FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: bishops of the dark and middle ages
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
(07-24-2009, 01:00 AM)Mac_Giolla_Bhrighde Wrote: [ -> ]What did you think of "Poland"? I have it, but have not started it. I started "The Source" and just couldn't get into it. Mitchner seems to be one of those authors that everybody loves, but haven't read.

It was a while ago, but I liked it and would recommend it - but like Jovan said I recall it lacking towards the end,
I read Poland about 10 years ago and I couldn't put the thing down. It was absolutely fascinating to me, and was my introduction to the history and culture of Poland--by the way, I read it because it was recommended to me by a Polish friend.

Afterwards, I tried to read Michener's book on Spain, a country I have always been passionate about, and I couldn't get into it. There was so much painstaking detail that I thought I was reading a book on botany or the intricate culture of bug life.

Don't feel obliged to read a book all the way through. If you're still bored at pg 50, it's not going to change by pg 500. I've tried to read Brideshead 3 times, based on the recommendation of at least 7 people (Dr. David White including), and I have never gotten past pg 100. Not for me. Give me Odyssey or Iliad, though, and I'll learn Homeric Greek just to be able to read the original.
(07-23-2009, 03:07 PM)Tobri Wrote: [ -> ]I am curious how did, especially in missionary places like Germany and Bohemia in the Dark Ages and later Poland in the middle ages where infrastructure did not exist, get around to confirm every year? Or did Western priests still confirm people themselves at this period?  Did bishops visit each parish "regularly" as in every couple of years or did decades pass between episcopal visits?

I was read James Mitchner's "Poland" and in the village he mentions that a priest came and everyone was celebrating because they only came a few times a year, most of the time the priests were traveling to other locations and happened to come upon the village - which made me wonder how did the bishops confirm candidates?

I remember reading that the early Church had more bishops than priests (who usually numbered 7 at were stationed at the Cathedral) for exactly this reason - that is it was more practical to have lots of bishops be missionaries rather than presbyters.

I know the case for Hungary in the High middle ages Hungary was christianized around 1000 AD accepting the Roman rite, not counting certain Bizantine missionaries earlier (the decision toward Roma was to find balance between the Byzantine empire, and the new (German) Holy Roman empire; Rome on that time started to get independent power)

- communication cycle with the pope took about half year, so approval of the bishops and canonizations was through the resident papal nuntio-s

- In Hungary they were 10 dioceses, each had about 50 parishes (originally every 10 village was required to build a church). Bishops were required to regularly visit the parishes, this meant about in every 4-5 years. Only bishops administered the sacrament of confirmation. An intermediate control and required yearly visit was made by the dean of priest, about every 10 parish had a dean.

- around each bishop there was a council of usually older priests, they chanted the Holy Office in the cathedral, and gave advises to the bishops. An average diocese had about 100 priest, and usually every 3-4 diocese was united under an archbishop (in Hungary there were 3 archdioceses). The archdiocese represented the middle level tribunal in legal disputes.

As for the original relationship between the bishops and priest, the hagiographies of popes from the first 4 centuries testify that about the same number of bishops were ordained for the diocese of Rome as priest, so if lived long enough every priest became bishop. By the expansion of the Church this changed.

laszlo
When I saw the title of this thread, all I could think of is "Some of our bishops are still in the dark and in their middle ages (some even older).
(07-25-2009, 06:27 AM)glgas Wrote: [ -> ]I know the case for Hungary in the High middle ages Hungary was christianized around 1000 AD accepting the Roman rite, not counting certain Bizantine missionaries earlier (the decision toward Roma was to find balance between the Byzantine empire, and the new (German) Holy Roman empire; Rome on that time started to get independent power)

- communication cycle with the pope took about half year, so approval of the bishops and canonizations was through the resident papal nuntio-s

- In Hungary they were 10 dioceses, each had about 50 parishes (originally every 10 village was required to build a church). Bishops were required to regularly visit the parishes, this meant about in every 4-5 years. Only bishops administered the sacrament of confirmation. An intermediate control and required yearly visit was made by the dean of priest, about every 10 parish had a dean.

- around each bishop there was a council of usually older priests, they chanted the Holy Office in the cathedral, and gave advises to the bishops. An average diocese had about 100 priest, and usually every 3-4 diocese was united under an archbishop (in Hungary there were 3 archdioceses). The archdiocese represented the middle level tribunal in legal disputes.

As for the original relationship between the bishops and priest, the hagiographies of popes from the first 4 centuries testify that about the same number of bishops were ordained for the diocese of Rome as priest, so if lived long enough every priest became bishop. By the expansion of the Church this changed.

laszlo
Köszönöm!

(07-25-2009, 02:19 PM)DarkKnight Wrote: [ -> ]When I saw the title of this thread, all I could think of is "Some of our bishops are still in the dark and in their middle ages (some even older).
If only...
(07-23-2009, 04:18 PM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]"Dark" Ages -- I absolutely DESPISE that term.  It is the so-called "Enlightenment" Age that we live in that is truly the "Dark Age."

Perhpaps one day people will begin to see that the so-called "Dark Age" was truly the Age of Light.


...Sorry, Tobri - I didn't really answer your question - WRC did a good enough job at that.  I just felt like a little mini-rant.   :mad:
Nic,

As a medievalist, I condemn any usage of the phrase "Dark Ages".  Have a fishie...
Pages: 1 2