Posted on 09/02/2006 8:14:14 AM PDT by Petrosius
You wrote:
"Spend a few months reading some good histories of the Middle Ages, and then we can have an informed conversation."
Uh, rocket scientist, as I already noted, I spent well over a decade reading most of the best books ever written about medieval history when I was a graduate student. I have a PhD in Medieval History. Since I already pointed this out to you it is apparent that you didn't even read the post I wrote. This says more about your literacy and intentions to learn the truth than anything you can opine about medieval clerics. Thank you for so easily proving you have absolutely no interest in being well informed.
"Secular clergy in the Middle Ages had no education."
(sigh) Then who were all of those clerics at all of those medieval universities? Who were all of those students at all of those cathedral schools? How about all of the students at all of those monastic schools? Who were they?
Your reply is absurd! It isn’t even rational.
University of Bologna – founded 1088
University of Paris – founded 1150
University of Oxford – founded before 1167
University of Modena – founded 1175
University of Regio – founded 1188
University of Vicenza – founded 1204
University of Cambridge – founded 1209
University of Palencia – founded 1212
University of Arezzo – founded 1215
University of Salamanca – founded 1218
University of Padua – founded 1222
University of Naples – founded 1224 by Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor
University of Toulouse – founded 1229
University of Siena – founded 1240
University of Valencia – founded 1245
University of Piancenza – founded 1248
University of Valladolid – founded 1250
University of Sevilla – founded 1254
Sorbonne (at the University of Paris) – founded 1257
University of Montpellier – founded 1289
University of Coimbra – founded 1290 (in Lisbon)
University of Rome La Sapienza – founded 1303
University of Macerata – founded 1290
University of Lisbon – founded 1290
University of Lérida – founded 1300
University of Avignon – founded 1303
University of Orléans – founded 1306
University of Perugia – founded 1308
University of Coimbra – founded 1308
University of Treviso – founded 1318
University of Cahors – founded 1332
University of Angers – founded 1337
University of Pisa – founded 1338
University of Grenoble – founded 1339
Charles University of Prague – founded 1348
University of Florence – founded 1349
University of Perpignan – founded 1350
Jagiellonian University, Krakow – founded 1364
University of Vienna – founded 1365
University of Pécs – founded 1367
University of Erfurt – founded 1379
University of Heidelberg – founded 1385
University of Cologne – founded 1388
University of Ferrara – founded 1391 by papal bull
University of Zadar – founded 1396
University of Fermo – founded 1398 by papal bull
University of Leipzig – founded 1409
University of St Andrews – founded 1413
University of Rostock – founded 1419
University of Leuven – founded 1425
University of Barcelona – founded 1450
University of Glasgow – founded 1451 by papal bull
University of Greifswald – founded 1456
University of Basel – founded 1460
University of Bratislava (Universitas Istropolitana) – founded 1465
University of Uppsala – founded 1477
University of Copenhagen – founded 1479
University of Aberdeen – founded 1495
“There only requirement was to say the Mass.”
No. They also officiated at baptisms, weddings, funerals, blessings, recording of records, handled parish roles, parish accounts, etc. You are completely clueless about much.
“They lived with woman and had children with them.”
Some did. Some didn’t. Especially after the tenth and eleventh centuries when celibacy started to be demanded by bishops and councils.
“All of this was accepted by the villagers.”
To some extent yes. But you are forgetting that even peasants knew when the priest was not living up to his vows. Common people begged St. Francis to stop their local priest from violating his vows by openly living with a woman. They all expected St. Francis to rebuke the priest, in other words, chew him out. He didn’t, but he did stop the priest nonetheless. There are many examples of common people, yes, even peasants being upset that their local priest was not celibate when he was supposed to be.
“This is all very well documented by historians of that period.”
Again, you are simply throwing up stereotypes.
“You are projecting the Counter Reformation onto the Middle Ages.”
No, I am not. I know the difference. Every example or fact I cited IS FROM BEFORE THE PROTESTANT REVOLUTION. Get a clue. If you can’t tell the difference between generally before 1500 and well after the mid-century then you have a serious problem.
“You will need to set aside you religious prejudices to look at the facts of history objectively.”
I did. It was called graduate school. That’s what made me a Catholic. I showed up with religious prejudices. I left educated and Catholic. Wish you could claim the same.
How “stripes1776” is changing his story:
Originally in post #18, stripes1776 wrote the following: “At the time of the Reformation, the typical Catholic priest was an uneducated peasant who know no Latin except what he memorized for the Mass and pronounced very badly.”
Notice the time reference: “At the time of the Reformation…” That would have to be about 1520. Keep that in mind.
Also, notice who we are talking about: “…the typical Catholic priest…” First of all, what does that mean? That seems like a very loosely identified person indeed!
Stripes, however, has now refined the identity of the “typical Catholic priest” to be (as he wrote in post #20): "Secular clergy in the Middle Ages had no education." So now it is “secular clergy”. In other words, we are now told it is diocesan clergy who “had no education” in the Middle Ages. So even though there were literally tens of thousands of chapels and churches run by order clergy they aren’t typical?
And does that “Middle Ages” reference now mean we are no longer talking about “At the time of the Reformation”?
How will stripes change or refine his tune next?
When will he actually present any evidence to bolster his assertions? Stay tuned.
bttt
You are talking about the late Middle Ages after the Gregorian Reforms. Before that, secular clergy did not have an education, and they had concubines and illegitimate children. And none of this shocked the villagers. It was just accepted as the way things were done. That is the way it was for many centuries. I am talking about the vast majority of the priests who were poor at the bottom of the church hierarchy. The situation was quite different with the bishops who were from wealthy aristocratic families.
As your list shows, there were few universities until the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries--late in the Middle Ages. And who were those who attended? The sons of wealthy aristocrats and later rich merchants from the growing towns who could afford the tuition. These were the people who got the jobs at high levels in the church hierarchy, like bishop--a post that came with a very high income and only went to aristocratic sons and the wealthy--and other privileged clergy.
You wrote:
"You are talking about the late Middle Ages after the Gregorian Reforms."
Generally, yes. And you were too if you believe "At the time of the Refomation" came AFTER the Gregorian Reforms, which it did. Are you now claiming to be talking about ONLY before the Gregorian Reforms? That was before the middle of the 11th century. Last time I checked the Reformation was in the sixteenth century. Just as I predicted, you're changing your story again.
"Before that, secular clergy did not have an education, and they had concubines and illegitimate children."
All of them really? Every last one of them? So, if every single diocesan priest had a concubine then why would they pretend that the children were not their's, as you imply, by calling them "nephews" as you claim? Your story is unraveling. Please cite a reputable source that says ALL pre-mid-11th century secular clergy had no education whatsoever, and had concubines. Could you do that for me?
"And none of this shocked the villagers. It was just accepted as the way things were done. That is the way it was for many centuries. I am talking about the vast majority of the priests who were poor at the bottom of the church hierarchy."
Oh, so now it isn't ALL diocesan, secular priests, but the "vast majority of priests who were poor"? So your story has changed even in this post?
"The situation was quite different with the bishops who were from wealthy aristocratic families."
How? Did having wealth make them less likely to have concubines and children or more likely to be educated? And if there were wealthy bishops of aristocratic birth then were the part of the ALL of just not part of the VAST MAJORITY?
"As your list shows, there were few universities until the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries--late in the Middle Ages. And who were those who attended? The sons of wealthy aristocrats and later rich merchants from the growing towns who could afford the tuition."
(sigh) Some nobles did indeed attend. Some merchants' did as well. But the VAST MAJORITY of both students and professors were clerics, both secular and regular. This is a fact. Anyone would know this if they ever had to read over a matriculation role from a medieval university. I had to do it for German universities. Who founded almost every single one of these universities? The Church. Who attended? Mostly churchmen.
"These were the people who got the jobs at high levels in the church hierarchy,..."
Whoa! So they weren't nobles and merchants, but CHURCHMEN in other words of noble birth and the merchant class? Again, your story is changing.
"... like bishop--a post that came with a very high income and only went to aristocratic sons and the wealthy--and other privileged clergy."
1) Not all bishops were of noble birth. (Just as not all knights were of noble birth by the way). You are once again making an ALL statement that doesn't work.
2) There are ready examples of bishops who were only noble on one side of their family or not noble at all. St. Wulfstan of Worchester comes to mind. He was noble on his mother’s side. His mother’s brother was also a bishop. He became bishop in 1062 and was not effected by the Gregorian Reforms since his earlier monastic training was already reformed since the tenth century. Just before the Protestant Revolution you also have the example of Tamás Bakócz who was the son of a wheelwright, attended the universities of Cracow, Ferrara and Padova and later became bishop of Gyr in Hungary. There are other examples, but would you even consider then if I spent the time hunting for them?
By the way, since you falsely accuse me of putting the “counter Reformation” into the Middle Ages I might as well go ahead and cite a book that would prove that case if I made it (which I haven’t): Joseph Bergin, Crown, Church and Episcopate under Louis XIV, (New Haven, Connecticut, Yale University Press, 2004). He went over the careers of 600 French bishops and discovered exactly how many were NOT of noble birth. Check it out maybe?
Could you add to that average Russian factory worker circ 1900?
Sorry, I have no idea what the info is on that. Maybe that link will take you to the info?
I think Orthodox Russia would be very serious about ceasing work on Sundays and important feast days. Just my guess mind you.
Actually I found a possible answer!
230 days of work. Here's the problem: I went to google and typed in something like "annual average work hours Russia 1900." The google results came up. I went to one page (I used the cached page to scan read quickly) and just when I found a possible answer my computer froze up and my internet connection died. I have no idea why.
Well, I tried, but can't find it again. It's at marxism.org in the history archives if I am not mistaken. It had a referenced citation. Before I could look at it my computer froze up!
I was making a generalization about the Middle Ages. It is a very long period, roughly 450-1500 AD. The vast majority of priests in that period were poor and uneducated. The Gregorian reforms did bring some some changes. There several reform movements throughout that 1000 year period we call the Middle Ages. If they had been more successful, a Catholic like Martin Luther wouldn't have started his reform movement.
"Before that, secular clergy did not have an education, and they had concubines and illegitimate children."
All of them really? Every last one of them? So, if every single diocesan priest had a concubine then why would they pretend that the children were not their's, as you imply, by calling them "nephews" as you claim? Your story is unraveling. Please cite a reputable source that says ALL pre-mid-11th century secular clergy had no education whatsoever, and had concubines. Could you do that for me?
Again, that is a generality. It describes the general situation.
Oh, so now it isn't ALL diocesan, secular priests, but the "vast majority of priests who were poor"? So your story has changed even in this post?
Not at all. The vast majority of priests were poor and uneducated. That is a generality. You could find a priest who wasn't poor, for example a bishop, but exceptions do not disprove a generality. The vast majority of priests were poor.
Not all bishops were of noble birth. (Just as not all knights were of noble birth by the way). You are once again making an ALL statement that doesn't work.
Again, I'm not making an ALL statemen. I am making a generality that describes the usual situation. Only a wealthy vassal with land could afford to raise horses and train to be a knight (calvary man). He would have had serfs working the land, or vassals below him in charge of the land. As for bishops, that job went to the sons of aristocrats, that is to say landed vassals as well, because a great deal of land and money came with the office. You can drag up all the exceptions you want. An exception doesn't disprove a generality.
By the way, since you falsely accuse me of putting the “counter Reformation” into the Middle Ages
That's now what I said. I said in effect that I thought you were bringing modern suppositions to your reading of the history of the Middle Ages. That is what projection means in the context I used it.
The quality of the clergy depended on the quality of the Lord who provided them with a living. Pluralism also left many livings in the hands of the untrained. But you are also neglecting the role of the religious orders.
They went from place to place providing the preaching that was neglected by the local clergy, almost armed with Paris Bibles in the pockets of their gowns, thousands of which are still preserved, to use as the basis of their sermons. San Bernadino preaches to huge crowds, much as Wesley was to do in 18th Century England. Preaching by university trained clergy was available in the larger churches. Luther is the type of this sort of priest.
The point is that an article about reform in Islam was also a Catholic screed against Protestants. Really a cheap shot.
The Reformers claimed to be returning the Church to her original purity. What did it accomplish? Religious warfare on a horrific scale, and persecution on both sides which discredited Christianity in the eyes of so many of the educated that they turned to a substitute religion called the Enlightenment. Lewis Mumford called it a modern form of the worship of Apollo.
I'd heard once that despite all the communist rhetoric the workers had it damn better pre-communism than they did post-communism... Never seen a source on it.
Islam is involved in a war of extermination against the West while the West is involved in massive social work against the Mohammedans.
You wrote:
"I was making a generalization about the Middle Ages."
And how successful do generalizations usually turn out to be? If it was a generalization then why did you time stamp it with; "At the time of the Reformation"? You're changing your story AGAIN.
"It is a very long period, roughly 450-1500 AD. The vast majority of priests in that period were poor and uneducated."
Yes, but you were talking about "At the time of the Reformation". Make up your mind. What period are you talking about? Why do you keep changing your story?
"The Gregorian reforms did bring some some changes. There several reform movements throughout that 1000 year period we call the Middle Ages. If they had been more successful, a Catholic like Martin Luther wouldn't have started his reform movement."
Incorrect. Luther's problem was heresy and pride, not a lack of reform. Luther was a product of a reform movement IN THE MIDDLE AGES. He was born in 1483 after all. He attended a medieval institution -- A UNIVERSITY. He went through a scholastic education program. No, Luther's problem was not society or the church, but his own overweaning pride and heresy.
"Again, that is a generality. It describes the general situation."
I asked for evidence. If it is a generality then it should be all the easier to prove, correct? So can you?
"Not at all. The vast majority of priests were poor and uneducated. That is a generality."
"At the time of the Reformation"? Where is your evidence of this? You keep changing your story. Where is your evidence for ANY OF THIS?
"You could find a priest who wasn't poor, for example a bishop, but exceptions do not disprove a generality. The vast majority of priests were poor."
"At the time of the Reformation"? Where is your evidence?
"Again, I'm not making an ALL statemen."
You most certainly were, and it was placed "At the time of the Reformation".
"I am making a generality that describes the usual situation. Only a wealthy vassal with land could afford to raise horses and train to be a knight (calvary man)."
You are missing the point: 1) Not all knights were of noble birth, 2) knechts in Germany were poor knights, but they possessed their low ranking noble status. Your answer is dancing around everywhere. When will you provide evidence for your assertions?
"He would have had serfs working the land, or vassals below him in charge of the land. As for bishops, that job went to the sons of aristocrats, that is to say landed vassals as well, because a great deal of land and money came with the office. You can drag up all the exceptions you want. An exception doesn't disprove a generality."
An exception certainly disproves the certainity of relying on generalizations. Rather than make generalize, wouldn't be better for your case to PROVE SOMETHING?
"That's now what I said. I said in effect that I thought you were bringing modern suppositions to your reading of the history of the Middle Ages. That is what projection means in the context I used it."
You just repeated essentially what I said. In post #20, you wrote: “You are projecting the Counter Reformation onto the Middle Ages.” I pointed out in #21, "No, I am not. I know the difference. Every example or fact I cited IS FROM BEFORE THE PROTESTANT REVOLUTION. Get a clue. If you can’t tell the difference between generally before 1500 and well after the mid-century then you have a serious problem." In post #25, I wrote: "By the way, since you falsely accuse me of putting the “counter Reformation” into the Middle Ages..."
Now, how is your comment in post #20 different from my comment in post #25? The two comments are the same. You said "projected" and I wrote, "putting". Clearly the two comments are the same. I really wish you would stop changing your story. I don't know who you are trying to kid with this display of "generalizations" and constantly changing your story. It isn't going to work if your purpose is to get away from the fact that you made a claim about:
"At the time of the Reformation"
Either stand up and defend your words or admit you were wrong, but stop this constant changing of your story.
In terms of time off I know I have read that workers were better off BEFORE the communist take over. I think the same is true BEFORE the Reformation. The "reformers" simply destroyed much of medieval work culture in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The guilds lost their religious functions and then lost their point for being in general. That meant there was no longstanding organization to protect craftsmen. Holidays disappeared. Christmas became a workday in mid-seventeenth century England.
There is a book that goes into great detail on some of the economic ravages of the "Reformation" on the lower classes by William Cobbett, a Protestant writing in the early nineteenth century, called History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland. You can get a used copy through Amazon.com for under $14. New copies are about $22. The book is a real eye-opener.
"The point is that an article about reform in Islam was also a Catholic screed against Protestants. Really a cheap shot."
War, famine, genocide, heresy, agnosticism, atheism, passivity, rabid capitalism, communism, socialism, indifferentism, modernism, liberalism, totalitarianism....
Those are the fruits - often competing fruits - of the Protestant Revolution. I think that Revolution deserves a shot, even a cheap one, now and then.
Bosh.
Great revolutions are rarely bloodless, but those wars resulted in freedom of religion. As for the Enlightenment, we all benefit from the ideas of the period. One of those was the scientific method that gives us things like computers and the Internet. I am not giving up any of that, so I appreciate many ideas of that period, although not uncritically.
I am not a Catholic apologeticist, so we will not agree about the meaning of specific periods or events. But the ideas forged in violence during the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment made it possible for Protestants to found the United States. And it is why those Protestants allowed millions of Catholics to immigrate here. And I think this is an idea few Catholics appreciate. Each to his taste.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.