StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Seriously now. What are your opinions on Pope Innocent III?
12th-13th centuries

I was studying him as he related to the new papal enforcements during the high middle ages. Isn't it sort of irony how the pope wanted to use spiritual weapons agaist the monarchies of europe to gain worldy and spiritual power, yet they fought in the previous century to free the church from lay investiture???????

It seems hypocritical.

Lay investiture = Kings and such can invest Bishops, ergo control the Church.
Church power = Church controls the Kings.

No conflict. One is in the Church's interest, one isn't.

How is there no conflict? The churct wanted freedom from the secular authorities, yet they wanted to control the government. Gregory was against lay investiture. Eventually teh practice was molded by the Concordat of Worms.

After this compromise, the Papacy not only wanted to free themselves but force their ideals on the government. Seems conflictory to me.

Should not this thread be in SLAM?

Strate_Egg wrote:How is there no conflict? The churct wanted freedom from the secular authorities, yet they wanted to control the government. Gregory was against lay investiture. Eventually teh practice was molded by the Concordat of Worms.

After this compromise, the Papacy not only wanted to free themselves but force their ideals on the government. Seems conflictory to me.

How is that a conflict? The Papacy wanted to free itself from the governments and then control them instead. It's not that hard to comprehend.

Obviously its a conflict of morals as well as a conflict between government/church.

THe whole idea is that they are saying they are this " supreme" and moral justice of god and that they shoudl be free of government control, yet htey want to control it themselves.


Pope Innocent III killed thousands as well as hurt the everyday religious lives of the people by refusing t hem sacrements. By doign this, he made the people rise up agaist the government.


THat is a conflict and ironic.

Strate_Egg wrote:THe whole idea is that they are saying they are this " supreme" and moral justice of god and that they shoudl be free of government control, yet htey want to control it themselves.

That's because he's a hypocrite, genius.

That's because he's a hypocrite, genius

I know. Some dont agree, i just wanted to ask what the majority thought. Im trying to come up with a theme for the middle ages

That's because he's a hypocrite, genius

I know. Some dont agree, i just wanted to ask what the majority thought. Im trying to come up with a theme for the middle ages

Strate_Egg wrote:Obviously its a conflict of morals as well as a conflict between government/church.

Well, it's a conflict between the Church and the monarchies, but why is that hypocritical?

Strate_Egg wrote:THe whole idea is that they are saying they are this " supreme" and moral justice of god and that they shoudl be free of government control, yet htey want to control it themselves.

Hypocrisy is the pretense of having virtues or beliefs one does not actually possess.

Holy Roman Empire: (lay investiture) We the government should have power over you, Church!
Church: (First round) No, the goverment has no right to tell Us what to do!
Church: (Second round) Not only does the goverment have no right to interfere in Our affairs, but We should have power over it.

I don't see any hypocrisy in that. There is no conflict between the Church position against lay investiture and its position about the supremity of its power. In fact, one is just an enhancement of the other.

Well, i just can't fathom how the church can sit there and proclaim its freedom from government control and then run around trying to tie downt he Emperor with its own rules and law. It seems stupid and blind.

Strate_Egg wrote:Well, i just can't fathom how the church can sit there and proclaim its freedom from government control and then run around trying to tie downt he Emperor with its own rules and law. It seems stupid and blind.

It's not really hyprocritical nor is it "stupid and blind". Especially if you accept the notion that the Church is the supreme moral authority. If anything the Church (being supremely moral) out to have control over the governments rather than the presumably immoral governments over the Church.

It's only hypocritical when you make it so by your assumption that the Church demanded isolation.

Strate_Egg wrote:Well, i just can't fathom how the church can sit there and proclaim its freedom from government control and then run around trying to tie downt he Emperor with its own rules and law. It seems stupid and blind.

There is no conflict between this claim and its position against lay investiture, and hence no hypocrisy. Whether or not the Church was right in its claim to supreme power is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they were hypocritical in claiming so.

It's not really hyprocritical nor is it "stupid and blind". Especially if you accept the notion that the Church is the supreme moral authority. If anything the Church (being supremely moral) out to have control over the governments rather than the presumably immoral governments over the Church.

It's only hypocritical when you make it so by your assumption that the Church demanded isolation.

Oh well, i think its stupid for the church to try to free itself from government but then try to force themselves on the government. It is ironic and blind of them. "you cant do it but i can." That is about what it was.

It's only hypocritical when you make it so by your assumption that the Church demanded isolation.

They wanted to separate church and state in theory. That was their pretense. Then they switched up and showed what they really wanted...papal control.

Can you at least put everything in one post?

Strate_Egg wrote:Oh well, i think its stupid for the church to try to free itself from government but then try to force themselves on the government. It is ironic and blind of them. "you cant do it but i can." That is about what it was.

From a strictly secular/atheist veiw of course it's stupid (but then again the whole concept of organized religion is too). But from the position of that day and age it made sense, in both spiritual and secular terms.

Strate_Egg wrote:They wanted to separate church and state in theory. That was their pretense. Then they switched up and showed what they really wanted...papal control.

No, they didn't want to seperate Church and State. They wanted the Church to be free of state influence and eventually to be able to influence the State. What they wanted was Church superiority to the State.

Clearly you have no idea of the situation and have simply repackaged your preconceptions and applied it to them. Thats why your tiny little brain is so addled by the whole situation.

Wasn't Pope "Innocent" III one of the more bloodthirsty Popes?

Oh, and Spammer_Egg , the Church wanted to be the Law of the World. It didn't want to kowtow to anything, in fact it wanted to be the One World Government (an insanely bloodthirsty and corrupt one that makes any possible post-UN World Government look like benevolent, reasonable folks too) as in Alpha and Omega in one. Think about it from their view: They gain freedom from government control, then go on a mad power-trip to they'll be the be-all end-all government in which no one except the Pope a few of the top cardinals, and the jackbooted terrorist thugs they use as enforcers are truly free to do as they please...

Stormbringer wrote:Can you at least put everything in one post?

I find that quite annoying and wasteful as well, Stormy. Not that he'll listen to us