Excommunication was not a power unique to the Pope by an means. Actually it was usually employed as a sentence in ecclesiastical courts held at many different levels of hierarchy. As for the Crusades, the Pope could send out a papal bull calling for a Crusade. Respect for papal authority dwindled as the Crusades failed. In many cases after the first three crusades, especially the disastrous Fourth Crusade (Which, instead of retaking Jerusalem, sacked Constantinople without even continuing to the holy land) monarchs often ignored them and preachers had to go through a lot of trouble to convince knights to go at all as time went on. The Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Crusades were initiated by individual kings without the Pope's involvement. Indeed, sometimes despit the Pope's attempts to impede them.Rassler wrote...
Lord Aesir wrote...
You don't know much about church history then. During the medieval era, kings and bishops generally agreed that the Pope was an important guy, but the actual extent of his authority was a matter of constant contention. The Church was far from the monolithic construct people paint it as these days and religious authority was highly localized.Rassler wrote...
That is true but that doesn't mean anyone was successful in anyway to harm the authority of the pope and Vatican. Vatican and the pope have ruled the catholic community since their very existence.
So? The pope still had the power to wage crusades or excommunicate, exactly like the divine.
Modifié par Lord Aesir, 04 février 2014 - 07:03 .




Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut





