Roman Catholic Church

Remove all ads!

I know about the Roman Catholic Church only by books (novels) and history. Novels about knights and crusaders and the such... that is, in the Middle Ages. History too. I know what the Roman Catholic Church did in the Middle Ages. That's why I hate it. Mostly hypocrites, liers and greedy people took up the upper "posts" of the Church. They wanted to control the mass and they valued their power and wealth more than faith and belief and life. That's why I hate it...

I'm of the ones who don't like to create an idea and have an opinion about something they don't know(though I did create an idea... as I said above: "That's why I hate it" but that's another matter). Certainly there is a HUGE difference between the Middle Ages Catholic Church and today's Catholic church. So, I ask you now: how are things now in the Catholic Church?

This topic might seem stupid to you but it's not stupid for me. I don't want to have a false idea about something and especially about this matter.

 

Geez. You may as well have titled this topic, "hit me, chev!"

 

Well, I know that the RCC of today has a lot less power. And I mean a lot. No official places in the government, not much weight as it were.

They aren't involved in everyday life as much anymore. The people within the church are there for the faith, not the money.

The RCC is a lot less intrusive too. Unless of course you count the secret Vatican task force that has agents in every major European city and some D&D websites...

 

Basically, you're asking "is the RCC still evil today"

Well, as for Middle Ages, it's important to separate Catholic-specific things from inevitable consequences of having a partial theocracy, no matter the religion.

In the mediaeval sense, partial theocracy is lack of separation of the dominant church from the state. As a result, you get clergy dabbling with politics and even running the state, a province, a town, a large land. On the other hand, you get political leaders dabbling with dogma and using religious institutions to squelch their enemies. This was done in all parts of the world, and probably all religions. Catholics have been there, the Orthodox, Islamic states, pre-Columbian native American civilisations... you would need a very anarchistic religion to avoid that - and still, leaders of anarchistic sects typically amass quite a considerable level of quite secular authority in their hands.

The Roman Catholic Church, through inquisition, has ordered some people burned, granted. However, most of those people were heretics dangerous to the existing political and social structure. The problem with most heresies was their anti-feudal character, negating the rights of monarchs and lords, preaching equality, clerical poverty, and the like. It typically looked like the great bogus Templar trials (1307-1314), only less spectacular. After all, someone was earning living cash off it (Philip the Fair, who forced those trials on the weak Pope, was one of the greatest debitors of the Templar Order), letting aside pure power struggles.

Also, just about every religion had its crusades and crusaders. Religious fanatacism is a great tool when steering mobs to get the work done. We had crusades, they had Jihad. Who was worse? Note that Christians were there before Muslims. And Jews were the before Christians. Don't forget the Canaanites (Palestinians).

One must realise that times were turbulent, Christianity was practically under siege. Muslim invaders in Spain since 711, stopped in the heart of France in 732 by Charles Martel at Poitiers, having taking Palestine and Africa from the Byzantine empire shortly before. Then, since early 11th century, Seljuk Turks in Asia Minor - crippling the Byzantine Empire in 1024 at Manzikert and putting an end to any prospects of regaining the lost power. Until 1386 pagans on the East, and from the second quarter of the 13th century, mongol hordes - slaughtering hosts of knights from whole Europe and military orders at Legnica in 1241. Well, Viking raids were the scourge of Europe from 593 (Lindisfarne slaughter) to 911 (foundation of the Duchy of Normandy and some level of safety), not really stopping fully until late 12th century. On the South, Berberic invaders would even hold posts in Italy itself, capturing Sicily for some time. See? And tell those people violence is bad and tolerance is key.

Actually, the Roman Catholic Church isn't to blame for the crusades exclusively. After all, the speech at the synode at Clermont in 1095, that started the era of crusades, was delivered by Pope Urban II in response to pleas for help from... Alexios Comnenos, the Eastern Emperor. Religion was used by both Latins and Greeks in politics, though for different purposes. Inquisition and heresy trials weren't an often occurence by the 13th century when various Greek lords struggled for sovereignty other others using either orthodoxy or ecumenism as they saw fit to support their agenda. The West had schizm and heresy, the East had doubtful Orthodoxy and heterodoxy as an indispensible component to all accusations political in nature (add homosexualism and/or symony and/or idol worship and/or various random sacrilege, whatever your paid witnesses will attest and you're set - that's how it worked). In the East it lasted until the fall in 1453 (some enclaves would hold for longer, like Trebisond until 1461 or Epyrus even until 1533). And even after the fall to the Turks, actually (Balkan ecclesiastic disputes were quite intense, especially given the Turks typically supported the Greek hierarchy whom the locals didn't really like... in fact hated nearly as much as the Turks).

In the West, it lasted until churches were separated from states for good... and religion was replaced by other ideologies used in the same way. It's virtually impossible to choose the bloodiest church, really. Quoting mere numbers won't work as the RCC was simply the biggest denomination in the west. Perhaps some ratio then? Well, it depends on many subjective criteria. Trust me, everyone more or less persecuted everyone else. And everyone had witchhunts. In fact, witchhunts were the specialty of Puritans more than Catholic inquisition, but that's the point here. My point is: it worked the same way for all churches in existence and would have worked for any other churches that would have existed.

As of now, well, one can't really answer an abstract question like "how it is in the RCC today?". What am I going to say to that? We're fine, thanks? Or maybe Jesus loves you all and so do we? Eh, can't really come up with any reasonable answer to that.

I'm guessing the attitude towards the Orthodox Church may have something to do with your question, though it's still a guess.

Basically, the RCC recognises all Orthodox sacraments as valid following from the validity of baptismal rite and priestly ordinations. There are no excommunications currently in power, as mutual excommunications (after all, back in 1054 excommunications were declared by both Churches) have been revoked. There are committees with members recruiting from the ranks of the clergy of both Churches working on difficult spots.

We may disagree on several doctrinal matters, though it's not like those conflicts can't be overcome. Both Catholic and Orthodox people to whom I've talked would rather see the Churches united again. An Orthodox church is no less a temple of God, an Orthodox priest is no less a priest to the Catholic Church. However, there's a tendency among Orthodox clergy to consider Catholic baptism invalid, thus making all Catholic priests and bishops usurpers and all sacraments they administer invalid (a priest has first to be a baptised faithful).

However, both Patriarchs - the Roman John Paul and the Constantinopolitan Bartholomew - can find a common tongue. In fact, they seem to be sort of friends, from what can be seen, despite the fact one calls himself Catholic (universal) and the other Ecumenical (more or less the same), both are Holinesses and considered elected by the grace of God. They both are, anyway, as they're both Patriarchs and apostolic successors, anyway. Here's the official biography of His All Holiness the Patriarch Bartholomew: http://www.patriarchate.org/biography.html . Features many endeavours shared with the Catholic clergy, as well as even studies at Catholic universities, so I guess he doesn't hate the RCC.

From there:

And see this picture: http://www.patriarchate.org/visit/html/picture_13.htmlAnd this one: http://www.patriarchate.org/visit/html/picture_32.html

Or this one (horror!)

There's been trouble with the Russian Orthodox Church and lots of it. Also, the Orthodox Church in Greece moved so far as to pray for John Paul II's death, actually, when he was about to visit Greece. Such a thing wouldn't go in the RCC, but that's not the point here, anyway.

The point is that hatred or disputes over who's to blame more won't lead us anywhere. And we have much work to do yet.

[ July 15, 2004, 03:28: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Ever seen Dogma? I don't think it's as biased as that, and certainly the manner in which the Roman Catholic Church (and indeed, just about every organised church, Christian or otherwise) has used its spiritual authority to gain temporal power is an appalling misuse of the message inherent in religion. As Chevalier says, the creation of a theocratic political state that, in Machiavelli's words, was " able to chase [the French] out of Italy and ruin the Venetians", violated the necessary division between church and state (along the lines of the separation of powers in secular states between the executive, legislature and judiciary). Some of the popes used that spiritual authority in the same way as a tyrant might use threat of force - to elicit compliance, with the threat of eternal damnation by God if it was not forthcoming. Sadly, although humankind was created in God's image, we are far from incorruptible and virtuous.

Religion, either used as a threat or as a way to define "others" as threats, is a fantastic political tool, leaving aside its theological and metaphysical dimensions, and as Chevalier notes, we have now replaced religion for secular ideology in politics (liberalism, Labor movements, various takes on feminism, et cetera). Yes, the effects of the Crusades are still being felt today, and the Crusades are perhaps the most well-documented example of great suffering caused largely by religion (the only exception I can think of being the Holocaust, which is a slightly different matter), but that does not mean that the Roman Catholic Church is more morally corrupt than any other ideologue. What terrifies me is the temporal influence that a number of radical mullahs have - call me bigoted if you will, but preaching hatred is something that the current incarnation of the Church seems to have moved beyond. Conservative Christians do not have the political influence to change the structure of Western society to a wholly fundamentalist set-up. Secularism is far too well-entrenched. In any regime (secular or theocratic), the potential for radicalisation of doctrine is present. However, to me, this seems to be a greater problem in the Middle East than in the Western world. Of course, my perspective is biased, as I am a Westerner and with the exception of Dubya's frequent dichotomisation of the issue into "good vs. evil", and the unfortunately titled Operation Infinite Justice, but this seems less likely to occur in a secular democratic state than in a non-democratic one.

That said, to hold the sins of (parts of) the medieval Church against its current incarnation is not helpful at all. Bigotry and hatred only foster more of the same, and there is plenty of that to go around already. The principles of rationality, proportionality and other liberal-capitalist concepts that dominate current thinking were unheard of in that era. Yes, mistakes were made. The point is to acknowledge them and move forward to correct what we can, rather than to dwell upon them.

 

I admire you Chevalier, because now I know how old are you , and I am amazed by seeing that you are very informed about almos everything, young people like you (and I think like any of the other girls/guys around) are hard to find here, where they spend most of the time drinking beer and getting drunk/drug in the streets.
Sorry, nothing to do with the post.
I posted something about this in another topic, I never understood so many things that they teach you instead what the Bible and history show us. I see them as an enterprise, thinking most of all in making money and creating churchs made of gold. Is just a matter of comparasion: you see/read about "old" apostols and see this new one, the Bible says: "they walk barefoot to spread the word of God..."; "Jesus drink his wine in a wooden cup"; etc., examples may go on and you see that NOBODY do that this days...
Everything now is about money. Few weeks ago one church declared bankruptcy (oh man, I have to improve my english if I am to continue posting here)
Best regards

 

(ugh, jumping in on one of these threads again.... )

There still is alot of resentment about the Crusades in countries with an Orthodox Christian tradition. Granted, there was a call for assistance from the West against Islamic invaders, but Orthodox Christians, not Muslims, were arguably the ultimate victims of the Crusades. Alot of Orthodox Christians still think that Constantinople wouldn't have fallen to the Turks in 1453 had it not been weakened by its brutal sacking in 1204 at the hands of the Latin Crusaders. Also, when Constantinople did fall, the Greek Chrurch saw the Latin Church as both unwilling to help and arrogant in the conditions (a declaration of unity between the churches that seemed to the Orthadox to be a sell-out to the Pope) it required for offering the little help it eventually gave. And so many Orthodox Christians today at least partially blame the Latin church for their subsequent subjugation and absorbtion into the Ottoman Empire.

Also, as to current-day relations, I believe the patriarch of Russia won't allow JPII to even visit the country...

 

Chevy, you are right, I agree with everything you say about the Middle Ages (and thanks for this historical reminder ), but the point is not to determine which Church is/was the worst or how things were in Middle Ages... I ask how different today's RCC is from MA's RCC.

Indeed, in every religion (at least in the Orthodox and Catholic Church and in Islam) there were Crusades... As you said, they had Jihad, you had Crusades and we had a campaign which can be considered as a crusade (that's Heracleus' campaign against the Persians, when he attempted to retrieve the Holy Cross). Since the begining of religion, politicians (name them kings, emperors, lords, whatever) use it for their own (or for their country's) interests...

As I said above, that's not the point (nevertheless, it's a very good issue for discussion ).

Jaguar did, whether he is right or wrong. So, can't you give this kind of answer?


HINT:

Maybe a typo, but anyway the Lindisfairne slaughter occured in 793...


Bion: True, but what that has to do with the topic?

 

Yes, yes, it was 793. The Vikings weren't active in the Western part of Europe back in the 6th/7th century.

Things change as history proves. Actually, history is about things changing. There's no possibility of things not changing over hundreds of years with politics involved and technological progress on the way.

We're all less pro-violence in the 20th/21th century, but, ironically, two greatest slaughters on this globe happened in the 20th century.

How much has changed since the crusades? Warmongers are a daily sight, ideology is their most useful tool, and it's not like leaders have started to give a damn about treaties and customs of war. There's always someone to breach cease-fire, slaughter civilians, execute POWs and the like.

Christian churches don't use war as a tool anymore, but they don't have political power anymore. That role is now played by neocons, leftist partisans and the like. Only Jihad remains, but it's not like Islamic clergy worldwide agree on all things with the terrorists, anyway.

As for the sack of Constantinople, I'm aware of what the Orthodox people feel towards the Catholics over that. However, Catholicism had nothing to do with that. The fourth crusade wasn't planned against Constantinople. Neither was it meant as a war on the Byzantine empire even at the moment of the sack.

Byzantium was in the middle of a power struggle between the Comnenoi and the Angeloi. Venice had old trade ties and old trade beef of its own with the Byzantine empire. Venice owned the navy that was to transport the crusaders to the Holy Land. The doge of Venice, Enrico Dandolo at that time, decided to intervene in Constantinople, Bush style. The crusaders also had old beef of their own with Byzantium over passage through Constantinople and the Bosphorus. Put it all together and you have it coming. Emperors changed and replaced in brief sequence, the chief line of the "legitimate" (using the word legitimate when speaking about any given Byzantine ruler or dynasty is more or less ridiculous) dynasty of the Comnenoi was reduced to two kids saved by the Georgian queen Tamara (a Saint of the Orthodox church) and had to flee to Trebisond. The Angeloi finally met the fate of replaced Byzantine emperors - which in most cases amounts to the loss of nose and/or eyes, hence the nickname Rhinotmetos some of them held

Dandolo suffered from Dubya Syndrome, but his personality was more Cheney-style. Ultimately, he had the crusaders do the job, under Boniface of Montferrat. He had some claim to Thessalonika by his brother Rainier, who was son-in-law of the Byzantine Emperor Manuel Comnenos. He had quite a bit of personal interest, a bit like Venice with its trade issues. Also, Boniface's cousin, Philip of Swabia, was married to Irene, a sister of the deposed Emperor Isaac Angelos. In fact, Alexios Angelos, the son of that deposed Emperor went with the crusaders to the Pope to ask blessing for a crusade against the Byzantine Empire.

What did the Pope Innocent (it's a name) do? Specifically told the whole bunch not to attack any Christian, including the Byzantines.

Boniface of Montferrat, the one with the dynastic claims was intended to be the new Emperor. They even "elected" him and all - supposedly the invaders and the Byzantinians both, but I hardly see the Byzantinians electing him, anyway.

Venice feared him, as with all those dynastic ties to both the Comnenoi and the Angeloi, he was a material for a real Emperor with his own claim and his own agenda, so Baldwin of Flanders got the job and Boniface got "only" a kingdom in Thessalonika. Both died shortly - Baldwin in 1205 in Bulgarian captivity, Boniface in 1207, beheaded when they got him.

The Pope condemned the crusaders and excommunicated the leaders when he learnt of what happened. No one cared.

Apart from the Latins in Constantinople, Thessalonika, Athens, Crete and Cyprus, one also had many Greek rulers, among them the Lascaris Emperors of Nikaia and the Comnenos Emperors of Trebisond to name the two most prominent. The Trebisond ones actually allied with the Latins and even begged to be included in the Latin Emperor's correspondence as vassals of the Latin Emperor in Constantinople to avoid downright annexation by the Nikaian Emperors. It happened and Greeks fought against Greeks alongside Franks in the war until in 1271 Michael Palaiologos, the Nikaian Emperor (co-Emperor of the last Lascaris Emperors, believed to have been involved in his death later) reclaimed Constantinople after dealing with almost all other Greek rulers standing on his way and he secured his own dynasty probably by involvement in the Lascaris heir's death. It lasted until 1453 when Constantinos "Dragases" Palaiologos, the last Emperor of the Byzantine Empire* was killed.

* If we consider the Trebisond Comnenoi to be the true heirs, the last Emperor would be killed in 1461 together with nearly all Comnenoi males after he surrendered to the Turks.

[offtopic]BTW, I've no idea what happened to the remaining Comnenoi - after all, "nearly all" doesn't mean all. There's a Palaiologos heir (real one, the line survived through some cousins, IIRC the offspring of Constantine's brother) in Italy, but I haven't heard of any Comnenos claimant. There are some families that are Comnenos branches under different surnames, but I'm not aware of any of them making any claims.[/offtopic]

Given this, it's hardly honest or reasonable to put the blame on the Catholic Church.

One can't tell if the Empire would have survived after 1453, either. The Seljuk Turks were already strong in Asia Minor and Mongols as well as the Ottoman Turks (plus Black Sheep Turks and other less important tribes) were on the way. Actually, even the Shah of Khorezm was interested and moved in to join the fray. And it's not like there had been unity amongst the Orthodox, anyway. There was always trouble with the Bulgarian neighbours, the Serbs and others. There were Mongols holding sovereignty over the Russian Princes at the time, and there was Venice and Genoa who didn't hesitate to slaughter Byzantine folks, cut their noses and ears off etc over one Genoese citizen getting slapped on his face by some young Greek aristocrat in Trebisond when the two competed for the Emperor's attention of the carnal kind. Yeah. To give just one example. The Empire would probably have lasted longer, but how much longer one doesn't know.

As for Latins not helping Constantinople in 1453, let's take a look:

France: they move and they get English forces landing in some five ports, moving straight on to Paris. Voila, rex Angliae et Franciae.

England: they move, they get the French go North and the Scots go South. The War of the Roses was going on.

Spain: they had their own Muslims, and it's not like the rulers of the Spanish kingdoms could trust one another.

Italy: ...mercenaries showed up (Giustiniani from Genoa for instance), Venice had its own troubles, couldn't help much - and they acted like dicks when dealing with the Byzantine Empire for business reasons. Not sure what the Empire itself would do in the Venice's shoes, actually, anyway.

The Pope: wasn't being listened to when it wasn't being profitable to listen to him.

Germany: no united Germany, all the time internal conflicts - political and often military. No prince could risk taking his army away.

Poland: no way, not with the Teutonic Knights on the North and Moscovy on the East - and Poland already fought the Turks together with Hungary.

Hungary: couldn't make it. They already fought the Turks and weren't exactly winning.

The Habsurgs: much like the rest of the German princes, and they also had the Husites to watch.

Burgundy: like German princes, plus France making moves to deal with them after what they did in the Hundred Years War.

Lithuania: the same trouble with Teutonic Knights as Poland and even more trouble with Muscovy and Mongol hordes. Internal struggles between princes.

The Czech: divided into Husites and anti-Husites. As the names suggest, both quite busy.

The Scandinavian kingdoms: in dire fights or in union, interchangeably. And involved in German struggles as well as having Teutonic Knights to fear. Sweden was busy in Finland.

I've pretty much covered all of them.

[ July 17, 2004, 02:44: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Chevy, WOW! You know all these by heart?

About the RCC:

and:

I am not aware of this...

About the sack of Constantinople:

I'm not aware of this either... But you say nothing about Russia. Why din't Russia gave a helping hand? They are Orthodox Christians and the Byzantine Empire and the Russian one were close allies at the time(IIRC).

One thing about the sacking of Constantinople:
When the crusaders reached Constantinople, a Byzantine aristocrat(I don't remember his name... damn, I should keep the school book of history), heir of an Emperor, thought he could use the crusaders to ascend to the throne. Crusaders entered the city in 1203 (after the entering of the crusaders in the city, this aristocrat became Emperor) and stayed there for about a year until it was finally plundered in 1204.

Very few Orthodox people hate you (you=Catholics). Most Orthodox people hate the "leaders" of Catholics... the Pope, the Cardinals and other high-ranked priests and not the Catholic people. And there is a large amount of people who doesn't hold anything against the RCC and think the two Churches should unite.

[ July 21, 2004, 16:44: Message edited by: Volsung ]

 

Well first of all there was no such thing as Russia. There was Muscowy, Novgorod, Sibir and other states which I do not remember. Many of these fought against the other to unite the russian states into one great Russia.

All of these also had another major problem and that was the golden horde which was still at large in eastern Russia, not to mention Lithaunia and Poland which both of course would have been more than happy to take the advantage of invading the Russian states if they would have been stupid enough to send troops to aid Byzantium. So the Russians had absolutely no chance to help Byzantium even if they would have wanted to, but the truth is that many of the Russian warlords were more than happy to see Byzantium fall so that they could take the Empires place as the centre of the Orthodox Church.

Nobody really cared that much about Byzantium, every state in Europe had more important things to worry about than the fall of Byzantium. Of course many eastern european nations would soon see that the Empire was no more there to stop the Ottomans when they decided to have a bigger piece of Europe.

 

First of all, Ruthenian duchies (some people may also kall them principalities as in Slavic languages there's one word for duke and prince) aren't considered Latin. As they were Orthodox, they didn't belong to the Catholic Church. That's why I didn't list them.

However, they couldn't help despite they were allies. They had already great trouble with Mongol Hordes (Tartarians) - they were vassalised to the Horde and remained in vassalage until late 15th century. Some became independent from the Horde earlier but they grew to depend on Lithuania or Poland. Teutonic knights and Sword Knights in Livonia still posed danger even after the great defeat at the hands of Polish, Lithuanian and other allied forces. Then, you also get the Swedes in Finland and pressing on Muscovy.

Still, it's not like all the powers I mentioned couldn't send at least some soldiers. Constantine had a grand total of seven thousand in Constantinople. Perhaps he would have survived for another decade or two if he had had more.

As for the aristocrat that was the heir of an Emperor, that one would be Alexios Angelos (of the Ducas family). I've listed them all, or more or less all in that insanely long paragraph about Byzantinian dynastic struggles. I can reiterate that in a more orderly manner if there's a need.

Does it go back to the sack of Constantinople and to Florentine Union or is it something closer to modern times?

 

I think it's both.... And it's not only due to some events. Greeks tend not to like someone who is different (different I mean in lifestyle, not the race, the language they speak etc) and they (or maybe should I say "we"? ) think they're the best and always right. Most Greeks also believe that it's not the people's fault, but the government's(generally speaking... the high-ranked priests' fault in this case). This, combined with historical reasons and events, have this hate as a result...
Hate... it's not something like "I want kill all Catholics! They're *** and ***!", but still there are people who doesn't like you much.

 

I see... Well, so far as power struggles weighed on the division in middle ages, we have two such "tops" - the Catholic and the Orthodox top. So far as I know, both believe they're at least "more right" than the other party and both want the other party to concede. From a purely logical standpoint, there's no reason whatsoever for either party to concede (if you're right you don't surrender before someone who's wrong unless you're forced to).

When I was in Greece, I talked to an iconic Greek shopkeeper about East vs West matters (IS XS Nika >> Nika >> Nika uprising >> Justinian >> Rome >> Greeks and Latins) and when it reached the religious stage, he waved his hand and said "God is one".

 

The Catholics have been vilified for years, and I think that's unfair in the extreme. Large issues of historical import aside, the Catholic Church, like most other religions Chevy mentioned, have an untold legacy of small simple good works -- the priest helps the flock in matters both spiritual and temporal. No one writes about the thousands of people who went to see their local priests with some problem or other and left feeling better and uplifted and no longer contemplating suicide, or the thousands of widows who received financial and emotional support organized and directed by a religious group. That stuff doesn't make news, only the negative material does.

I know that here in Canada, if you want something done in terms of helping people out, you contact Catholic Social Services.

And for those who don't know or remember me, I'm not even Catholic -- doctrinally I'm quite a ways from them, but I have nothing but respect for the thousands of decent Catholic churchgoers and priests -- I choose not to paint those decent people with a brush colored by the disgusting behaviour of a small group.