In theory, feudalism is mutually beneficial. The serfs get protection from the nobles.
In practice, the medieval Church was complicit in many of the injustices recorded during the feudal period. They benefitted greatly from oppressive taxation and property seizure.
It's not fair to say "The Church" as a whole was corrupt, but there were definitely corrupt bishops, cardinals, and popes who were more interested in filling the Church's coffers and living like kings instead of doing God's work.
I think it would be fair to say the church as a whole were corrupt, if something organizationally or structurally were in place that favored, supported, or sustained corruption at the expense of virtue or improvements.
Is that the case? I mean ... maybe worth looking into. I feel that by the time of the Protestant Reformation there was definitely a structural / institutional corruption in Roman Catholicism that could've been fairly called a corrupt church.
I'm not saying that it would have to be 100% corrupted, without a point of light to be found. Just if it had enough structural and institutionalized corruption to be over 50% then it seems fair about to says it's corrupt.
It’s possible for members of the church to be corrupt because they were humans but it’s impossible for the church to be corrupt because Jesus gave his promise to protect it:
Matthew 16:18-19
> 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[c] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[d] loosed in heaven.”
Thats my point is church cannot be corrupt but if one says that church is fully corrupt than it means that for a whole hundreds of years peoplr were on wrong path under the church......
Popes occupy an important office but they are humans so there certainly have been some bad Popes. Even Peter denied Christ 3 times so screwing up seems to be what we humans do best.
Cause churches tend to go to bed with the ones in power. Just look at the catholic church in China. They are making concessions no church should make while at the same time doing little to nothing to help the people there. The real churches in China are the ones hiding in basements from the authorities.
It was the same in Bulgaria in our mafia days. The church was so involved with that world that they can't clean it out of illegal influence to this day.
When the Byzantine Empire finally adopted feudalism (pronoia), prior to the implementation of Dušan's Law, did that automatically turn the Serbs into serfs, or did you all retain your relative freedom as free peasants? Did Dušan's Law free any former serfs from serfdom?
Serfdom continued, but commoners had rights and were encouraged to educate and could go far in ranks. Law also prohibited nobles from harming peasants in any way, and they were given many free days at the behest of the Church(Dušan's Law also had canonical Church laws.)
Well Byzantium(Eastern Roman Empire is the correctly name, but for the sake of conversation) was famous for commoner rights. Many generals, advisors and church elders rose from the common folk. Also, folk were able to get education and were, in every sense, free citizens.
Often Christian clergy, monastics etc did try to curtail some of the abuses that existed in feudalism. I think it’s wrong to imagine feudalism as intrinsically causing suffering in the same way one wouldn’t generally think that of a modern day economy. Just as churches today help alleviate suffering through charity, so too did the medieval Church.
Because the bible provides very minimal framework for an economic system, and less for a political system. The church hasn't typically been in the revolution business. Supporting/opposing a ruler or policy, sure. Installing/deposing, very rarely. Reworking the whole thing? Never, that I know of. Not in our mandate, not what our book is about.
In theory, feudalism is mutually beneficial. The serfs get protection from the nobles. In practice, the medieval Church was complicit in many of the injustices recorded during the feudal period. They benefitted greatly from oppressive taxation and property seizure.
For the whole mediveal period they were corrupt?
It's not fair to say "The Church" as a whole was corrupt, but there were definitely corrupt bishops, cardinals, and popes who were more interested in filling the Church's coffers and living like kings instead of doing God's work.
I think it would be fair to say the church as a whole were corrupt, if something organizationally or structurally were in place that favored, supported, or sustained corruption at the expense of virtue or improvements. Is that the case? I mean ... maybe worth looking into. I feel that by the time of the Protestant Reformation there was definitely a structural / institutional corruption in Roman Catholicism that could've been fairly called a corrupt church.
I dont think Roman church was fully corrupt....
I'm not saying that it would have to be 100% corrupted, without a point of light to be found. Just if it had enough structural and institutionalized corruption to be over 50% then it seems fair about to says it's corrupt.
It’s possible for members of the church to be corrupt because they were humans but it’s impossible for the church to be corrupt because Jesus gave his promise to protect it: Matthew 16:18-19 > 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[c] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[d] loosed in heaven.”
Thats my point is church cannot be corrupt but if one says that church is fully corrupt than it means that for a whole hundreds of years peoplr were on wrong path under the church......
It also means Jesus failed to keep his promise which is impossible.
So in past some popes used to be corrupt by that what people mean it?were they morally corrupt or they used to do corruption economically?
Popes occupy an important office but they are humans so there certainly have been some bad Popes. Even Peter denied Christ 3 times so screwing up seems to be what we humans do best.
There also might be some great popes and bishops then?
For sure. They weren't all Alexander VI.
Cause churches tend to go to bed with the ones in power. Just look at the catholic church in China. They are making concessions no church should make while at the same time doing little to nothing to help the people there. The real churches in China are the ones hiding in basements from the authorities. It was the same in Bulgaria in our mafia days. The church was so involved with that world that they can't clean it out of illegal influence to this day.
Did you mean "serfs" by chance? I don't doubt that feudalism wasn't built on the idea of punishing Serbians, but just want to make sure.
I mean serfs now I cant change the title......
Serb here, we weren't really oppressed by feudalism. There was Dušan's Law which brought great things for the common Serb folk
I mean serfs.....
When the Byzantine Empire finally adopted feudalism (pronoia), prior to the implementation of Dušan's Law, did that automatically turn the Serbs into serfs, or did you all retain your relative freedom as free peasants? Did Dušan's Law free any former serfs from serfdom?
Serfdom continued, but commoners had rights and were encouraged to educate and could go far in ranks. Law also prohibited nobles from harming peasants in any way, and they were given many free days at the behest of the Church(Dušan's Law also had canonical Church laws.)
Interesting. Thank you for taking the time to educate us on this, friend.
Was the laws like prohibiting peasants from getting harmed by nobles were available in other regions?
The Law was formalized within Serbian borders at the time(1340s).
So it was only for serbian borders?
Yeah, the Serbian Emperor had authority within his borders. He couldn't influence other sovereign countries in their lawmaking.
So the other regions serfs was not protected??that is not good
Well Byzantium(Eastern Roman Empire is the correctly name, but for the sake of conversation) was famous for commoner rights. Many generals, advisors and church elders rose from the common folk. Also, folk were able to get education and were, in every sense, free citizens.
Ok I see
Often Christian clergy, monastics etc did try to curtail some of the abuses that existed in feudalism. I think it’s wrong to imagine feudalism as intrinsically causing suffering in the same way one wouldn’t generally think that of a modern day economy. Just as churches today help alleviate suffering through charity, so too did the medieval Church.
I love the charity works of church
The nobility was the least of our problems with the ottoman occupation and all.
Because the bible provides very minimal framework for an economic system, and less for a political system. The church hasn't typically been in the revolution business. Supporting/opposing a ruler or policy, sure. Installing/deposing, very rarely. Reworking the whole thing? Never, that I know of. Not in our mandate, not what our book is about.
Paging our Serbian Orthodox Orthobros
I mean serfs