pig or damaged shrubbery (really, it was a serious crime in England). Yet in contrast to those crimes, it was not so easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. For starters, one needed some basic theological training–something most medieval lords sorely lacked. The result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent assessment of the validity of the charge.

The Catholic Church's response to this problem was the Inquisition, first instituted by Pope Lucius III in 1184. It was born out of a need to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges. From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.

As this new report confirms, most people accused of heresy by the Inquisition were either acquitted or their sentences suspended. Those found guilty of grave error were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be restored to the Body of Christ. The underlying assumption of the Inquisition was that, like lost sheep, heretics had simply strayed. If, however, an inquisitor determined that a particular sheep had purposely left the flock, there was nothing more that could be done. Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to secular authorities. Despite popular myth, the Inquisition did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense, not the Church. The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.

During the 13th century the Inquisition became much more formalized in its methods and practices. Highly trained Dominicans answerable to the Pope took over the institution, creating courts that represented the best legal practices in Europe. As royal authority grew during the 14th century and beyond, control over the Inquisition slipped out of papal hands and into those of kings. Instead of one Inquisition there were now many. Despite the prospect of abuse, monarchs like those in Spain and France generally did their best to make certain that their inquisitions remained both efficient and merciful. During the 16th century, when the witch craze swept Europe, it was those areas with the best-developed inquisitions that stopped the hysteria in its tracks. In Spain and Italy, trained inquisitors investigated charges of witches' sabbaths and baby roasting and found them to be baseless. Elsewhere, particularly in Germany, secular or religious courts burned witches by the thousands.

Compared to other medieval secular courts, the Inquisition was positively enlightened. Why then are people in general and the press in particular so surprised to discover that the Inquisition did not barbecue people by the millions? First of all, when most people think of the Inquisition today what they are really thinking of is the Spanish Inquisition. No, not even that is correct. They are thinking of the myth of the Spanish Inquisition. Amazingly, before 1530 the Spanish Inquisition was widely hailed as the best run, most humane court in Europe. There are actually records of convicts in Spain purposely blaspheming so that they could be transferred to the prisons of the Spanish Inquisition. After 1530, however, the Spanish Inquisition began to turn its attention to the new heresy of Lutheranism. It was the Protestant Reformation and the rivalries it spawned that would give birth to the myth.

By the mid 16th century, Spain was the wealthiest and most powerful country in Europe. Europe's Protestant areas, including the Netherlands, northern Germany, and England, may not have been as militarily mighty, but they did have a potent new weapon: the printing press. Although the Spanish defeated Protestants on the battlefield, they would lose the propaganda war. These were the years when the famous "Black Legend" of Spain was forged. Innumerable books and pamphlets poured from northern presses accusing the Spanish Empire of inhuman depravity and horrible atrocities in the New World. Opulent Spain was cast as a place of darkness, ignorance, and evil.

Protestant propaganda that took aim at the Spanish Inquisition drew liberally from the Black Legend. But it had other sources as well. From the beginning of the Reformation, Protestants had difficulty explaining the 15-century gap between Christ's institution of His Church and the founding of the Protestant churches. Catholics naturally pointed out this problem, accusing Protestants of having created a new church separate from that of Christ. Protestants countered that their church was the one created by Christ, but that it had been forced underground by the Catholic Church. Thus, just as the Roman Empire had persecuted Christians, so its successor, the Roman Catholic Church, continued to persecute them throughout the Middle Ages. Inconveniently, there were no Protestants in the Middle Ages, yet Protestant authors found them there anyway in the guise of various medieval heretics. In this light, the medieval Inquisition was nothing more than an attempt to crush the hidden, true church. The Spanish Inquisition, still active and extremely efficient at keeping Protestants out of Spain, was for Protestant writers merely the latest version of this persecution. Mix liberally with the Black Legend and you have everything you need to produce tract after tract about the hideous and cruel Spanish Inquisition. And so they did.

In time, Spain's empire would fade away. Wealth and power shifted to the north, in particular to France and England. By the late 17th century new ideas of religious tolerance were bubbling across the coffeehouses and salons of Europe. Inquisitions, both Catholic and Protestant, withered. The Spanish stubbornly held on to theirs, and for that they were ridiculed. French philosophes like Voltaire saw in Spain a model of the Middle Ages: weak, barbaric, superstitious. The Spanish Inquisition, already established as a bloodthirsty tool of religious persecution, was derided by Enlightenment thinkers as a brutal weapon of intolerance and ignorance. A new, fictional Spanish Inquisition had been constructed, designed by the enemies of Spain and the Catholic Church.

Now a bit more of the real Inquisition has come back into view. The question remains, will anyone take notice?

http://www.nationalreview.com//articles/211193/real-inquisition/thomas-f-madden

What?  Nothing?

The claim about the kindler, gentler early Inquisition was interesting, as was the one about Lutheran propaganda.  I don't know how to evaluate it for accuracy however.

Tom Madden is one of the top scholars in the world for medieval studies. He and Warren Treadgold are atop SLU's history department. If it's inaccurate, it's because there's newer scholarship since 2004. But there really isn't.

QuoteThe Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions.

Technically true.  It was born out of a reaction to the Cathar heresy and, at first, was promoted as a way of debating with the heretics to convince them to come back to orthodoxy.  But what goes unsaid is the way the Inquisition worked hand in hand with the secular authorities to wipe out the Cathar heresy.  So while the Inquisition was "not born out of a desire to crush diversity" that is certainly what it ended up doing.

Also what goes unsaid is the manner the Spanish Inquisition was used as a tool of the Crown in the expulsion of Muslims and Jews.  While it may be true that orthodox Christians were treated well by the Spanish Inquisition, that isnt much of a claim.  The test of whether the Inquisition was "the most humane" is how heretics and non believers were treated.  Of course it may be that the bar was so low during that time that being "the most humane" isnt really the accomplishment this article might suggest. 

Nobody expects the kinder gentler spanish inquisition!

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 10, 2015, 12:08:31 AM

QuoteThe Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions.

Technically true.  It was born out of a reaction to the Cathar heresy and, at first, was promoted as a way of debating with the heretics to convince them to come back to orthodoxy.  But what goes unsaid is the way the Inquisition worked hand in hand with the secular authorities to wipe out the Cathar heresy.  So while the Inquisition was "not born out of a desire to crush diversity" that is certainly what it ended up doing.

Also what goes unsaid is the manner the Spanish Inquisition was used as a tool of the Crown in the expulsion of Muslims and Jews.  While it may be true that orthodox Christians were treated well by the Spanish Inquisition, that isnt much of a claim.  The test of whether the Inquisition was "the most humane" is how heretics and non believers were treated.  Of course it may be that the bar was so low during that time that being "the most humane" isnt really the accomplishment this article might suggest. 

The problem in Spain was that, essentially, it was against Spanish law to be a Jew or Muslim--you were supposed to convert or leave.  Of course, a lot of people didn't want to leave, but didn't really want to convert, either, so they went through the formalities of converting, but practiced their former religion in private.  Since they were supposedly Christian, that gave the Inquisition authority over them.  Jews in other countries were of course often persecuted, but weren't outright banned for the most part, which meant that the Inquisition outside of Spain had no authority over them. 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 09, 2015, 10:42:51 PM
The claim about the kindler, gentler early Inquisition was interesting, as was the one about Lutheran propaganda.  I don't know how to evaluate it for accuracy however.

You can just take my word. :)

I think our perception is skewed because we are anglophones, and English language history was written mostly by protestants.  Protestant propagandists made the most of the Spanish Inquisition, but they always depicted it torturing protestants while most of it was focused on conversos.  Protestantism never really got a foothold in Spain.  During the enlightenment the Inquisition was conflated with Witch trials (which happened mostly in protestant lands), and the idea of a the Inquisition as some sort of Catholic Secret police that opposed not only Protestants but secular humanism arose.

Quote from: dps on February 10, 2015, 12:52:11 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 10, 2015, 12:08:31 AM

QuoteThe Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions.

Technically true.  It was born out of a reaction to the Cathar heresy and, at first, was promoted as a way of debating with the heretics to convince them to come back to orthodoxy.  But what goes unsaid is the way the Inquisition worked hand in hand with the secular authorities to wipe out the Cathar heresy.  So while the Inquisition was "not born out of a desire to crush diversity" that is certainly what it ended up doing.

Also what goes unsaid is the manner the Spanish Inquisition was used as a tool of the Crown in the expulsion of Muslims and Jews.  While it may be true that orthodox Christians were treated well by the Spanish Inquisition, that isnt much of a claim.  The test of whether the Inquisition was "the most humane" is how heretics and non believers were treated.  Of course it may be that the bar was so low during that time that being "the most humane" isnt really the accomplishment this article might suggest. 

The problem in Spain was that, essentially, it was against Spanish law to be a Jew or Muslim--you were supposed to convert or leave.  Of course, a lot of people didn't want to leave, but didn't really want to convert, either, so they went through the formalities of converting, but practiced their former religion in private.  Since they were supposedly Christian, that gave the Inquisition authority over them.  Jews in other countries were of course often persecuted, but weren't outright banned for the most part, which meant that the Inquisition outside of Spain had no authority over them.

Actually they were.  They had been banned a long time ago.  Jews had been expelled from France and England centuries before.  Some of the Jews of Spain were probably descended from Jews who had been tossed out of England.

I'm glad we're all finally learning to embrace the Inquisition and end the lies of the black myth :w00t:

I read a nice book once on the medieval inquisition. :)

So Raz are you saying Obama has fallen victim to Protestant Propaganda by mentioning the Crusades the other day?

Let's not get on our high horse now.

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 10, 2015, 12:08:31 AM

QuoteThe Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions.

Technically true.  It was born out of a reaction to the Cathar heresy and, at first, was promoted as a way of debating with the heretics to convince them to come back to orthodoxy.  But what goes unsaid is the way the Inquisition worked hand in hand with the secular authorities to wipe out the Cathar heresy.  So while the Inquisition was "not born out of a desire to crush diversity" that is certainly what it ended up doing.

In fact it is probably fair that if it was not "born" of the desire to crush diversity it very quickly acquired that mission.  The inquisitors could have taken the positions that the religious folk practices in southern France were harmless or could be counteracted by the normal sort of instruction and preaching used everywhere else to deal with folk practices.  Why they didn't is a tough question to answer centuries out but it seems like multiple factors were involved included mental attitudes, formation, and political concerns.  But the bottom line is that the nascent inquisition played a significant role in the brutal outcomes. 

As to the OP, it may be that Church procedures tended to be less brutal than secular procedures, but that misses the point.  The inquisition as it evolves is part of a Church that becomes more "activist" in defining, policing and enforcing doctrinal orthodoxy; the institutions of the inquisition take on a life of their own.  And one key procedural innovation of the inquisitors was their encouragement of secret accusations, this in contrast to typical medieval law in which questionable accusations could be deterred by nasty legal consequences for false testimony.

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 10, 2015, 12:08:31 AM
Of course it may be that the bar was so low during that time that being "the most humane" isnt really the accomplishment this article might suggest. 

the article suggest exactly that: the standards of the time were pretty low.  And by these standards we should judge the Inquisition as being better than the alternative.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 10, 2015, 11:54:37 AM
In fact it is probably fair that if it was not "born" of the desire to crush diversity it very quickly acquired that mission.

Hardly surprising, diversity was not seen as a good thing back then.

Quote from: viper37 on February 10, 2015, 11:56:29 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 10, 2015, 12:08:31 AM
Of course it may be that the bar was so low during that time that being "the most humane" isnt really the accomplishment this article might suggest. 

the article suggest exactly that: the standards of the time were pretty low.  And by these standards we should judge the Inquisition as being better than the alternative.

Yeah if you go around judging the whole past by the standards of today, you get a pretty bigoted view of all past people as inferior.  Remember the past is a foreign country and CC does love foreign cultures.

Quote from: viper37 on February 10, 2015, 11:56:29 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 10, 2015, 12:08:31 AM
Of course it may be that the bar was so low during that time that being "the most humane" isnt really the accomplishment this article might suggest. 

the article suggest exactly that: the standards of the time were pretty low.  And by these standards we should judge the Inquisition as being better than the alternative.

I was being sarcastic.  It is a trick of smoke and mirrors to suggest that the inquisition didn't bloody its hands but merely turned the heretics and unbelievers over to the secular authorities after they were found so by the inquisition.  The suggestion that the inquisition was more procedurally fair then the secular courts might be true in some places and times but over all the development of secular justice was probably better because, more often than not, the secular authority didn't have a stake in deciding an outcome.  The only important thing was that justice was seen to be done.  So for example medieval juries were comprised of people who had first hand knowledge of the events in dispute.  Juries were essentially witnesses to what had occurred so that the community would consider the judgment to be just.  The inquisition always had an interest in developing the definition of orthodoxy and that definition could be shaped by a number of factors which, as Minsky points out, are now difficult to determine.  Add to that element of self interest the secrecy regarding the inquisitions hearings, the acceptance of secret evidence and the arbitrary nature of the decision of where the boundary between heresy and orthodoxy could be found and the notion that someone appearing before the inquisition was getting a relatively "humane" hearing is difficult to accept.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 10, 2015, 11:54:37 AM
As to the OP, it may be that Church procedures tended to be less brutal than secular procedures, but that misses the point.  The inquisition as it evolves is part of a Church that becomes more "activist" in defining, policing and enforcing doctrinal orthodoxy; the institutions of the inquisition take on a life of their own.  And one key procedural innovation of the inquisitors was their encouragement of secret accusations, this in contrast to typical medieval law in which questionable accusations could be deterred by nasty legal consequences for false testimony.

Yes. But this is a general development across Europe in that period of faith. This is the dark side of the Renaissance that on both sides of the Reformation the return to the texts and great amounts of new knowledge leads to a more rigorous and rigorously applied orthodoxy. Similarly the great personal piety of the age - which takes a different character than that of the Medieval period - is also matched by Church and State taking more of an interest in policing social norms and personal lives. And I think as CC says there was a defining out of diversity, what may previously have been tolerated became criminal.

The Inquisition and the witch-hunt I think have the same social origins, purposes and effects. After centuries of the black myth of the Spanish Inquisition and anti-Catholic bigotry there does need to be some correction to the view that the Inquisition was even within its time uniquely awful. At least the Inquisition had rules which is why they took a very dim view of alleged witchcraft and there are really very few witches being burned in Italy or Spain, while Scotland, England and Germany are burning tens of thousands - on the other hand the Inquisition have genuine outsiders - heretics, Jews and Muslims - so doesn't need to invent some.

Quote from: derspiess on February 10, 2015, 11:16:08 AM
So Raz are you saying Obama has fallen victim to Protestant Propaganda by mentioning the Crusades the other day?

Let's not get on our high horse now.

Of course he has.  He is a protestant. :D

Well he has got you there Spicey. 

GOD DAMN AMERICA!!!

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F05%2FBarack-Obama-Jeremiah-Wright-620x372.jpg&hash=97517f52cff6916a71baec0d83e48fe1d0d0e749)

Quote from: derspiess on February 10, 2015, 01:55:54 PM
GOD DAMN AMERICA!!!

Well he did, he made us elect the last two Presidents...twice.  How much more torment has the Almighty in store for us Spicey?

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 10, 2015, 12:20:44 PM

Quote from: viper37 on February 10, 2015, 11:56:29 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 10, 2015, 12:08:31 AM
Of course it may be that the bar was so low during that time that being "the most humane" isnt really the accomplishment this article might suggest. 

the article suggest exactly that: the standards of the time were pretty low.  And by these standards we should judge the Inquisition as being better than the alternative.

I was being sarcastic.  It is a trick of smoke and mirrors to suggest that the inquisition didn't bloody its hands but merely turned the heretics and unbelievers over to the secular authorities after they were found so by the inquisition.  The suggestion that the inquisition was more procedurally fair then the secular courts might be true in some places and times but over all the development of secular justice was probably better because, more often than not, the secular authority didn't have a stake in deciding an outcome.  The only important thing was that justice was seen to be done.  So for example medieval juries were comprised of people who had first hand knowledge of the events in dispute.  Juries were essentially witnesses to what had occurred so that the community would consider the judgment to be just.  The inquisition always had an interest in developing the definition of orthodoxy and that definition could be shaped by a number of factors which, as Minsky points out, are now difficult to determine.  Add to that element of self interest the secrecy regarding the inquisitions hearings, the acceptance of secret evidence and the arbitrary nature of the decision of where the boundary between heresy and orthodoxy could be found and the notion that someone appearing before the inquisition was getting a relatively "humane" hearing is difficult to accept.

The secular states very much had a stake in the outcome.  For one thing, fines were a major source of revenue.  Second, heresy undermined the social order.  A man's contracts and loyalty were based on a oaths before God.  If he wasn't right with God, his oaths meant nothing and he was potential perjurer.  The fact that secular authorities were prosecuting people for heresy prior to the inquisition indicates that they were very interested in orthodoxy.  Our modern idea of an impartial justice system was still hundreds of years away.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 10, 2015, 02:09:45 PM
The fact that secular authorities were prosecuting people for heresy prior to the inquisition indicates that they were very interested in orthodoxy.

Stating this as a fact doesn't make it true. What is the basis for the claim that heresy prosecutions were commonly being carried out by "secular authorities" in the early Middle Ages?  There were no recorded executions for heresy after the fall of the Western Empire until Robert II burned some "heretics" in 1022; that episode is disputed (some historians claim the heresy charge was pretextual) and the inquiry was carried out by a commission of both clergy and devout laypersons, so its status as a "secular authority" can also be questioned.

One thing can be said - the counts of Toulouse certainly seemed to be willing to take a more lenient approach to the "Bonhommes" under their jurisdiction then say Innocent III was prepared to do.  So in that pivotal example, one cannot fairly depict the inquisitors as a benign force protecting suspected heretics from brutal local comital justice.  Very much to the contrary.

Yeah, but as with Lollardy and John of Gaunt these popular heresies were tolerated by certain lords because they were a tool against the crown and Church. Putting them down was an equally secular concern.

The first person time people were executed for Heresy was in the Roman empire. :huh:  Charlemagne made believing in witchcraft a capital crime.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 10, 2015, 05:52:18 PM

One thing can be said - the counts of Toulouse certainly seemed to be willing to take a more lenient approach to the "Bonhommes" under their jurisdiction then say Innocent III was prepared to do.  So in that pivotal example, one cannot fairly depict the inquisitors as a benign force protecting suspected heretics from brutal local comital justice.  Very much to the contrary.

Of course the counts of Toulouse felt that way. The whole affair was in large part a pretext for giving the king of France a rationale for extending his authority over them.

Also I think Justinain executed people for heresy.

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 10, 2015, 06:09:22 PM
Yeah, but as with Lollardy and John of Gaunt these popular heresies were tolerated by certain lords because they were a tool against the crown and Church. Putting them down was an equally secular concern.

That's the 14th-15th centuries already . . .
Prior to 1200, there was no widespread heretical movement to speak of that posed some kind of threat to monarchs or local lords.  Even if non-doctrinally orthodox sentiments were held, why would secular rulers care in the early middle ages?  More to the point, since many secular rulers of the time were barely literate or not literate at all, how would they even know?

Heresy becomes an issue once you have a Church that decides it wants to asset control over widely divergent localisms and establish centralized control over doctrine and practice.  And it becomes an issue once you have proto secular states that are establishing rudimentary bureaucracies that are drawing from a narrow pool of ecclesiastically educated clerks that share this fundamental worldview.  It is not coincidence that widespread historical reports of efforts to extirpate heresy, the Inquisition, and the Fourth Lateran Council are all taking place around the same time. 

Raz - 1) Witchcraft and heresy are different things.

         2) My comments concern the west - hence the reference to the fall of the "Western Empire.". The continuing persecution of heresy in the Eastern Empire at a time when no such activity is being recorded in the west reinforces the point.  Where you have a centralizing authority that is demanding compliance with a defined doctrinal orthodoxy, heresy becomes an issue; in particular there is a tendency for religious differences to become politicized and political differences to become "heresied". And what's interesting is that the moment when that process begins to take off in Western Europe roughly coincides with the origins of the Inquisition.  My view is that is no coincidence.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 10, 2015, 06:27:34 PM
     2) My comments concern the west - hence the reference to the fall of the "Western Empire.". The continuing persecution of heresy in the Eastern Empire at a time when no such activity is being recorded in the west reinforces the point.  Where you have a centralizing authority that is demanding compliance with a defined doctrinal orthodoxy, heresy becomes an issue; in particular there is a tendency for religious differences to become politicized and political differences to become "heresied". And what's interesting is that the moment when that process begins to take off in Western Europe roughly coincides with the origins of the Inquisition.  My view is that is no coincidence.

I actually wrote my thesis on this - it is the defining of borders with an organizing church following the year 1000 that led to definitions of heterodoxy - indeed it requires such organizing to create such definitions.  You get interesting side by side persons such as Robert d'Arbrissel and Henry of Lausanne who fall on either side of such definitions, one a holy man and the other a heretic.  Of course, I tried to (mis)use anthropological theory in my thesis, in my case the works on liminality by Victor Turner, and that made my stuff an incomprehensible mash.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 10, 2015, 06:27:34 PM
Raz - 1) Witchcraft and heresy are different things.

         2) My comments concern the west - hence the reference to the fall of the "Western Empire.". The continuing persecution of heresy in the Eastern Empire at a time when no such activity is being recorded in the west reinforces the point.  Where you have a centralizing authority that is demanding compliance with a defined doctrinal orthodoxy, heresy becomes an issue; in particular there is a tendency for religious differences to become politicized and political differences to become "heresied". And what's interesting is that the moment when that process begins to take off in Western Europe roughly coincides with the origins of the Inquisition.  My view is that is no coincidence.

No, belief in witches was the heresy.  I think you are picking a very convenient time and place to make your stand.  The period between the Fall of the Western Roman empire and the High Middle Ages is rather famous for a lack of written evidence of anything.  I doubt there is a large corpus of court cases regarding theft that have survived in 8th century Britain though I suspect theft was still illegal in that time and place.  If there is a gap where the dark ages occur in written records I suspect is has more to do with the fact it was occurs in the dark ages rather then some change in policy.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 10, 2015, 10:25:22 PM
No, belief in witches was the heresy. 

Belief in witches was orthodox.  It was granted that witches could have occult power, thus the need for action against them. 

QuoteI think you are picking a very convenient time and place to make your stand.  The period between the Fall of the Western Roman empire and the High Middle Ages is rather famous for a lack of written evidence of anything. 

That's a bit of an exaggeration.  There are literate clerics and some of their work survives.  There are also some chronicles, even a decent amount of legal and administrative material, especially from the Carolingian period.

It is true that this is a very low literacy period, and thus the elites of that time were not likely to have highly articulated concepts of doctrinal orthodoxy.  Also a period where neither states (if anything could be called that) or the structures of the catholic church have the capacity to police or enforce such complex norms.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 10, 2015, 10:43:19 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 10, 2015, 10:25:22 PM
No, belief in witches was the heresy. 

Belief in witches was orthodox.  It was granted that witches could have occult power, thus the need for action against them. 

QuoteI think you are picking a very convenient time and place to make your stand.  The period between the Fall of the Western Roman empire and the High Middle Ages is rather famous for a lack of written evidence of anything. 

That's a bit of an exaggeration.  There are literate clerics and some of their work survives.  There are also some chronicles, even a decent amount of legal and administrative material, especially from the Carolingian period.

It is true that this is a very low literacy period, and thus the elites of that time were not likely to have highly articulated concepts of doctrinal orthodoxy.  Also a period where neither states (if anything could be called that) or the structures of the catholic church have the capacity to police or enforce such complex norms.

I don't think it was the orthodoxy of the time to believe in witchcraft.  St. Augustine argued that belief in witchcraft was itself heresy.  I found something on this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_Episcopi  It states that the belief that people can do magic is heresy because it's only occurring in people's minds.  Charlemagne dictated that accusing people of witchcraft was heresy and punishable by death.  So here is an example of a dark age potentate passing a law to punish a heresy with death.

I don't think that text is very helpful for your position.  Gratian is writing in 1140s, which granted is a fewer decades before the investigations in the Languedoc, but many years after the Carolingian period.  Gratian is one the earliest formalizers of canon law, so his collection reflects the transition towards uniformity and centralization. In that context it isn't surprising seeks to define folk beliefs in the language of heresy.

But your own link indicates that was not necessarily the view either before or after. The change in terms from maleficium to magicum is quite significant, as maleficium implies actual injury.  The earlier versions of the text do take the view that belief in transfiguration is illusory and makes one an "infidel".  However, the use of the term malificium suggests the belief that although "witches" could not truly transform their physical bodies they still could cause harm to others.  Nothing in the text states otherwise. And sure enough, as you link explains, this was the position taken in later years by the Church - that the Canon Episcopi was not a general denial of the efficacy of witchcraft (a position itself held to be heretical!) but rather a more narrow denial of the power of physical transfiguration.

It's very clear you are reading it differently then me.  The relevant section was taken from the Caroligian period, and reflects the ideas of that time.  From what I understand that the devil can affect the mind of sleeping person, and make them think they can cast demonic magic, but it is something they can in fact not do, and Big Chuck's laws reflect this religious idea making the belief(and more importantly the accusations) a criminal matter.

Are there any examples of Charlemagne executing people for the heresy of belief in witchcraft?

Anyways two point:
1) yes we disagree on the reading.  I don't see anything in there denying that witches can harm others through curses, etc.  It does seem Gratian in his later formulation attempts to address that by changing the key wording.  But it is also true that the later Church appears to have adopted my reading of this.

2) I could be wrong about this.  I don't think it changes the broader point - namely that the organs of the medieval and Renaissance Church were complicit in the persecution of heretics and their role in that regard was not primarily amelioratory.  Let's say you are correct and the Carolingians were aggressively punishing the heresy of witch belief and due to the vagaries of time or poor record-keeping we don't have accounts of the executions.  But then they were doing so on the basis of an ecclesiastical canon.  It is unlikely that Charles woke up one day and decided that accusations of witchcraft, rather than being dealt with in the conventional way of sanctions for false testimony, should instead be treated as a theological error.  Such an idea would have gotten into his head from his educators and advisors.  I.e. churchmen.   The earliest recorded version of Canon Episcopi of course is well after Charlemagne's death, but it was commissioned by the Archbishop of Trier.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 10, 2015, 10:25:22 PM
I think you are picking a very convenient time and place to make your stand.  The period between the Fall of the Western Roman empire and the High Middle Ages is rather famous for a lack of written evidence of anything.  I doubt there is a large corpus of court cases regarding theft that have survived in 8th century Britain though I suspect theft was still illegal in that time and place.  If there is a gap where the dark ages occur in written records I suspect is has more to do with the fact it was occurs in the dark ages rather then some change in policy.

You adopt a common misconception - ironic given the topic of the article you quoted in the OP.  We actually know a fair amount about the codes of law developed during this period of time by various Kingdoms, local customary law and mercantile law which largely survived the collapse of the Empire in the West.  We also know a fair amount about what had been lost to them and then "rediscovered" in terms of the study and adaptation of Roman law (starting in the university of Bologna and then spreading to other places in the 11th century).  We also know a fair amount about the degree to which canon law and secular laws intersected and the conflict that eventually arose between the two - which is part of the point Minsky is making.

A very good source for all of this information can be found in Law and Revolution.  It is a lengthy and at times densely packed read but well worth the effort.  http://www.amazon.com/Law-Revolution-Formation-Western-Tradition/dp/0674517768

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 11, 2015, 12:49:27 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 10, 2015, 10:25:22 PM
I think you are picking a very convenient time and place to make your stand.  The period between the Fall of the Western Roman empire and the High Middle Ages is rather famous for a lack of written evidence of anything.  I doubt there is a large corpus of court cases regarding theft that have survived in 8th century Britain though I suspect theft was still illegal in that time and place.  If there is a gap where the dark ages occur in written records I suspect is has more to do with the fact it was occurs in the dark ages rather then some change in policy.

You adopt a common misconception - ironic given the topic of the article you quoted in the OP.  We actually know a fair amount about the codes of law developed during this period of time by various Kingdoms, local customary law and mercantile law which largely survived the collapse of the Empire in the West.  We also know a fair amount about what had been lost to them and then "rediscovered" in terms of the study and adaptation of Roman law (starting in the university of Bologna and then spreading to other places in the 11th century).  We also know a fair amount about the degree to which canon law and secular laws intersected and the conflict that eventually arose between the two - which is part of the point Minsky is making.

A very good source for all of this information can be found in Law and Revolution.  It is a lengthy and at times densely packed read but well worth the effort.  http://www.amazon.com/Law-Revolution-Formation-Western-Tradition/dp/0674517768 (http://www.amazon.com/Law-Revolution-Formation-Western-Tradition/dp/0674517768)

We were talking about individual cases here.  See if you can find me 5  documented individual court cases of theft in 8th century Northumbria.

Your claim is that we don't know how theft, for example, was dealt with.  That claim is incorrect.  In the case of many Kingdoms, in particular the Germanic Kingdoms, we have their codes of law which proscribe exactly what was to occur in a variety of circumstances.  I think you are beginning to miss the forest for the trees here.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 10, 2015, 06:20:50 PM
Prior to 1200, there was no widespread heretical movement to speak of that posed some kind of threat to monarchs or local lords. 

actually, I think you are wrong.  But it really depends on the notion of "widespread".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy_in_Christianity#First_millennium
And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_in_early_Christian_theology
for a short summary of the various chrisitan movement of the 1st millenium.  Reading more about each movement will reveal a lot of persecutations either by the Church or the secular authorities.

So, if by widespread you mean something as big as the Protestant Reformation wich affected many countries in Europe and created wars between nations, so no, it wasn't widespread.  But it was important enough that their believers were persecuter.

Quote from: viper37 on February 11, 2015, 07:04:28 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 10, 2015, 06:20:50 PM
Prior to 1200, there was no widespread heretical movement to speak of that posed some kind of threat to monarchs or local lords. 

actually, I think you are wrong.  But it really depends on the notion of "widespread".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy_in_Christianity#First_millennium
And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_in_early_Christian_theology
for a short summary of the various chrisitan movement of the 1st millenium.  Reading more about each movement will reveal a lot of persecutations either by the Church or the secular authorities.

So, if by widespread you mean something as big as the Protestant Reformation wich affected many countries in Europe and created wars between nations, so no, it wasn't widespread.  But it was important enough that their believers were persecuter.

I think you missed the point.   Before there was orthodox belief it had be created.  Much of the history of the early Church is the story of how orthodoxy was defined and then enforced. The links you posted deal with that process.  Minsky's reference was to the fact that once orthodoxy was established there was no widespread heresy to deal with that posed a threat to secular rules until roughly 1200.

A really masterful job on the spelling there, Raz -- botched at a level Tim and HVC can only aspire to.

Quote from: viper37 on February 11, 2015, 07:04:28 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 10, 2015, 06:20:50 PM
Prior to 1200, there was no widespread heretical movement to speak of that posed some kind of threat to monarchs or local lords. 

actually, I think you are wrong.  But it really depends on the notion of "widespread".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy_in_Christianity#First_millennium
And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_in_early_Christian_theology
for a short summary of the various chrisitan movement of the 1st millenium.

Well the first link refers to the various imperial-era ecumenical councils that established Church doctrine.  Clearly heresy was a big issue then, in the sense that both doctrine and heresy were being defined.  But these were councils held under Roman imperial auspices; after Chalcedon, the wiki piece has nothing to say about heresy in the West.  So that seems to support the point.

Ditto for the second link which refers to various beliefs that arose in the 1st through 3rd centuries and were suppressed in the 300s.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 11, 2015, 05:30:22 PM
We were talking about individual cases here.  See if you can find me 5  documented individual court cases of theft in 8th century Northumbria.

Patrick Wormald put together a compilation of Anglo-Saxon lawsuits; there are 18 cases of theft listed.  You can Google to get more info on this.

Theft of course was a common offense compared to heresy.  Charlemagne had a healthy sense of the value of propaganda and a bevy of clerks and friends to supply it; if he really was busy burning heretics its the sort of thing one would expect to see.  Robert II's heresy executions do show up clearly in the historical record, even though France in the 1020s was probably a less well-organized state than the Carolingian empire. 

Of course if anything at the level of the Albigensian Crusade had happened in the Carolingian era, it is inconceivable it wouldn't have shown up the chronologies and writings extent from the era.

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 11, 2015, 05:37:52 PM
Your claim is that we don't know how theft, for example, was dealt with.  That claim is incorrect.  In the case of many Kingdoms, in particular the Germanic Kingdoms, we have their codes of law which proscribe exactly what was to occur in a variety of circumstances.  I think you are beginning to miss the forest for the trees here.

My claim is that just because I can't find individual cases of the state killing people for heresy doesn't mean it didn't happen. 

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 11, 2015, 07:37:00 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 11, 2015, 05:30:22 PM
We were talking about individual cases here.  See if you can find me 5  documented individual court cases of theft in 8th century Northumbria.

Patrick Wormald put together a compilation of Anglo-Saxon lawsuits; there are 18 cases of theft listed.  You can Google to get more info on this.

Theft of course was a common offense compared to heresy.  Charlemagne had a healthy sense of the value of propaganda and a bevy of clerks and friends to supply it; if he really was busy burning heretics its the sort of thing one would expect to see.  Robert II's heresy executions do show up clearly in the historical record, even though France in the 1020s was probably a less well-organized state than the Carolingian empire. 

Of course if anything at the level of the Albigensian Crusade had happened in the Carolingian era, it is inconceivable it wouldn't have shown up the chronologies and writings extent from the era.

Any of them in 8th century Northumbria?

Quote from: Razgovory on February 11, 2015, 08:30:14 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 11, 2015, 05:37:52 PM
Your claim is that we don't know how theft, for example, was dealt with.  That claim is incorrect.  In the case of many Kingdoms, in particular the Germanic Kingdoms, we have their codes of law which proscribe exactly what was to occur in a variety of circumstances.  I think you are beginning to miss the forest for the trees here.

My claim is that just because I can't find individual cases of the state killing people for heresy doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that it did happen?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 11, 2015, 07:37:00 PM
Patrick Wormald put together a compilation of Anglo-Saxon lawsuits; there are 18 cases of theft listed.  You can Google to get more info on this.

Theft of course was a common offense compared to heresy.  Charlemagne had a healthy sense of the value of propaganda and a bevy of clerks and friends to supply it; if he really was busy burning heretics its the sort of thing one would expect to see.  Robert II's heresy executions do show up clearly in the historical record, even though France in the 1020s was probably a less well-organized state than the Carolingian empire. 

Of course if anything at the level of the Albigensian Crusade had happened in the Carolingian era, it is inconceivable it wouldn't have shown up the chronologies and writings extent from the era.

Charlemagne wasn't killing heretics because he was killing pagans. He didn't need to focus on heretical movements to find areas to exert control, and opposition figures had better alternatives than forming christian sects/heretical movements to galvanize rebellions.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2015, 11:32:01 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 11, 2015, 07:37:00 PM
Patrick Wormald put together a compilation of Anglo-Saxon lawsuits; there are 18 cases of theft listed.  You can Google to get more info on this.

Theft of course was a common offense compared to heresy.  Charlemagne had a healthy sense of the value of propaganda and a bevy of clerks and friends to supply it; if he really was busy burning heretics its the sort of thing one would expect to see.  Robert II's heresy executions do show up clearly in the historical record, even though France in the 1020s was probably a less well-organized state than the Carolingian empire. 

Of course if anything at the level of the Albigensian Crusade had happened in the Carolingian era, it is inconceivable it wouldn't have shown up the chronologies and writings extent from the era.

Charlemagne wasn't killing heretics because he was killing pagans. He didn't need to focus on heretical movements to find areas to exert control, and opposition figures had better alternatives than forming christian sects/heretical movements to galvanize rebellions.

Otherwise orthodox Christians "formed" Christian sects/heretical movements to galvanize rebellions?

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2015, 11:12:30 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 11, 2015, 08:30:14 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 11, 2015, 05:37:52 PM
Your claim is that we don't know how theft, for example, was dealt with.  That claim is incorrect.  In the case of many Kingdoms, in particular the Germanic Kingdoms, we have their codes of law which proscribe exactly what was to occur in a variety of circumstances.  I think you are beginning to miss the forest for the trees here.

My claim is that just because I can't find individual cases of the state killing people for heresy doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that it did happen?

Yeah, the opening OP.  An lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean evidence of lack.  Especially in the Dark Ages.

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2015, 11:39:46 AM

Otherwise orthodox Christians "formed" Christian sects/heretical movements to galvanize rebellions?

Go back to the  Christological debates and the Council of Chalcedon. Everyone was christian. The debates were vigorous and highly political. The topics were mind numbingly esoteric--the Catholic Church today is like "yeah, everyone was basically saying the same things, but they were just semantic differences".

In places and times without the separation of church and state, modest differences in religious practice get amplified either as a reasons to exclude from power, extend influence, oppose the state, etc. It's a process that creates movements whereas before there might simply be folk religious practices that no one paid much head.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2015, 12:22:51 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2015, 11:39:46 AM

Otherwise orthodox Christians "formed" Christian sects/heretical movements to galvanize rebellions?

Go back to the  Christological debates and the Council of Chalcedon. Everyone was christian. The debates were vigorous and highly political. The topics were mind numbingly esoteric

Not for the people involved.  Your point seemed to be that heresies were "formed" as a to galvanize rebellions.  That seemed an odd position to take.  If that is not what you meant to say then maybe you could clarify your meaning.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.giantbomb.com%2Fuploads%2Foriginal%2F9%2F97364%2F2672783-img_redirect.php.jpg&hash=879779cc4d15e2cecf72c0df4c188ecb0e8f39eb)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bookwormroom.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F11%2FCommunist-Muslim-Illegal-Alien-Obama.png&hash=153cda6328e5ddd52552f1ec07b7cde1e88d6b6f)

:unsure:

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2015, 12:51:37 PM


Go back to the  Christological debates and the Council of Chalcedon. Everyone was christian. The debates were vigorous and highly political. The topics were mind numbingly esoteric

Not for the people involved.[/quote]

Of course not. But then they weren't just arguing about how to phrase the relationship between the divinity and humanity of christ: they were fighting for power and teh christological debates provided a religious purpose and context.

QuoteYour point seemed to be that heresies were "formed" as a to galvanize rebellions.  That seemed an odd position to take.  If that is not what you meant to say then maybe you could clarify your meaning.

My point was that in places and times without the separation of church and state, modest differences in religious practice get amplified either as a reasons to exclude from power, extend influence, oppose the state, etc. It's a process that creates movements whereas before there might simply be folk religious practices that no one paid much heed.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 12, 2015, 12:01:52 PM
Yeah, the opening OP.  An lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean evidence of lack. 

Yeah.  But.  Lack of evidence isn't itself evidence either.  It's still lack.

And for the Carolingian period there is evidence of a heresy - what Alcuin and other Carolingians called "Adoptionism".  Since we only have one side of the story the exact nature of what was at issue isn't certain, but it did involve accusations and proceedings against Spanish prelates.  And ultimately it led to the conviction and imprisonment of the Bishop of Urgell.  BUT NOT EXECUTION.  The punishment was exile and house arrest, interesting of itself. 

I would tentatively advance two related hypotheses about the Carolingian period:
1) The secular and religious powers of the period - Emperors, Popes, Bishops - were not enormously concerned about regional folk beliefs.  I don't think there is any questions that there were folk beliefs out there not consistent with orthodox doctrines such as they were  - the fact that the numerous sources don't discuss organized efforts to combat this is evidence of a sort.

2) The Adoptionist controversy suggests some concern about doctrinal disagreements among the elite. But the Urgell incident also suggests that was not so much a life-and-death struggle for souls and purification but probably had something to do with the Carolingian and their allied churchmen asserting control over the new marches of Catalonia.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2015, 02:20:36 PM
My point was that in places and times without the separation of church and state, modest differences in religious practice get amplified either as a reasons to exclude from power, extend influence, oppose the state, etc. It's a process that creates movements whereas before there might simply be folk religious practices that no one paid much heed.

The historical record seems to disagree with that conclusion.  Before there was a separation between church and state (ie before the Church became embroiled with these jurisdictional battles with local kingdoms) there was a high degree of tolerance for folk religious practices and what the Inquisition would later consider to be heresy.  It is only after the Church gets into the business of taking over the jurisdiction of determining what practices should be considered heretical that the blood starts to flow.  As I said, it is smoke and mirrors to make the argument that the Inquisition didn't actually kill anyone.

IIRC from when I studied the period at University one of Charlemagne's laws banned the veneration of any Angels not explicitly named in the Bible. The more things change, the more they stay the same...

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2015, 03:28:16 PM
The historical record seems to disagree with that conclusion.  Before there was a separation between church and state (ie before the Church became embroiled with these jurisdictional battles with local kingdoms) there was a high degree of tolerance for folk religious practices and what the Inquisition would later consider to be heresy.  It is only after the Church gets into the business of taking over the jurisdiction of determining what practices should be considered heretical that the blood starts to flow.  As I said, it is smoke and mirrors to make the argument that the Inquisition didn't actually kill anyone.

There wasn't a separation of Church and State during the period of the inquisition.

The point I was making was that religion was used as a tool in power struggles, creating us vs. them religious teams. Before the central / western european world became generally christianized, the us vs. them was obvious: christians vs. non believers (pagans or muslims). Once it became generally christianized, it was bound to begin fragmenting and fighting itself.

Something like this was noticed at the time, and was part of the motivation of the crusades (giving christian warriors someone to fight lest they start fighting themselves).

During the period, there wasn't a clean distinction between the church and state--the two institutions were intertwined and mutually supporting. I don't think you can exclusively blame or credit either side for the inquisition deaths. What I think can be said is that in the medieval world, it was inevitable that people would be killing each other over having the wrong religious beliefs.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2015, 07:12:42 PM
During the period, there wasn't a clean distinction between the church and state--the two institutions were intertwined and mutually supporting. I don't think you can exclusively blame or credit either side for the inquisition deaths. What I think can be said is that in the medieval world, it was inevitable that people would be killing each other over having the wrong religious beliefs.

Agreed.
And that's another reason to question the premise of the OP source, that the inquisition really was about a protective function for accused heretics.  I do think some inquisitors may have wanted to get things "right" and the average inquisitor may have been a bit more squeamish about torture than the average bailiff or whatever.  But at the end of the day the function of the inquisition was to identify heretics, "correct" them if possible, and otherwise turn them over the secular power for (nasty) punishment.  Hard to spin that positively.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2015, 07:19:18 PM
...and otherwise turn them over the secular power for (nasty) punishment.  Hard to spin that positively.

I always liked how this was called "relaxing" the unrepentant to the secular authorities.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2015, 03:19:38 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 12, 2015, 12:01:52 PM
Yeah, the opening OP.  An lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean evidence of lack. 

Yeah.  But.  Lack of evidence isn't itself evidence either.  It's still lack.

And for the Carolingian period there is evidence of a heresy - what Alcuin and other Carolingians called "Adoptionism".  Since we only have one side of the story the exact nature of what was at issue isn't certain, but it did involve accusations and proceedings against Spanish prelates.  And ultimately it led to the conviction and imprisonment of the Bishop of Urgell.  BUT NOT EXECUTION.  The punishment was exile and house arrest, interesting of itself. 

I would tentatively advance two related hypotheses about the Carolingian period:
1) The secular and religious powers of the period - Emperors, Popes, Bishops - were not enormously concerned about regional folk beliefs.  I don't think there is any questions that there were folk beliefs out there not consistent with orthodox doctrines such as they were  - the fact that the numerous sources don't discuss organized efforts to combat this is evidence of a sort.

2) The Adoptionist controversy suggests some concern about doctrinal disagreements among the elite. But the Urgell incident also suggests that was not so much a life-and-death struggle for souls and purification but probably had something to do with the Carolingian and their allied churchmen asserting control over the new marches of Catalonia.

I'm afraid I'm not well read enough on the Dark Ages to continue further.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2015, 07:12:42 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2015, 03:28:16 PM
The historical record seems to disagree with that conclusion.  Before there was a separation between church and state (ie before the Church became embroiled with these jurisdictional battles with local kingdoms) there was a high degree of tolerance for folk religious practices and what the Inquisition would later consider to be heresy.  It is only after the Church gets into the business of taking over the jurisdiction of determining what practices should be considered heretical that the blood starts to flow.  As I said, it is smoke and mirrors to make the argument that the Inquisition didn't actually kill anyone.

There wasn't a separation of Church and State during the period of the inquisition.

Lets use different terms because I think you are confusing what I said with the modern day conception.  So instead lets put it in terms of the separation of canon law from all the various forms of secular law.  Before the inquisition the church did not try to interfere with the jurisdiction of local rulers.  The inquisition was one of the mechanisms the Church used to gain jurisidiction over a variety of decisions local rulers had long considered theirs to make.  And of course it is only after the Inquistion gets going that people start dying in large numbers.

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2015, 08:39:36 PM

Lets use different terms because I think you are confusing what I said with the modern day conception.  So instead lets put it in terms of the separation of canon law from all the various forms of secular law. 

I don't understand...canon law long predates the inquisition. By its nature it is distinct from secular law.

QuoteBefore the inquisition the church did not try to interfere with the jurisdiction of local rulers. he inquisition was one of the mechanisms the Church used to gain jurisidiction over a variety of decisions local rulers had long considered theirs to make.

I really don't understand. Among other things the investiture controversy long predated the inquisition. Church vs. state conflicts go back to the Roman Empire.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2015, 09:32:35 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2015, 08:39:36 PM

Lets use different terms because I think you are confusing what I said with the modern day conception.  So instead lets put it in terms of the separation of canon law from all the various forms of secular law. 

I don't understand...canon law long predates the inquisition. By its nature it is distinct from secular law.

QuoteBefore the inquisition the church did not try to interfere with the jurisdiction of local rulers. he inquisition was one of the mechanisms the Church used to gain jurisidiction over a variety of decisions local rulers had long considered theirs to make.

I really don't understand. Among other things the investiture controversy long predated the inquisition. Church vs. state conflicts go back to the Roman Empire.

:huh:

There was no conflict between Church and State during the Roman Empire.  The Emperor and his delegates dictated Church doctrine.  There are many examples of this. If you need some go google it.

It is true that Canon law predated the Inquisition but the point is that the Church did not try to impose Canon law on the subjects of local rulers and indeed local rulers made many decisions which the Church sought to bring under its own jurisdiction. The investiture controversy is a good example of the conflict.  While it is true that the beginning of the controversy occurred prior to the inquisition the power struggle that the actions of Pope Gregory started was by no means resolved. It is no coincidence that the Inquisition was first established as another means of the Church taking more control it over matters it viewed as being within its own jurisdiction. 

I don't know if it's entirely true that conflict between church and state didn't exist in the Roman Empire. Arianism has an element of that and you can start to see hints of the direction the Roman church would go in in Ambrose's relations with the Empire.

Arianism wasn't a Church-State conflict; it was a doctrinal conflict over which direction the Church-State complex should go.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 13, 2015, 11:43:07 AM
Arianism wasn't a Church-State conflict; it was a doctrinal conflict over which direction the Church-State complex should go.

Sure, but there was also senior Churchmen standing against the compromises of the Church-State complex in the name of orthodoxy, Popes Liberius and Damasus for example.

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2015, 11:25:47 AM
:huh:

There was no conflict between Church and State during the Roman Empire.  The Emperor and his delegates dictated Church doctrine.  There are many examples of this. If you need some go google it.

This is obviously untrue.  Constantine did not dictate doctrine he simply demanded they get it sorted out.  Afterwards several of the Emperors were Arians but never were able to dictate that as the new Orthodoxy.  And then there was Julian, he had a few conflicts with the Church.

As far as conflicts well there are plenty but St. Ambrose in particular very publicly kicked Emperor Theodosius around.  That was a big moment in Church-State relations.

Certainly after the West fell the Emperors were unable time and time and time and time (and time and time and time) and again to dictate compromise doctrines to the Church.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 13, 2015, 11:43:07 AM
Arianism wasn't a Church-State conflict; it was a doctrinal conflict over which direction the Church-State complex should go.

So when the Emperor and the Church stood on the different sides of the doctrinal conflict it was a Church-State conflict wasn't it?

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2015, 11:37:23 AM
I don't know if it's entirely true that conflict between church and state didn't exist in the Roman Empire. Arianism has an element of that and you can start to see hints of the direction the Roman church would go in in Ambrose's relations with the Empire.

The manner in which the Church dealt with the issue of Arianism is a perfect example of the control the Emperor had over the Church and of the Emperor dictating the doctrine of the Church.  The Emperor was directly involved in first attempting to resolve the dispute by attempting to reconcile the two sides and then when that failed the Emperor called the First Council of Nicea to resolve the matter. The Emperor himself attended.  We all know that resulted in the Nicean Creed which rejected Arianism. 

What most people don't realize is that under Constantius II new Council's were held which, under the Emperor's influence (including banishing some proponents of the Nicean Creed), rejected the Nicean creed and adopted a new Creed which was closer to that of Arianism.  Shortly after many of all the proponents of the Nicean creed were preplaced.  If not for the disruption caused by Julian the Apostate coming to power the new creed would have become the orthodox creed.

Ambrose's relation with the Empire is of course complex and occurs at a time when there were again multiple Emperors.  He was very able in taking advantage of differing theological views of the Emperors.  But the point is, it was the view of the Emperors and Ambrose's ability to influence those views that won the day.

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2015, 11:48:11 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 13, 2015, 11:43:07 AM
Arianism wasn't a Church-State conflict; it was a doctrinal conflict over which direction the Church-State complex should go.

Sure, but there was also senior Churchmen standing against the compromises of the Church-State complex in the name of orthodoxy, Popes Liberius and Damasus for example.

And the object lesson is how far did that get them?  They couldn't determine the doctrine of the Church.  There are at least two reasons for this:

1) As already stated the opinion of the emperor(s) is what really counted;
2) The Pope didn't have the power or influence they had later into the middle and especially high middle ages.  Arguably the Bishops of Alexandria and Milan were more powerful and influential.

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2015, 12:07:48 PM
What most people don't realize is that under Constantius II new Council's were held which, under the Emperor's influence (including banishing some proponents of the Nicean Creed), rejected the Nicean creed and adopted a new Creed which was closer to that of Arianism.  Shortly after many of all the proponents of the Nicean creed were preplaced.  If not for the disruption caused by Julian the Apostate coming to power the new creed would have become the orthodox creed.

This is part of Rome's claim to precedence: that they never embraced heresy even when it was, falsely, orthodoxy (which isn't strictly true). The Roman Church was far less affected by the move to Arianism. A large part of that is that they were less theologically sophisticated and the Western Empire was collapsing, and you're right had it continued they may well have ended up as the heretics in this case.

But I think at this point the Roman church begins to break from the church-state complex.

Quote from: Valmy on February 13, 2015, 11:54:42 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 13, 2015, 11:43:07 AM
Arianism wasn't a Church-State conflict; it was a doctrinal conflict over which direction the Church-State complex should go.

So when the Emperor and the Church stood on the different sides of the doctrinal conflict it was a Church-State conflict wasn't it?

The Emperor got what he wanted.  Constantine instituted the Nicean Creed.  Constantius II abolished it and replaced it with a new creed.  So when the Emperor and the Church stood on different sides, the Emperor took steps to fix that problem.

The notion of the Church-State conflict does become a significant issue until Pope Gregory in the 12th century.

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2015, 12:12:43 PM
2) The Pope didn't have the power or influence they had later into the middle and especially high middle ages.  Arguably the Bishops of Alexandria and Milan were more powerful and influential.

Sure but both of whom were on the Pope's side at this period and it's from this moment that Roman prestige begins to grow. But it is from this period that other Churches begin to refer to Rome for mediation or settlement because Rome didn't move even when the Empire did and didn't embrace the Arianism or semi-Arianism of the fifteen council or whatever they had.

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2015, 12:13:36 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2015, 12:07:48 PM
What most people don't realize is that under Constantius II new Council's were held which, under the Emperor's influence (including banishing some proponents of the Nicean Creed), rejected the Nicean creed and adopted a new Creed which was closer to that of Arianism.  Shortly after many of all the proponents of the Nicean creed were preplaced.  If not for the disruption caused by Julian the Apostate coming to power the new creed would have become the orthodox creed.

This is part of Rome's claim to precedence: that they never embraced heresy even when it was, falsely, orthodoxy (which isn't strictly true). The Roman Church was far less affected by the move to Arianism. A large part of that is that they were less theologically sophisticated and the Western Empire was collapsing, and you're right had it continued they may well have ended up as the heretics in this case.

But I think at this point the Roman church begins to break from the church-state complex.

But that is only an argument that can only be made in hindsight.  The Pope didn't have much influence beyond Rome.  And the population of Rome was still significantly Pagan. In short is was a backwater that people didn't pay much attention to.  The theological battles were raging elsewhere.

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2015, 12:16:26 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2015, 12:12:43 PM
2) The Pope didn't have the power or influence they had later into the middle and especially high middle ages.  Arguably the Bishops of Alexandria and Milan were more powerful and influential.

Sure but both of whom were on the Pope's side at this period and it's from this moment that Roman prestige begins to grow. But it is from this period that other Churches begin to refer to Rome for mediation or settlement because Rome didn't move even when the Empire did and didn't embrace the Arianism or semi-Arianism of the fifteen council or whatever they had.

I would argue that Rome's influence begins to grow for reasons unrelated to the Arian controversy and has more to do with the Roman view toward the Church accumulating wealth which then lead to its ability to accumulate power. 

Yeah. But it's like saying that from the Nestorians and Miaphysites we can see an emerging concept of Christianity as something beyond the state church. The difference is that Rome was right and vindicated by the rest of the Church rejecting Arianism. Within Roman Christianity I think, as well as the weakening sinews of the state, that did create a separate identity of Christianity distinct from the State Church - bolstered by Augustine's City of God.

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2015, 12:24:09 PM
Yeah. But it's like saying that from the Nestorians and Miaphysites we can see an emerging concept of Christianity as something beyond the state church. The difference is that Rome was right and vindicated by the rest of the Church rejecting Arianism. Within Roman Christianity I think, as well as the weakening sinews of the state, that did create a separate identity of Christianity distinct from the State Church - bolstered by Augustine's City of God.

Rome was "right" only because of events that had nothing to do with Rome.  :P

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2015, 12:15:53 PM

The notion of the Church-State conflict does become a significant issue until Pope Gregory in the 12th century.

I don't know how to respond to this--there are so many examples that refute it.

A few things worth pointing out:
-the investiture controversy with Pope Gregory and the walk to canossa was in the 11th century.
-I'd refer you to a few periods of Italian history: the struggle between the Pope and Eastern Empire after the fall of the Western Empire for secular control of the Italian peninsula.
-The relationship between the Lombards and Church, culminating in the invitation of Charlemagne to Italy.

You put the Investiture crisis twice.

Quote from: Valmy on February 13, 2015, 01:29:27 PM
You put the Investiture crisis twice.

That is how important it was.

Actually, that is the result of me starting a message, going to a meeting, and coming back to finish.  :blush:

Quote from: Valmy on February 13, 2015, 11:54:42 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 13, 2015, 11:43:07 AM
Arianism wasn't a Church-State conflict; it was a doctrinal conflict over which direction the Church-State complex should go.

So when the Emperor and the Church stood on the different sides of the doctrinal conflict it was a Church-State conflict wasn't it?

No they were theological differences between people.  There was no State and Church with separate spheres of actual authority to have a conflict.  In fact during this period it was common for one of the emperors to be Arian and one not.   So is that a state-state-church conflict?  Of course not.  In fact it is anachronistic to refer to "Church" in this sense at all in this time period, Ecclesia still has its original meaning as the collectivity of believers (or the "assembly" of believers of a particular era).

One can meaningfully speak about Church-State relations only at the point when the offices of the prelates become institutionalized and independently assume certain of the functions of the old Roman State.  And that doesn't happen until deep into the 5the century.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 13, 2015, 02:06:10 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 13, 2015, 01:29:27 PM
You put the Investiture crisis twice.

That is how important it was.

Actually, that is the result of me starting a message, going to a meeting, and coming back to finish.  :blush:

And if you go back and read what I said about it you will see that I refer, at least three times, to the revolution Pope Gregory started as part of the process that was the conflict between the Church and local rulers. 

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 13, 2015, 02:27:11 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 13, 2015, 11:54:42 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 13, 2015, 11:43:07 AM
Arianism wasn't a Church-State conflict; it was a doctrinal conflict over which direction the Church-State complex should go.

So when the Emperor and the Church stood on the different sides of the doctrinal conflict it was a Church-State conflict wasn't it?

No they were theological differences between people.  There was no State and Church with separate spheres of actual authority to have a conflict.  In fact during this period it was common for one of the emperors to be Arian and one not.   So is that a state-state-church conflict?  Of course not.  In fact it is anachronistic to refer to "Church" in this sense at all in this time period, Ecclesia still has its original meaning as the collectivity of believers (or the "assembly" of believers of a particular era).

One can meaningfully speak about Church-State relations only at the point when the offices of the prelates become institutionalized and independently assume certain of the functions of the old Roman State.  And that doesn't happen until deep into the 5the century.

A roman emperor was excommunicated in the late 4th century.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 13, 2015, 08:22:19 PM
A roman emperor was excommunicated in the late 4th century.

So says the myth.
But this is one of those examples where the contemporary sources are at odds with the spin put on events much later.  The text of Ambrose's contemporary letter is available.  Read it and tell me if it looks like a Church-State conflict to you.  Because it doesn't look like it to me:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ambrose_letters_06_letters51_60.htm#Letter51

Thanks for ruining the Monty Python joke, guys.   :rolleyes: