Talk:Church and state in medieval Europe

[Untitled]
This title of this article is really wrong. It should be something like Relationship between church and state in medieval times. DJ Clayworth 14:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also few factual challenges. Do we have a reference for "the barons wanted to create a separation between church and state" in Magna Carta? Also we should probably note that they would not have meant the same thing then that 'separation of church and state' means (for example) in the US in the present day. DJ Clayworth 15:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Title could be changed. I just made it to fit logically with the separation of church and state series. The title should not be taken literarlly, its just a guide for the reader, the text is whats important.


 * Having now looked at the main article Separation of church and state I think it suffers from the same problem, and I'm gong to suggest it be renamed also. DJ Clayworth 18:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Separation of church and state is a western european tradition that goes back to the time of Constantine and Saint Augustine. It is a foreign concept in many other places. For example an article called the "relationship between church and state in Byzantine" would make no sense, they are one and the same. Stbalbach 20:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * re magna carta, yes, the barons were doing an end-run around church authority through the document. Basically the church laughed and said just a piece of paper is not going to cut it. Thats not a great explanation its been a while since I looked at it, but there were clauses concerning the structure of the church in england. Stbalbach 15:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * My real trouble I guess is that many people reading this will think that the barons were trying to set up something like modern day US (which is clearly not the case). I think 'separation of church and state' is now so closely associated with the US we should avoid it as a phrase in other contexts. DJ Clayworth 18:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I dont see any confusion with the USA, the article is clearly a medieval history article, theres no mention of modern USA. Feel free to reword some parts of it if your not comfortable with it. Stbalbach 20:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see this discussion is long out of date, but would like to very much support DJ Clayworth's suggestion. I've researched this a fair amount, and can say with some confidence that "Separation of church and state" is a phrase authors tend to go far out of their way to avoid when not talking about the U.S. Particularly if you're talking before the phrase was even invented, I think we should avoid it. I'd suggest renaming to Church and State in Medieval Times, which seems to be much more what the article is about. I'm currently working on clarifying use of the "separation" phrase in the main article, which this would also help. Mackan79 21:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The present title is not only misleading, but just plain wrong. The concept of separation of Church and state, in the United States sense, did not exist in mediaeval times. In fact, the idea that the state could not act in favour of one particular religion to the prejudice of others was considered repugnant and heretical. And the idea that the Church did not have to right to dictate state policy in general terms was also considered absurd.It was however true, that the distinction between Church and State was recognised, and lead to conflict. --Gazzster 13:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Dominium mundi
Hi, I came across the article Dominium mundi at the list of requests for cleanup after translation. I know absolutely nothing about this topic, but as I worked on the lead section, I came across a few other articles (this one, Investiture Controversy, Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor, and others) that seemed to overlap with it in various ways. I think it would be really helpful if someone with knowledge of the history of this period would take a look at the article and see if perhaps parts of it (or all of it) could be merged. - AdelaMa e (talk - contribs) 06:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

POV
"However, in the Eastern Roman Empire, also known as Byzantine, Church and state were separate and collaborated in a 'symphony', with some exceptions (see Iconoclasm). This was unlike in the Islamic world, where the two were one and the same. The concept of Church and state at odds would have been very foreign in Islamic society."

This seems like POV to me. Does anyone disagree? FilipeS (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it is POV but it is certainly incorrect, as church and state were quite often at odds in the Islamic world. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree that the passage is POV and seems intent on pushing the argument about "fundamental" differences between Christianity and Islam. Further, no references are cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigel Durrant (talk • contribs) 09:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Church and state
There should be a general article on the Relationship between Church and State of which Separation is one aspect and Medieval Period another. Hood23 (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Bias
This article is massively biased towards the church of Rome. It presumes, in its text, that: (i) 'Catholic Church' means the church of Rome. In actual fact, the use of that term is disputed. (ii) 'Church' means the church of Rome. (iii) the church of Rome is somehow the continuing part of the original church after the East-West schism. This is revisionist history promulgated by those favourable to another claim of the church of Rome, ergo to be the 'one true church'.--jrl 12:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it happens to be written from the western perspective at the moment, since no one has added anything about the relationship between church and state in the east. Nothing sinister, and no intentional bias. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)