• Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    22 hours ago

    Why would religious authorities even have power over secular authorities?

    Because they didn’t want to go to hell. It’s easy to think in modern times that every person in power was as cynical about religion as they are now, but back then even the lords were true believers. A lot of them were illiterate and the ones that were weren’t well versed enough in Latin and the Bible to question anything the church said, so if the church said you’re going to hell if you work your peasants on Saint Michael’s feast day then your going to believe them.

    Along with this is the church’s role as a sort of mediator between the lords and the peasants. The church gave legitimacy to the rulers and consecrated the peasants labor and suffering as part of God’s plan. If the lord ignored the church then the Sunday mass would change from “get back to the fields and work for your glorious lord” to “your lord has given himself to the devil” and now you have a bunch of angry rebellious subjects.

    Religion can be the opiate of the masses, but it can also be the meth of the masses if you cross the church

    • nesc@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      You really misunderstand who was at the top (it’s not clergy), this doesn’t exclude faith from equation, it’s just they were in most places under secular authority, not vice versa.

      • Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Not saying the clergy are on the top, more that they shared power with secular authorities. Saying the secular authorities are on the top is like saying the president is. Yes, they have executive power and control of the military, but they need congress to legitimate the laws they enforce. If the president ignores congress and starts enforcing their own laws contrary to congress, then they’ll lose legetamacy and risk a rebellion. Either by the people or by their underlings who can use it as a reason to not follow orders.

        Same thing with the church state relations in the middle ages, the church provided legitimacy to the secular authorities. Without that legitimacy, the people you rule are less likely to respect your authority and more likely to rebel against it, especially if you’re told your rebellious action could get you into heaven.

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

          Agreed on most of the points. True, church provided some legitimacy not all of it and not even majority, secular rulers had a lot of power over local clergy due to many factors and by the 10th century rulers tried to usurp church completely (e.g. emperor named new pope after old one dies). Bishops literally sworn fealty to HR emperor, and in some places monarch chose or at least had ability to choose who will become abbot or bishop or whatever.

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

        You really misunderstand who was at the top (it’s not clergy)

        About half of medieval history was dedicated to this question and you try to brush it off in a 3.5 word parenthesis? Lol.

        Emperors were crowned by the pope.

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

          From late antiquity to high middle ages popes were chosen by the closest ruler more often then not. Them crowning emperors weren’t a sign of authority but subservience, lol. When popes chose to oppose secular rulers, they either changed their minds or there were new pope.