Originally posted by The Leper King
It seems to me that most people who think the pope was wrong for censuring Kings and Emperors, must be supporters of absolutist regimes !?!?!?
PS: Are you a supporter of Unam Sanctam ?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
PS: Are you a supporter of Unam Sanctam ?
Napoleon was essentially a heretic, and yet many orthodox Catholic French fought for him. I don't think you appreciate the power of a charismatic leader. Hell, Frederick has even charmed modern historians!
Even after the Emperor was deposed by the council of Lyons? I'm sorry but your argument doesn't fly when you remember that Louis tried to get Frederick to reconcile himself to the Church at Cluny, for the sake of it, after the Council had deposed him.
No it didn't. Unless you want to count the arrest and exile of Pope Saint Martin I, and the election by the Roman clergy of Saint Eugenius I to continue the fight against Constans II, a legal papal sacking. But, using that logic, wouldn't Nero be the first Emperor to "depose" a pope?
I don't remember if they ever made such a claim, but the Council at Vienne (which was supposed to deal with the accusations against Boniface VIII) never condemned him. I think Clement V refused to call the Council unless Philipp dropped his demands for the condemnation of Boniface by the Council.
Not quite. Although the Council declared Gregory XII(the true Pope) deposed, Gregory made a counter offered-to resign and give the Council papal authority if the Council would technically accept him as pope. The Council technically did though they probably didn't realize what that meant. I'll quote from the Diary of the council of Constance by Cardinal Guillaume Fillastre, July 4, 1415 (who btw was not a supporter of Gregory)....
The concession the council made was to accept the sanction of Gregory XII. Remember what I said earlier about the Pope's doctrinal authority to choose the manner of his successor's election? Well it applies here; after accepting Gregory's blessing the Council was acting with the authority of the true Pope after he resigned. If the Council had not accepted that clause it would have ended just like the Council of Pisa, and the schism would have continued.
What does that have to do with absolutism? Boniface never claimed temporal authority. In fact, he specifically denied that he ever would-before he wrote Unam sanctam-when he was denouncing the fake bull Philipp IV had forged Scire te volumus which the King said was such a claim. (Mann, Popes in the Middle Ages, XIX, p.343). And, Unam sanctam isn't a claim of universal temporal authority.
Last edited:
"Napoleon was essentially a heretic, and yet many orthodox Catholic French fought for him."
Religion was way less important in 1800 France than in 1250 Europe. I think the anologies across that timeframe will barely work.
"Unless you want to count the arrest and exile of Pope Saint Martin I"
I think that is one episode I had in mind, but I'd have to read up on it as for the exact reasons given and effect it had.
"I don't remember if they ever made such a claim"
It was a rather common interpretation. While canonic law held "Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur", it also had a provision about a heretic pope in Decretum Gratiani, XL c 6, "Si papa". The possible contradiction was resolved by some by claiming that a heretic, even if he's the pope, is lower than the lowest catholic. A more radical conciliarist view was propsed by John of Paris, a Dominican, in "De potestate Regia et Papali" (related to the quarrel with Philipp IV). Other arguments relate to the corporatist structure of the church etc. The "nisi deprehendatur a fide devius" has also been interpreted differently, ranging frim heresy over being schismatic to simple incompetence.
Anyway, my point was the issue was disputed at the time. And it was.
"but the Council at Vienne (which was supposed to deal with the accusations against Boniface VIII) never condemned him. I think Clement V refused to call the Council unless Philipp dropped his demands for the condemnation of Boniface by the Council."
Philipp used the possible heresy trial against Boniface to extort concessions from Clemens V. There were proceedings against Nogaret too, and both were closed. It might also relate to the Templar coup.
"Not quite. Although the Council declared Gregory XII(the true Pope) deposed, Gregory made a counter offered-to resign and give the Council papal authority if the Council would technically accept him as pope."
Why was Gregory the "true" pope ? Anyway, while he resigned, Bendikt XIII und John (XXIII) were directly deposed, were they not ?
"If the Council had not accepted that clause it would have ended just like the Council of Pisa, and the schism would have continued."
Again this could be a matter of law, or just a matter of fact.
"What does that have to do with absolutism? Boniface never claimed temporal authority."
Well not formally, but in fact. What was the phrase ? "ratione peccatum" ? Anyway maybe I'll have more time next week to check some sources. As for "absolutism", what has the rejection of papal claims to do with absolutism ?
Religion was way less important in 1800 France than in 1250 Europe. I think the anologies across that timeframe will barely work.
"Unless you want to count the arrest and exile of Pope Saint Martin I"
I think that is one episode I had in mind, but I'd have to read up on it as for the exact reasons given and effect it had.
"I don't remember if they ever made such a claim"
It was a rather common interpretation. While canonic law held "Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur", it also had a provision about a heretic pope in Decretum Gratiani, XL c 6, "Si papa". The possible contradiction was resolved by some by claiming that a heretic, even if he's the pope, is lower than the lowest catholic. A more radical conciliarist view was propsed by John of Paris, a Dominican, in "De potestate Regia et Papali" (related to the quarrel with Philipp IV). Other arguments relate to the corporatist structure of the church etc. The "nisi deprehendatur a fide devius" has also been interpreted differently, ranging frim heresy over being schismatic to simple incompetence.
Anyway, my point was the issue was disputed at the time. And it was.
"but the Council at Vienne (which was supposed to deal with the accusations against Boniface VIII) never condemned him. I think Clement V refused to call the Council unless Philipp dropped his demands for the condemnation of Boniface by the Council."
Philipp used the possible heresy trial against Boniface to extort concessions from Clemens V. There were proceedings against Nogaret too, and both were closed. It might also relate to the Templar coup.
"Not quite. Although the Council declared Gregory XII(the true Pope) deposed, Gregory made a counter offered-to resign and give the Council papal authority if the Council would technically accept him as pope."
Why was Gregory the "true" pope ? Anyway, while he resigned, Bendikt XIII und John (XXIII) were directly deposed, were they not ?
"If the Council had not accepted that clause it would have ended just like the Council of Pisa, and the schism would have continued."
Again this could be a matter of law, or just a matter of fact.
"What does that have to do with absolutism? Boniface never claimed temporal authority."
Well not formally, but in fact. What was the phrase ? "ratione peccatum" ? Anyway maybe I'll have more time next week to check some sources. As for "absolutism", what has the rejection of papal claims to do with absolutism ?
Where is this "history thread," that I might post in it?????
Doest thou mean the "History Forum?".....
Ok, I've created a new thread in the History Forum to continue the discussion, click on "New Thread."
New Thread
Last edited:
Yes this got carried away a bit... thanx for starting a new thread.
Back on topic, popes could be strongly influenced by temporal powers (although this is often presented in an exaggerated way, especially with the popes in Avignon) and I think that option should be in the game.
I want to play as Philipp IV, win the battle of Courtrai and get my grip on Italy.
Back on topic, popes could be strongly influenced by temporal powers (although this is often presented in an exaggerated way, especially with the popes in Avignon) and I think that option should be in the game.
I want to play as Philipp IV, win the battle of Courtrai and get my grip on Italy.
Last edited:
Popes could have sons ?!
I mean even if they did, they'd be illegitimate and probably would be a waste of a daughter to marry away to but... EU makes us all so cold and heartless.
Originally posted by Shadowstrike
Popes could have sons ?!
In the beginning there were since there were no celibacy requirements. Later the system with the first son becoming heir and the second son a priest ensured that the popes at least were related to a family.
Not to mention that some of them had sons (and daughters) even after the celibacy requirement.
Well they were at least not marriedOriginally posted by Dark Knight
Not to mention that some of them had sons (and daughters) even after the celibacy requirement.
Okay, this thread got on a real detour, but i'm ging to ressurect it and bring it back to its original topic.
I'm going to use an example that WILL happen, because I will make it so
Lets say I, as one of the Irish princes, conquer or marry my way into controling all the Irish provinces. Could I then, if my Piety was high enough, 'buy' the title 'King of Ireland'? Thus I would get a bonus in prestige (climbing up a rung from prince to King) and perhaps more loyalty at home (legitamizing my holdings in the eyes of the nobility and church), correct?
Now here's the rub, what titles should be claimable? Any semi-random grouping of provinces can't become a kingdom, can it? But on the other hand, Crusader titles shouldn't be limited to the areas conquered historically, should they?
I'm going to use an example that WILL happen, because I will make it so
Lets say I, as one of the Irish princes, conquer or marry my way into controling all the Irish provinces. Could I then, if my Piety was high enough, 'buy' the title 'King of Ireland'? Thus I would get a bonus in prestige (climbing up a rung from prince to King) and perhaps more loyalty at home (legitamizing my holdings in the eyes of the nobility and church), correct?
Now here's the rub, what titles should be claimable? Any semi-random grouping of provinces can't become a kingdom, can it? But on the other hand, Crusader titles shouldn't be limited to the areas conquered historically, should they?
Originally posted by Deaghaidh
Okay, this thread got on a real detour, but i'm ging to ressurect it and bring it back to its original topic.
I'm going to use an example that WILL happen, because I will make it so
Lets say I, as one of the Irish princes, conquer or marry my way into controling all the Irish provinces. Could I then, if my Piety was high enough, 'buy' the title 'King of Ireland'? Thus I would get a bonus in prestige (climbing up a rung from prince to King) and perhaps more loyalty at home (legitamizing my holdings in the eyes of the nobility and church), correct?
Now here's the rub, what titles should be claimable? Any semi-random grouping of provinces can't become a kingdom, can it? But on the other hand, Crusader titles shouldn't be limited to the areas conquered historically, should they?
We had this conversation before, in a thread that has undoubtedly sunk into oblivion. What it boiled down to was that by 1066, most royal titles had already been handed out - very few (most notably the Kingdom of Sicily) were handed out later, other than the new Crusader states in the East. So creating new royal titles would likely be very hard, but there are plenty of old ones dormant that could easily be resurrected. The High Kingship of Ireland, to use your example, was dormant in 1066, but it would seem reasonable that if you were to control most or all of the island, you could resurrect the title if the Pope and your vassals agreed (as did happen several times after 1066 in real history, althoug hopefully you wouldn't be a "High King with Opposition" as the post-Brian Boru High Kings were known)
Well there were other examples as well. The recognition of the De Bruce-era Kingdom of Scotland by the Pope was in effect a 'restoration' of the Kigndom of Scotland as a seperate entity from England.
But what I'm also kind of asking is whether it would be possible to create an entirely new realm. For instance, a north African crusader state that was never around historically.
As for the High Kingdom, if I'd met the conditions (conquered, inherited or made tributary the whole of Ireland) then there would be no 'opposition', at least until the next generation
But what I'm also kind of asking is whether it would be possible to create an entirely new realm. For instance, a north African crusader state that was never around historically.
As for the High Kingdom, if I'd met the conditions (conquered, inherited or made tributary the whole of Ireland) then there would be no 'opposition', at least until the next generation
Originally posted by Deaghaidh
As for the High Kingdom, if I'd met the conditions (conquered, inherited or made tributary the whole of Ireland) then there would be no 'opposition', at least until the next generation
Ah, but then my mighty English armies will crush you, and I will Ireland to some minor noble, unless I am given 2000 gold a year!!
Muhahaha
It makes sense to create an a-historical realm if you conquer it, but it could also be added to the land you own as, lets say the King of France.
Maybe you will be able to create the County of Tunis which is a vassel of you (The King of France), but not the independent Kingdom of Tunis.
Even Brian Boru had opposition - some of the Irish fought on the side of the Norse (Sitric Silkbeard?) at Brian's final battle of Clontarf.
Originally posted by Sonny
Even Brian Boru had opposition - some of the Irish fought on the side of the Norse (Sitric Silkbeard?) at Brian's final battle of Clontarf.
All High Kings had oppostition - but the Hgh Kings with Opposition in the late 11th and 12th centuries actually had other High Kings opposing them, hence the title...