Ask me about Medieval England - Especially Christianity and Books

[Devor]

It seems important to mention that many of these indulgences at the time . . . weren't. Although donations were once considered an indulgence - which is, by definition, a sacrifice which merits grace - priests were fabricating documents and making promises that were well beyond their authority and any theological basis.

 

[Shockley]

That was certainly the case with guys like Tetzel, a few centuries down the road. That was not, however, the case with the Crusades. Look up Quantum Praedecessores, the Papal bull endorsing the Second Crusade, if my word is not good enough.

 

[Jess A]

Look at Matthew Hopkins The Witchfinder General - The most prolific witch hunter, executioner and torturer of witches in the 1600?s - BBC - Legacies - Myths and Legends - England - Essex - Witch-finder witch? - Article Page 1

- Matthew Hopkins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -

Mathew Hopkins -

They made a film about him - Witchfinder General - pretty old, not brill. But I suppose one source for you.

Hi Butterfly,

Thanks for the links - this is about the correct time period for my novel as well. I think I'll stick to reading the sources you gave me rather than seeing the film

 

[Jess A]

Which church are you talking about? The only church I have any knowledge of is Medieval Christianity, so I hope it is in some way useful. Also, the church and its hierarchy did change depending on the part of the Middle Ages you're talking about. I'm going to focus on the Later Middle Ages (1300-1500 approximately).

At the top of the hierarchy there was of course the Pope. The Pope served a similar function in terms of religion as he does now, but also wielded a vast amount of power over Christian rulers. In fact, quite often the kings of Western Europe petitioned the Pope for permission to declare war and were frequently excommunicated for disobeying the ruling of the Pope. There has generally only been one Pope, apart from a period between 1378 and 1415 called the 'Great Schism' where there were in fact two popes, one ruling from Rome and one from Avignon.

Below the Pope would have come the Cardinals, generally appointed by him. I'm not hugely familiar with the inner workings of the higher levels until we get to the Archbishops. Archbishops were also usually appointed by the Pope, and there were many disagreements between the Pope and ruling kings, for the kings wanted the right to appoint their own Archbishops (a French pope, for example, might appoint a Frenchman as Archbishop of Canterbury, but it would be unlikely that the English king would favour this and would rather appoint his own, loyal Englishman). Archbishops were advisors to the king, and also acted as conduits for transferring information to and from the Royal See.

Below this came bishops, who had jurisdiction over a variety of parishes and in theory were supposed to make sure the priests of the parishes were doing their jobs. However, to think that they were very holy men who ruled with an iron rod would be a misconception. Many bishops had their fingers in a number of businesses, including the running (and visiting) of brothels.

Priests were at the centre of the parishes, and were often the younger sons of lords (not necessarily important lords) who needed an income because all the land would go to the oldest son (this was not always the case, but generally the rule). Thus, while priests did conduct masses and other religious services/sacraments, they were not always very holy and many were in fact just doing it for an income. The main language of the Church was Latin, but some priests could not read, write or speak it very well.

The Middle Ages also saw the proliferation of many Holy Orders, one such being the Order of Preachers or the Black Friars (now commonly known as the Dominican Order). They were called the Black Friars because of the black cloaks they wore over their white habits. These friars would preach against heresy and try to spread the teachings of their particular order.

There were also members of the clergy that were enclosed - that lived within the confines of their monastery and did not often venture outside. These were based on the Rule of St Benedict, who wrote that monks should live a simple, impoverished life, eating only simple food and spending ample time in prayer. However, monks were excellent at bending the rules and often justified a far more lavish lifestyle. Monasteries often owned vast amounts of land, produced a lot of food of their own, and had monoplies on mills and baking-ovens. Monks also generated a lot of wealth by being paid to pray for the souls of others. A knight, back from fighting for the King, might have killed many people. Now killing, even for the king, was still prohibited in the Ten Commandments. He might be given a huge amount of prayer to cleanse his soul - but if he farmed it out to ten monks praying constantly for a year, he would be absolved a hell of a lot more quickly.

In this way, prayer gained currency. The more humble and simple a monk's life, the more people wanted to pay him as he would be seen as a good conduit for prayer. However, the more money he got, the less humble and simple his life became, and the monasteries became very rich indeed, and not very holy. That's when people started turning to cloistered nuns as a preferred method.

Another interesting fact would be that often, Bishops took up arms and went into battle. Apart from that, I don't know how much more I can tell you.



Oh, God. I hate the burning of heretics debate. Yes, people were burned as heretics, but not as often as you might think. In fact, you could only actually be properly called a heretic if you admitted it yourself. If you didn't actually admit, 'yes I am a heretic' then you weren't technically speaking a heretic. You were just accused of it.

There were not as many people burned at the stake as popular media would have you believe. As for special ceremonies, as far as I'm aware there aren't any. You went to a field, built a big wood pile with a stake in it and tied the person to it. Then it was lit, probably with some prayers and condemnations given by a priest or friar. Sometimes family members would bring along other fuel to help the fire burn faster and kill the person quicker, such as the carcass of a pig, but too often these just turned into bombs made of fat and exploded, causing the person even more agony. The skin and fat would start to melt and burn off, but the cause of death was usually asphyxiation.

One common method for determining if someone was a witch or not was called Trial by Ordeal. This took the form of throwing the accused into a body of water. If they floated, they were a witch. If they sank, they weren't. However. 'witch hunts' didn't really come about until the 1700s, not really in the Middle Ages.

And in case anyone is starting to furiously bang your fingers on the keyboard to tell me how very wrong I am about heretics, save your breath. I am really not interested in getting into a conversation about it. These are my views, based on literature and history that I have studied. I might be wrong and I might be underestimating - that's fine. But I am not open for debate at this time.

Yes I meant medieval Christianity. I appreciate your knowledge - it doesn't matter if it is of one specific period. Thank you for the information - it is a great help and it will help me structure my own religion. Since I was not raised to follow any religion, I have little knowledge of the inner workings of the Christian church.

As for the heretics, I did not intend to start any debates. I studied heresy and witchcraft a little in university, but history was not my major and I put a lot of focus on politics in that unit rather than on the heresy/witchcraft side of things. It was a unit on early modern Europe, however! But information from any period will be useful to me.

The pig carcass is both gruesome and interesting - I may have to throw that into a scene.

Thank you for your time and your information.

 

[artisticrainey]

Yes I meant medieval Christianity. I appreciate your knowledge - it doesn't matter if it is of one specific period. Thank you for the information - it is a great help and it will help me structure my own religion. Since I was not raised to follow any religion, I have little knowledge of the inner workings of the Christian church.

As for the heretics, I did not intend to start any debates. I studied heresy and witchcraft a little in university, but history was not my major and I put a lot of focus on politics in that unit rather than on the heresy/witchcraft side of things. It was a unit on early modern Europe, however! But information from any period will be useful to me.

The pig carcass is both gruesome and interesting - I may have to throw that into a scene.

Thank you for your time and your information.

You're welcome! I'm by no means an expert but I'm glad to share any information that I can

 

[Devor]

That was certainly the case with guys like Tetzel, a few centuries down the road. That was not, however, the case with the Crusades. Look up Quantum Praedecessores, the Papal bull endorsing the Second Crusade, if my word is not good enough.

Quantum Praedecessores doesn't mention Indulgences even once. The only item in it of theological consequence is this (the bold is an old trick for learning to read these things; read just the bold to get to the point):

According to the institution of our aforesaid predecessor, by the authority of almighty God and by that of St. Peter the chief of the apostles, conceded to us by God, we grant such remission and absolution of sins, that he who shall devoutly begin so sacred a journey and shall accomplish it, or shall die during it, shall obtain absolution for all his sins which with a humble and contrite heart he shall confess, and shall receive the fruit of eternal retribution from the Remunerator of all.

What were we talking about again?

Since that's pretty close to how confession normally works inside the Catholic Church, it might not even be immediately clear what the Pope is offering. But as part of hearing Confession, the priest uses his own judgement to ask for penance, typically a few Hail Marys and an Our Fathers. But sometimes they can be arduous. If you confess to murder, for instance, the priest will probably request that you turn yourself in to receive absolution. I've a friend who confessed to downloading thousands of songs illegally, and the priest told him to give a dollar to charity for each song as his penance. Sometimes in the Middle Ages, the priests asked for long pilgrimages to Rome or other shrines.

In Quantum Praedecessores, the Pope is offering to direct priests to waive such arduous penances for those involved in the crusades, and to endorse the crusades, in exchange for the French leaders protecting the property of these soldiers while they are away.

Nobody's denying that the Pope endorsed the crusades, but waiving penance for soldiers after a lengthy conflict doesn't seem like something to be upset about. And there's nothing there about indulgences.

 

[Phietadix]

You can't say that the bible says all killing is wrong. In the bible God commands people to kill and sometimes Punishs them for not killing those he told them to. But he says murder is wrong and punishs people for murder. for example David and Bathsheba. Then again Medieval Chirstianity isn't well known for following the Bible.

 

[Shockley]

In Quantum Praedecessores, the Pope is offering to direct priests to waive such arduous penances for those involved in the crusades, and to endorse the crusades, in exchange for the French leaders protecting the property of these soldiers while they are away.

I'm going to take your definition of what is in Quantum Praedecessores and contrast with the Catholic Dictionary's definition of 'Indulgence.' Bolding in your post, of course, is mine.

As originally understood, an indulgence was a mitigation of the severe canonical penances imposed on the faithful for grave sins.

There is no difference between what you have just defined and what the definition of indulgence was during the Middle Ages.

 

[Devor]

Maybe. However, the eradication of heretics through killing is not itself an indulgence. The indulgence, by your definition, would be the mercy granted by the Church to participants in the Crusades. You were giving the impression that killing heretics was somehow blessed by the Church, but waiving a severe penance doesn't make a sinful act not a sin.

I'll remind you again, the severe penances of the Middle Ages aren't even typically a part of modern confessions.

However, by a more common definition, an indulgence is a sacrificial action deserving of merit, many of which are specifically defined by the Church. That's the only definition by which an action can be an indulgence, and the only one for which the Church typically has gotten in trouble. Loosely speaking, anything done with the right mindset can be an indulgence - not every single Crusader was an evil pig; in fact, the 2nd Crusade which Quantum Praedecessores addresses was as much a rescue mission as anything - but the Church has never gone about granting spiritual rewards specifically for killing.

 

[Shockley]

Maybe. However, the eradication of heretics through killing is not itself an indulgence. The indulgence, by your definition, would be the mercy granted by the Church to participants in the Crusades. You were giving the impression that killing heretics was somehow blessed by the Church, but waiving a severe penance doesn't make a sinful act not a sin.

It would be one thing if the Popes of the time had said 'This is a bad thing that you are doing, but it won't be held against you.' It's quite another to say, 'Do this wonderful thing (ie, killing many Muslims, Jews and other Christians) and you will not have to perform pennance.'

I'll remind you again, the severe penances of the Middle Ages aren't even typically a part of modern confessions.

No one was talking about modern confession - the question is about the church during the Middle Ages, when matters of pennance, indulgence and yes, the eradication of heretics and non-Christians was not frowned upon.

However, by a more common definition, an indulgence is a sacrificial action deserving of merit, many of which are specifically defined by the Church.

A church which has redifined what an indulgence is and what it does many times over the years. Again, this is pertaining to the purpose, place and meaning of indulgences in the Middle Ages. We can not apply modern improvements of the indulgence system backwards in time.