Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Members Blogs
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Self Moderated Area
Scholairebochts Blog.
Two new civil wars within the Catholic Church
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tiger" data-source="post: 117359" data-attributes="member: 353"><p>Ok, Nordie, I know you love a good rabbit hole, regardless of how relevant it is to todays brutal Godless society in which none of this counts. You’ve jumped in underpants first into this discussion. </p><p></p><p>Why you’ve decided to go back 1 thousand years, based on a thread about current disputes is beyond me, however in the interest of boredom, I’ll reply. Despite it having no relevance to the thread. </p><p></p><p>Let’s parse out your claim - Europe wasn’t as clearly defined in terms of modern nation-states during the 12th century. The concept of the nation-state—where a country has clear borders, a centralized government, and a unified national identity—developed much later, particularly in the 16th to 19th centuries. In the 12th century, Europe was more of a patchwork of kingdoms, duchies, principalities, and territories that were often loosely governed and constantly shifting due to wars, marriages, and feudal allegiances.</p><p></p><p>Back then, rulers often controlled regions based on feudal systems, where local lords had a lot of autonomy under the overarching authority of kings or emperors. For example, Henry II, while being the King of England, also ruled large portions of what is now France through his marriage and inheritances, but his control wasn’t as absolute as modern leaders over their countries. The Holy Roman Empire, which included many parts of central Europe, was an even more fragmented entity, with many semi-independent states under an emperor.</p><p></p><p>National identity as we think of it today wasn’t as solidified back then. People’s loyalties were often tied more to their local lord, feudal ties, or religion rather than a clear sense of “nationhood.” The concept of the modern nation-state started to take shape later, particularly after events like the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which helped formalize the sovereignty of states in Europe.</p><p></p><p>So, in Henry II’s time, Europe was much more fluid, with constantly shifting borders and power dynamics, and the idea of a unified, centralized nation-state was still centuries away from developing.</p><p></p><p>The Pope of the time - (Pope Adrian IV) gave Henry II of England a papal blessing to intervene in Ireland through a bull called Laudabiliter in 1155, but it wasn’t simply to endorse English conquest. The Church saw the Irish Church as needing reform because it had drifted from certain Roman practices—like clerical celibacy and more centralized governance. So, the idea was that Henry would help bring the Irish Church into line with broader Church reforms, not just take over the country for political gain. Of course, Henry took advantage of this for his own ambitions, and what started as a push for religious reform became centuries of English interference. Later popes, especially during the Protestant Reformation, were actually against English rule in Ireland, showing the Church never fully backed English control in the long run.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tiger, post: 117359, member: 353"] Ok, Nordie, I know you love a good rabbit hole, regardless of how relevant it is to todays brutal Godless society in which none of this counts. You’ve jumped in underpants first into this discussion. Why you’ve decided to go back 1 thousand years, based on a thread about current disputes is beyond me, however in the interest of boredom, I’ll reply. Despite it having no relevance to the thread. Let’s parse out your claim - Europe wasn’t as clearly defined in terms of modern nation-states during the 12th century. The concept of the nation-state—where a country has clear borders, a centralized government, and a unified national identity—developed much later, particularly in the 16th to 19th centuries. In the 12th century, Europe was more of a patchwork of kingdoms, duchies, principalities, and territories that were often loosely governed and constantly shifting due to wars, marriages, and feudal allegiances. Back then, rulers often controlled regions based on feudal systems, where local lords had a lot of autonomy under the overarching authority of kings or emperors. For example, Henry II, while being the King of England, also ruled large portions of what is now France through his marriage and inheritances, but his control wasn’t as absolute as modern leaders over their countries. The Holy Roman Empire, which included many parts of central Europe, was an even more fragmented entity, with many semi-independent states under an emperor. National identity as we think of it today wasn’t as solidified back then. People’s loyalties were often tied more to their local lord, feudal ties, or religion rather than a clear sense of “nationhood.” The concept of the modern nation-state started to take shape later, particularly after events like the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which helped formalize the sovereignty of states in Europe. So, in Henry II’s time, Europe was much more fluid, with constantly shifting borders and power dynamics, and the idea of a unified, centralized nation-state was still centuries away from developing. The Pope of the time - (Pope Adrian IV) gave Henry II of England a papal blessing to intervene in Ireland through a bull called Laudabiliter in 1155, but it wasn’t simply to endorse English conquest. The Church saw the Irish Church as needing reform because it had drifted from certain Roman practices—like clerical celibacy and more centralized governance. So, the idea was that Henry would help bring the Irish Church into line with broader Church reforms, not just take over the country for political gain. Of course, Henry took advantage of this for his own ambitions, and what started as a push for religious reform became centuries of English interference. Later popes, especially during the Protestant Reformation, were actually against English rule in Ireland, showing the Church never fully backed English control in the long run. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Verification
Does Doxxie know his real father.
Post reply
Latest Threads
Pentagon orders rare, urgent meeting of hundreds of generals, admiral
Started by Anderson
Today at 10:47 AM
Replies: 13
USA
Retailers and communities on the 'chaos' of anti-social behaviour
Started by Anderson
Today at 4:36 AM
Replies: 5
Ireland
Is Irish Literature inherently Left-Wing?
Started by céline
Sunday at 1:58 PM
Replies: 2
Ireland
Ideas to broaden the appeal of Sarsfields and get it noticed.
Started by Anderson
Sep 18, 2025
Replies: 14
Public Chat and Announcements
The Tiger Challenge
Started by AN2
Sep 17, 2025
Replies: 53
Public Chat and Announcements
Popular Threads
Ukraine.
Started by Declan
Feb 21, 2022
Replies: 15K
World at War
US Politics.
Started by jpc
Nov 7, 2022
Replies: 6K
USA
Mass Migration to Ireland & Europe
Started by Anderson
Feb 26, 2023
Replies: 5K
Nationalist Politics
C
🦠 Covid 19 Vaccine Thread 💉
Started by Charlene
Sep 14, 2021
Replies: 3K
Health
General Chat in The Marcus Lounge.
Started by Declan
Dec 30, 2024
Replies: 3K
Public Chat and Announcements
The Climate Change scam
Started by Anderson
Jul 29, 2022
Replies: 2K
Climate Change
Forums
Self Moderated Area
Scholairebochts Blog.
Two new civil wars within the Catholic Church
Top
Bottom