Protestant errors and inventions (3)

[Tzaousios]

I agree with you that feudalism developed over time, however, it was the "system" during the early to medieval times.

I disagree. That it developed over time, and varied widely from region to region, not only in terms of practice, but in its legal foundations, is a very good indication that there was nothing systematic.

It was also based on socio-economic relationships but, at the level of nobility, it was a necessary system which monarchs used to retain power.

In some regions it may have developed specifically in order to retain power, such as England. However, I would posit that it developed differently and independently out of a need to provide security in a world without the legal and military of the Roman and Byzantine empires. Bastard feudalism in England, castellani in the marches of Iberia, and baillage in France, to name a few, demonstrate the various socio-economic relationships that developed to deal with problems of security. That they allowed lords, kings, and officials to retain power is a corollary of the initial relationship, not the primary reason.

Which one refutes what I have written so far?

That the old interpretations have been called into question and pushed to the margins comes out especially in White and Reynolds. There is also a lively debate in Past and Present where White and the other prominent scholars hash a lot of this out.

 

[Hentenza]

I disagree. That it developed over time, and varied widely from region to region, not only in terms of practice, but in its legal foundations, is a very good indication that there was nothing systematic.



In some regions it may have developed specifically in order to retain power, such as England. However, I would posit that it developed differently and independently out of a need to provide security in a world without the legal and military of the Roman and Byzantine empires. Bastard feudalism in England, castellani in the marches of Iberia, and baillage in France, to name a few, demonstrate the various socio-economic relationships that developed to deal with problems of security. That they allowed lords, kings, and officials to retain power is a corollary of the initial relationship, not the primary reason.



That the old interpretations have been called into question and pushed to the margins comes out especially in White and Reynolds. There is also a lively debate in Past and Present where White and the other prominent scholars hash a lot of this out.

Wait a minute, we can discuss whether feudalism was progressive or a system but that it was a "system" within the landscape of European history is a fact. Secondly, how does this refute the fact that in the west Bishops and Archbishops from the Catholic Church were part of the feudal system and gathered armies to defend their positions? How does this refute the fact that indulgences were sold to enrich the Catholic church's coffers?

We can discuss the current scholarly debates on feudalism but there is plenty of extant evidence that it indeed happened, however, this does not address what I have posted so far.

 

[Tzaousios]

Wait a minute, we can discuss whether feudalism was progressive or a system but that it was a "system" within Europe is a fact.

No, it is a complex phenomenon, not a system. The diverse regional warlords, former Roman officials, and Catholic clergy did not meet in some kind of secretive Bildeberg cabal to create a top-down system whereby they could hamstring the poor Bible-believing peasants who wanted to start a Protestant Reformation.

Secondly, how does this refute the fact that in the west Bishops and Archbishops from the Catholic Church were part of the feudal system and gathered armies to defend their positions? How does this refute the fact that indulgences were sold to enrich the Catholic church's coffers?

That this is your argument says more about your own religious background than it does about the socio-economic and military environment of medieval Europe. You are attempting to shoehorn in assumptions about "feudalism" to prop up the presuppositions that you hold about Roman Catholicism based upon baggage you still drag along as a former Catholic. That is not a good scholarly methodology.

 

[Hentenza]

No, it is a complex phenomenon, not a system. The diverse regional warlords, former Roman officials, and Catholic clergy did not meet in some kind of secretive Bildeberg cabal to create a top-down system whereby they could hamstring the poor Bible-believing peasants who wanted to start a Protestant Reformation.

Hogwash.

That this is your argument says more about your own religious background than it does about the socio-economic and military environment of medieval Europe. You are attempting to shoehorn in assumptions about "feudalism" to prop up the presuppositions that you hold about Roman Catholicism based upon baggage you still drag along as a former Catholic. That is not a good scholarly methodology.

Hogwash again. Can you prove that bishops and archbishops were not feudal land owners or that they did not amass armies to defend their status and power?

 

[Tzaousios]

Hogwash.

Hogwash again. Can you prove that bishops and archbishops were not feudal land owners or that they did not amass armies to defend their status and power?

Yeah, I think I have hit upon something very sensitive and telling here. Besides, it is not my obligation to prove a negative.

 

[Hentenza]

Yeah, I think I have hit upon something very sensitive and telling here. Besides, it is not my obligation to prove a negative.

Is not a negative since the extant evidence that a good number of bishops and archbishops of the Catholic Church were part of the feudal system is overwhelming. I have already given at least two examples in a previous post. If you can refute it then go for it.

BTW- Are you denying the problem of simony and local bishop power during the middle ages? If you are, what are you basing your opinion on?

 

[Tzaousios]

Is not a negative...

Does that mean it was a disingenuous request on your part, then? It was demanding that I prove the negative in how you phrased it.

...since the extant evidence that a good number of bishops and archbishops of the Catholic Church were part of the feudal system is overwhelming.

Bishops where? What is this "feudal system" and where is it found? Finally, I think you are conflating or over-generalizing the British phenomenon of ecclesiastical "bastard feudalism" (a later development) with the rest of medieval Europe. See Burger's Bishops, Clerks, and Diocesan Governance in Thirteenth-Century England for more information.

I have already given at least two examples in a previous post.

What examples? All I see is a highly generalized statement about "bishops," "archbishops," and the Catholic Church.

BTW- Are you denying the problem of simony and local bishop power during the middle ages? If you are, what are you basing your opinion on?

I think the better question is whether or not you can prove that simony was a planned, systematized effort that extended over all of Europe and the British Isles.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I guess you folk know that the feudal system was a vast improvement over the rampant slavery of the Roman empire?

Christians were not slaves and even if a king or a prince (or even a prince bishop) treated his peasants as indentured labourers he did not own them and could not kill them without some kind of justification whereas under the slavery of ancient Rome an owner could kill and punish a slave as he pleased without any need to justify his action.

So, if feudalism was supposed to be some vast conspiracy between kings, princes, and prince-bishops to enslave the common people then it was a vast failure since it removed slavery only to put in a system where even a king had to offer some justification for his actions towards the common people.

 

[Hentenza]

Does that mean it was a disingenuous request on your part, then? It was demanding that I prove the negative in how you phrased it.

Nope. It is disingenuous for you to deny it.

Bishops where? What is this "feudal system" and where is it found? Finally, I think you are conflating or over-generalizing the British phenomenon of ecclesiastical "bastard feudalism" (a later development) with the rest of medieval Europe. See Burger's Bishops, Clerks, and Diocesan Governance in Thirteenth-Century England for more information.

lol It is obvious that you are studying some kind of neo-history that ignores plain evidence.

What examples? All I see is a highly generalized statement about "bishops," "archbishops," and the Catholic Church.

It was in another thread. Sorry. Here are the two examples I posted.

Hugh de Puiset, bishop of Durham, laid siege to Tickhill ( a castle in York) with an army of mercenaries (and 22 knights) to depose Henry II brother John from its lands. Giles de Briouse, bishop of Hereford and his brother Reginald gathered an army of mercenaries and attacked Brecon, in South Wales, to avenge wrongs done to his family.

I think the better question is whether or not you can prove that simony was a planned, systematized effort that extended over all of Europe and the British Isles.

lol The buying of ecclesiastical offices is well known and documented. Read about pope Gregory VII attempts at stamping it out.

 

[Tzaousios]

Nope. It is disingenuous for you to deny it.

No, it is disingenuous to demand that I prove a negative for you when you have already decided that the evidence is contrary.

lol It is obvious that you are studying some kind of neo-history that ignores plain evidence.

Ah, so when one is in a bind, one resorts to poo-pooing the work of new generations of scholars which modify the assumed crystallized work of past scholars. I guess the entire academic endeavor is all for naught.

Hugh de Puiset, bishop of Durham, laid siege to Tickhill ( a castle in York) with an army of mercenaries (and 22 knights) to depose Henry II brother John from its lands. Giles de Briouse, bishop of Hereford and his brother Reginald gathered an army of mercenaries and attacked Brecon, in South Wales, to avenge wrongs done to his family.

What about it? This is a specific incident that occurred in England. From what you posted before, it appears you are trying to make a sweeping generalization about "feudalism in Europe."

lol The buying of ecclesiastical offices is well known and documented. Read about pope Gregory VII attempts at stamping it out.

What's with the snarky "lols" now? I asked that you not patronize me. I know about the problem of simony in the region of Germany and what happened at Canossa. What I am not willing to do is make a sweeping generalization about systematization and the universal avarice of the clergy. Is that what you want to do?

 

[Hentenza]

No, it is disingenuous to demand that I prove a negative for you when you have already decided that the evidence is contrary.



Ah, so when one is in a bind, one resorts to poo-pooing the work of new generations of scholars which modify the assumed crystallized work of past scholars. I guess the entire academic endeavor is all for naught.



What about it? This is a specific incident that occurred in England. From what you posted before, it appears you are trying to make a sweeping generalization about "feudalism in Europe."



What's with the snarky "lols" now? I asked that you not patronize me. I know about the problem of simony in the region of Germany and what happened at Canossa. What I am not willing to do is make a sweeping generalization about systematization and the universal avarice of the clergy. Is that what you want to do?

I have given examples now from England, France, and Germany. I am not sure what else you need but I am leaving it up to you. I have better things to do like watch a movie. See ya.

 

[Tzaousios]

I have given examples now from England, France, and Germany. I am not sure what else you need but I am leaving it up to you. I have better things to do.

Hand-waving is not going to remove the import of what I said about your presuppositional arguments. The diverse regional warlords, the knights, and the Catholic clergy did not create a system of "feudalism" to steal money from peasants and keep them from rebelling in an early proto-Reformation.

Now where are your examples from France and Germany and how do you tie them together to produce a universal system of feudalized simony aimed at destroying peasants?

 

[sonshine234]

Protestant errors and inventions

That the letters to Churches were not written to Churches but "church ages"

 

[bbbbbbb]

That the letters to Churches were not written to Churches but "church ages"

I have never heard this one during my entire life. Please show us which denominations teach that the Pauline letters (or any of the other epistles) were written to "church ages".

 

[sonshine234]

I should say Revelation letters

 

[bbbbbbb]

I should say Revelation letters

Oh, I see. Which Reformer taught that view?

 

[sonshine234]

Actually it's a topic on CF right now. Part of the Protestant error and inventions

 

[Root of Jesse]

Sidney Painter is one of the few historians that ever attempted to publish a biography of a person living during the medieval times. Particular information like that is hard to come by. I thought he did a great job. And, yes, his research is current.

Now, I merely spoke of the last book that I read. As a student of medieval history, I have read many.

lol Prove it.

Prove that something wasn't done? Prove that it was done, under Catholic hierarchy auspices...

 

[Root of Jesse]

Oi!

This is the Protestant errors and inventions thread - third continuation - so please return to the great and glorious list of 57 errors and inventions forthwith or I shall post new errors

Should you add the belief that the Catholic Church sold indulgences is an error or invention?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Hey Mark,

The leadership of the RCC sanctioned it. I gave the example of pope Leo X in a previous post.

An error/invention. I showed that it wasn't.