Talk:Pope Innocent III
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Innocent III and the Jews
Innocent III, despite his dislike for heretics and Muslims, did not hate the Jews. In fact, he called upon his subordinates to respect the Jews and to refrain from disturbing them. So much for his supposed anti-Semitism...
........However, at the time, anti-semitism did not necessarily mean anti-jews. Before the 19th-20th Century, numerous cultures were globally considered "Semite" (Amharic, Arabic, Aramaic, Akkadian, Ge'ez, Hebrew, Phoenician, Maltese, Tigre and Tigrinya among others). Today's interpretation of the word is geared toward Jews after WWII. .....................
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.158.180 (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I'm changing the statement about his anti-Semitism until someone can provide sources to prove that he harbored animosity against the Jews.
Pope Innocent III: Letter on the Jews
"We decree that no Christian shall use violence to compel the Jews to accept baptism. But if a Jew, of his own accord, because of a change in his faith, shall have taken refuge with Christians, after his wish has been made known, he may be made a Christian without any opposition. For anyone who has not of his own will sought Christian baptism cannot have the true Christian faith. No Christian shall do the Jews any personal injury, except in executing the judgments of a judge, or deprive them of their possessions, or change the rights and privileges which they have been accustomed to have. During the celebration of their festivals, no one shall disturb them by beating them with clubs or by throwing stones at them. No one shall compel them to render any services except those which they have been accustomed to render. And to prevent the baseness and avarice of wicked men we forbid anyone to deface or damage their cemeteries or to extort money from them by threatening to exhume the bodies of their dead...."
From: Oliver J. Thatcher, and Edgar Holmes McNeal, eds., A Source Book for Medieval History, (New York: Scribners, 1905), 212-213. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/inn3-jews.html
An event in this article is a January 8 selected anniversary
Which is a reason to make it much better than it was on that day, when the link attracted much more traffic to the page. Halcatalyst 21:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A cardinal deacon, but not a priest?
The article currently states: "He was just thirty-seven years of age, and although a deacon, not yet a priest." Is this actually true in this case, or a misunderstannding of "cardinal deacon"? Halcatalyst 21:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The article should be corrected. As you say, he was at the time a cardinal deacon, and so only of low(est) ranking within the cardinal college.
[edit] Fourth lateran council
Fourth Latern council is also considered something of a milestone or even turning point in the history of anti-semitism or in Jewish Medieval history. I took the liberty of adding a sentence on that. -Sensemaker
I was amazed at the praise Innocent III gets in that Catholic Encyclopedia entry referred to in the article. It practically glosses over the attrocities committed during the Fourth Crusade and the "crusade" against the Cathars, and portrays the Pope as completely innnocent (no pun intended) in those events, despite the central role he played in them. I don't know the policy of wikipedia on the biases of linked-to articles, but wow. I guess the first link, which discusses his more dubious qualities more fully, balances it out though.-Andy
- Wikipedia itself aims at a Neutral Point of View. The world's a messy place, and sites reached via external links may often have no such aim (or, if they have, fail to achieve it). If a site is really useless or totally misleading, the link would be best deleted, but I doubt if that's true in this case. Caveat surfer. Andrew Dalby 13:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Although, to be fair, Innocent had little or no part in the Fourth Crusade other than calling for it: he wrote a letter or a decretal or a Bull or something decrying the sacking of Constantinople. Artiste-extraordinaire 11:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Lateran IV is also considered something of a landmark because of its ban on the use of the ordeal. I just added a sentence to that effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.122.78 (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Confessor of Pope Innocent III
Who can tell me more about the monk Renerius, his confessor? (See de:Dialogus miraculorum VII.6) --Reiner Stoppok 20:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hagiography?
This is a particularly favorable article bordering on non-neutrality. The tone is downright reverent. If one is Roman Catholic, one might, as the author of this article seems to, view Innocent III as the pinnacle of the golden age of Catholic power. If one is not Catholic, one might view Innocent III as one of the greatest usurpers of secular power by religious authorities in European history. The article does not reflect this tension.Valkyryn 09:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
In particular, the sections "Encroachment in Empire's Affairs" and "Feudal Power over Europe" contain a reasonably detailed discussion of Innocent III's justifications for his actions, but contain little to no discussion of the justifications of his opponents. Valkyryn 21:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It would be great for you, then, to post his opponents' justifications: I look-forward to a re-write. I kind-of stumbled upon this article: very interesting. As to the "usurper of secular powers", though the RCC is a "religious authority" it's also a world power, so it's no more vicious than other kings fighting one another...I do not appreciate their claimant on who goes to heaven etc. or the fact the pope calls himself "THE Holy Father" (Jesus: "call no man father but your father in heaven") and many many other things...however there are some laudatory actions Innocent took (at least reviewing this article). Whether or not we like it the Popes have often played crucial roles in world history, including roles which helped stabilize (and often destabilize) political and social environments. Thus there is reason for the article have content that islaudatory: any criticisms would necessarily be moral and ethical appeals and within the framework would be those like "my kingdom is not of this world" (Jesus) etc...and I don't know if those working on the article want to go there or not and do so tactfully and carefully. It's already useful for info though. : ) infinitelink —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.90.102 (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Date of death
Some sources say he died 16 July 1216. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)