Thanks for expanding my information.But are you able to answer the question?This is not specific to either France or Austria but to so-called “Christian monarchies” in general. There’s a concept called the “divine right of kings” which goes back quite a ways. For example, wasn’t Charlemagne crowned by the Pope? For another example we have the Royal Arms of the UK, which still bears the legend “God is My Right” (in Norman French “Dieu Et mon Droit”).
But these bishops taught very little in the practices of the Church.My pt.is they wouldn’t be considered good Catholics by our standards of today.The Vatican gave monarchs great leeway in the running of the church in their kingdoms, which given the limited technology at the time, made a great deal of sense. However, the Vatican always had oversight.
When you say "they paid homage toGod"in reality all they did in from what i read is to acknowledge God.They knew little about God(Jesus’s true teachings)or if they did they paid little attention to obeying them.They acknowledged that God was a higher power than they were.and so getting back to my question the people would be very poor Catholics according to our standards of today and many had little knowledge of the true rules of the Church or of Christ’s teachings.You agree.Right?Couple of good answers already…
I just finished reading a history of the Church and it seems that there has always been a tension between the Church authority and the civil authority in Europe. The more intertwined the Church and State became, the more jockeying for control between the two.
Great homage was paid to kings because they desired it, and so long as the kings themselves paid homage to God, this was not a problem. As mentioned above, the divine right of Kings and temporal authority coming from God is a deeply embedded idea.
As far as the appointment of bishops goes, this was something of a “see-saw” with the kings and the Pope’s having greater or lesser authority in the matter at different times. Because of the great Authority of a bishop, the King naturally wanted them to be loyal to him, while the Pope, likewise wanted the Bishops to be loyal to the Holy See.
The reason that this was important was that if there was a conflict between the Church and the State, the Bishop held great authority over the hearts of the people.
This is a very crude explanation, but might give you some insight.
Peace
James
I cannot say what those people in those times knew or did not know. I’m sure that just as today, they ran the gamut from very devout to very sinful. As to “knowing the Rules” and being good Catholics by today’s standards, I’d say it would be very hard to compare the two ages.When you say "they paid homage toGod"in reality all they did in from what i read is to acknowledge God.They knew little about God(Jesus’s true teachings)or if they did they paid little attention to obeying them.They acknowledged that God was a higher power than they were.and so getting back to my question the people would be very poor Catholics according to our standards of today and many had little knowledge of the true rules of the Church or of Christ’s teachings.You agree.Right?
Were you aware that the kings made priests and bishops out of ordinary men and all that was required of them was to take a year or two of study in Catholicm?these people were mostly nobles or friends of the kings and had no affiliation with the Church whatsoever before their studies began.Yes,the monarch protected the faith as the faith of the land.But most actually followed the rules of Catholicm so broadly.I doubt that they even attended Sunday Catholic mass often.they saw the Cathholic Church as a monetary benefit.the bishop kept the society together and received taxes from the Catholics to enrich the monarchy.It was in his best interest to have a bishop control the Catholic population.Bishops throughout the entire history of the Church were regularly appointed by the local civil authority. However, this civil was two things. The leader of the people and a practitioner of the faith.
The bishop is the seat of the faith, but also the elder of the people. The monarch, as a leader of the people, would often choose who the next elder of the faith would be. Also, the monarch’s duty, as a King, as well as a Catholic/Orthodox is to protect the faith, the spiritual seat, not just the lives of their subjects. To fail to defend the faith would bring condemnation upon that leader, and possibly forgot is position of power.
To deny piety and faithfulness of a bishop because of his source of appointment denies both the majority of the Church’s history, as well as betrays the modern view of secular separation between Church and State.
thanks for responding.I agree that the schooling was through Church founded organizations and the children learned what they did about Cathholicm from their teachers.I cannot say what those people in those times knew or did not know. I’m sure that just as today, they ran the gamut from very devout to very sinful. As to “knowing the Rules” and being good Catholics by today’s standards, I’d say it would be very hard to compare the two ages.
In those times being a member of the Church was simply a natural part of life. Belief in God was a pretty much a given in the ages before “science” as we know it today. Much of the schooling received was through Church founded institutions and the Royal families would have priests assigned to their households.
Whether all of this made them better or worse Catholics I don’t know. I have always found it best to try not to compare ages past to our present one.
Peace
James
The bolded section above is a false statement. During the times you are referring to the nobles would have all been baptized and confirmed into the Church. They would have all been educated, spoken Latin, and been taught by a teacher, very likely a religious brother or priest of some sort. so to say that they have “no affiliation with the Church” is simply not correct.Were you aware that the kings made priests and bishops out of ordinary men and all that was required of them was to take a year or two of study in Catholicism?these people were mostly nobles or friends of the kings and had no affiliation with the Church whatsoever before their studies began.Yes,the monarch protected the faith as the faith of the land.But most actually followed the rules of Catholicism so broadly.I doubt that they even attended Sunday Catholic mass often.they saw the Catholic Church as a monetary benefit.the bishop kept the society together and received taxes from the Catholics to enrich the monarchy.It was in his best interest to have a bishop control the Catholic population.
I thank you very much.Now.Do you say that every person in the nation of France was a supposed Catholic?(I speaking of time before the revolution)i don’t disagree with anything you’ve said but when the monarchy was toppled do you believe king Louie was anything close to a good Catholic and respected the laws of the Church?I can’t remember all that Ive read but I believe that the bishop close to him more or less supported all of his policies.I feel im going to have to refresh my memory before saying anythi;ng further.i don’t want to give false details.The bolded section above is a false statement. During the times you are referring to the nobles would have all been baptized and confirmed into the Church. They would have all been educated, spoken Latin, and been taught by a teacher, very likely a religious brother or priest of some sort. so to say that they have “no affiliation with the Church” is simply not correct.
That said, I do agree that in those days the requirements for becoming a priest and then a bishop were quite different than it is today.
The situations were very complicated indeed. We are so blessed that the Church survived.
All Praise to God in the most High.
Peace
James
This entire paragraph is a strawman built from your imagination.Were you aware that the kings made priests and bishops out of ordinary men and all that was required of them was to take a year or two of study in Catholicm?these people were mostly nobles or friends of the kings and had no affiliation with the Church whatsoever before their studies began.Yes,the monarch protected the faith as the faith of the land.But most actually followed the rules of Catholicm so broadly.I doubt that they even attended Sunday Catholic mass often.they saw the Cathholic Church as a monetary benefit.the bishop kept the society together and received taxes from the Catholics to enrich the monarchy.It was in his best interest to have a bishop control the Catholic population.
I cannot speak intelligently to this matter for two reasons.I thank you very much.Now.Do you say that every person in the nation of France was a supposed Catholic?(I speaking of time before the revolution)i don’t disagree with anything you’ve said but when the monarchy was toppled do you believe king Louie was anything close to a good Catholic and respected the laws of the Church?I can’t remember all that Ive read but I believe that the bishop close to him more or less supported all of his policies.I feel im going to have to refresh my memory before saying anythi;ng further.i don’t want to give false details.
Im just referring to what ive read about the Church during that period of time.Ive done quite a bit.Anyone can disagree if they have a better knowledge of the facts.That’s what I was really searching for .But so far no one has really given me any diffinetive answers.I sure there are some.so I will just wait until someone with better knowledge responds.As you said St.Ambrose is a recognized Saint.I sure that the kings chose some very good people(usealy fromthe nobles)who became very good bishops.I don’t know that they always made good choices.Also how can kings always know a good man when he choose him?This entire paragraph is a strawman built from your imagination.
Were individuals, who were barely affiliated with the Church ordained as priest and bishops? Yes, they were… just like St. Ambrose (340-397 AD). He was a catechumen when the Arian bishop of Milan died. He was, as a catechumen, baptised and ordained as the Bishop of Milan. He also is recognized as a saint by the RCC, the EOC, and the OOC.
You assume to project your prejudices of modern society, class structure, government, and the faith of many ‘cafeteria’ Catholics onto the past. It must be understood in it’s own right, not in your fear.
I you sure you read my post?i don;t remember saying anything about immoral or impious men.If i remember right is all i said was that the kings chose people who weren’t always of werenn’t of the clergy and they had to go through a period of training in Church practice(usually it was 2 yrs)before the could actually take the office ofa priest or bishop.I do know of concordants.the one that Pius made with Hitler comes to mind.I do know they purpose.Anyway I do thank you for replying to my post.As a matter of fact, this arrangement still exists in some parts of Europe, only since there is no king of France anymore, it is the French president who selects the bishops, in Alsace-Lorraine (not in the rest of France, where there in separation of church and state–long story as to why the old treaty is still in force in Alsace-Lorraine). And recent presidents of France have not exactly been model Catholics (I believe Sarkozy is in his third marriage.)
Fortunately today, since the political power of bishops is not what it was, the government doesn’t care particularly much about who the bishop is, and they are more likely to listen to the Church. These treaties are called “concordats”, and if you do some research on that word you can find the whole history of what the different ones were, and which ones are still in force.
As for your larger question of why immoral, impious individuals could become bishops–you do not have to go so far back in history to find examples of bad clergy (look at the turmoil the Legion of Christ has just been put through). Unfortunately there is a long history of that in the Church; it is filled with sinners, though also filled with saints.
There was a heresy called Donatism that said that only the sacraments of virtuous clergy were valid; the Catholic Church rejected that heresy back in St. Augustine’s time, and ruled that the good or bad qualities of a priest make no difference as to the validity of them being priests or bishops.
Priests and bishops do have a much heavier moral responsibility on their shoulders, because of the great importance and holiness of what is entrusted to them. But its on their shoulders, and they remain individuals, some of whom are very pious, and some of whom are downright wicked. The wicked ones will face a harsher judgement, but God does not take away their freedom to chose good or evil just because they are clergy.
Anyway, I would recommend looking into concordats if you want to learn more about churrch-state relations, and looking into the Donatist controversy if you are more interested in the theological side.
I do not know details about the French Kings, but some facts about the Hungarian Kings (also Austrian emperors):During the middle ages france and Austria were monarchies and bishops were chosen by the kings.these were Catholic nations.Why did the people treat and some even believe the kings were God(or at least chosen by God)?Why did they show so much homage to the kings when Cathollics know that Jesus is the only God?They followed rules set by the kings some which were very unCatholic.