Jump to content

Talk:Pope Innocent III

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 97.126.37.5 (talk) at 20:52, 23 May 2009 (→‎Innocent III and the Jews). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Innocent III and the Jews

Innocent III commanded that all Jews and so-called heretics to sew labels on their clothing and ghettoized them in conquered territories. Though he may have publicly opposed the official church persecuting Jews (though certainly not Cathars), he certainly made sure that it was very easy for everyone else to both locate and identify them.

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. .....................

Innocent III has been recorded as saying: "The Jews' guilt of the crucifixion of Jesus consigned them to perpetual servitude, and, like Cain, they are to be wanderers and fugitives. The Jews will not dare to raise their necks, bowed under the yoke of perpetual slavery, against the reverence of the Christian faith." Which, is full of anti-Semitism.

From: Grayzel, S., The Church and the Jews in the XIIIth Century – A study of their relations during the years 1198-1254, based on the papal letters and the conciliar decrees of the period, (New York: Hermon Press, Revised Edition, 1966), 117. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Millertime8647 (talkcontribs) 00:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

It's not an anti-Semitism but anti-Judaism. It's not the same. Anti-semitism is a racist ideology virtually unknown to the people of the Middle Ages, including Innocent III. Jews were discriminated and sometime even persecuted at that time, but those of them who converted to Christianity became regular members of Christian society. Innocent III is a typical representative of this attitude - to persecute a Jewish religion, but not the people of Jewish ancestry. CarlosPn 23 Oct 2008 17:05 CET

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

There were lay cardinals (men who were not priests, only deacons or subdeacons) until 1899 and then in 1917 the Code of Canon Law made it mandatory that all cardinals be ordained priests or bishops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.237.79 (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I thought the tone was fairly neutral. The cathar crusades and suppression of heresy of his reign was particularly brutal, however he was hardly alone in that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.161.79 (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date of death

Some sources say he died 16 July 1216. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

The Franciscans receiving the statutes of the Order from Pope Innocent III, by Giotto, 1295-1300.

Here is a nice image of the Franciscans receiving the statutes of the Order from Pope Innocent III, by Giotto, taken by me in Le Louvre. Thank you to insert it in the article. PHG (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

The dream of Innocent III in which he saw Francis of Assisi rescuing the Church, by Giotto, 1295-1300.

Also, the dream of Innocent III in which he saw Francis of Assisi rescuing the Church. Giotto, 1295-1300, taken by me in Le Louvre. Cheers PHG (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]