• nesc@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    Church was a limit to secular athority, not the authority itself, in most places.

    • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      22 hours ago

      I think you’re confusing “secular” with “worldly”. Secular means that the church and the state are separated. Or that the state is neutral regarding religion. That definetly wasn’t the case in medieval Europe. That’s part of why the US/French revolution happened.

        • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          20 hours ago

          From Wikipedia:

          Secularity, also the secular or secularness (from Latin saeculum, ‘worldly’ or ‘of a generation’), is the state of being unrelated or neutral in regards to religion.

          So, while you might be technically correct as it comes to what the literal translation is: that’s not how it’s used in political discourse.

          • nesc@lemmy.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            19 hours ago

            Are you unable to accept being wrong?

            This is exactly how it is and was used when talking about middle ages. There were secular and religious power, secular and religious courts, and in religious courts church only held authority in spiritual and religous matters. Exceptions to these rules are prince-bishops in HRE and other such examples (papal states) where bishops or pope were civil rulers of secular prinicpalities/states.