Talk:History of Christianity in Hungary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Religion (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Christianity (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Hungary (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Bonfini[edit]

Only part of Bonfini's text is cited, and in a context which is rather misleading. Bonfini writes of the huge grants the king made to the Catholic Church, he adds that the magnates also followed the king's example, thus by the end of Louis I's reign more than one third of the lands in the kingdom was possessed by the (Catholic) "Church". Borsoka (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your allegations (SamiraJ (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC))
[1], page 350: "Cum heremitarum ordo divi Pauli principis in Ungariam venisset corpusque eius Venetiis avectum in Laurentii edem, que ad tertium lapidem Bude proxima monti prominet, translatum esset, Carolus pater primus heremitarum collegia introduxit, qui Laurentii, Sancte Crucis, Spiritus Sancti et divi Ladislai sacras edes usurparunt. Lodovicus autem in Nostre cenobium his excellentissimum dicavit et in Levelde aliud Carthusiensibus exedificavit magnificeque donavit. Duas item ediculas regio sumptii constructas magne matri erexit ac ingenti donativo excoluit, in Aquisgrano alteram in Cellis. Exemplo quoque suo multos ex antistitibus, optimatibus et nobilibus ad hec divine pietatis officia invitavit, qui, ne a sui regis magnificentia degeneravent, per se quisque templa donaque dicarunt. Quare preter omnium opinionem religio in Ungaria nimis amplificata et usque adeo propagata, ut plus tertia regni parte in devinum usum possideret." In the next sentences he wrote of proselytising activities among the Cumans, the Tatars (living at that time somewhere in modern Ukraine to the east of the Carpathians), and in Bosnia (a state over which the kings of Hungary claimed suzerainty), in Slavonia (an autonomous realm within the kingdom) and in Lippa (a town in the Banat, within the kingdom proper). So, the claim that Bonfini refers to the conversion of one-third of the population of the Kingdom of Hungary is rather misleading. Borsoka (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Pope Innocent III[edit]

Taking into account the above discussion, I think the letter of the pope to the bishop of Oradea should be cited on the Talk page. The pope does not refer to Orthodox monasteries in Transylvania or in other regions of modern Romania in any of his letters. Orthodox monasteries whose existence in the early 13th century is documented were situated at Visegrád, Dunapentele (modern Dunaújváros), Tihany and Veszprém (all in present-day Hungary) and in Sremska Mitrovica (now in Serbia). Borsoka (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You must provide some RS that infirm my RS, otherwise it is only OR (SamiraJ (talk) 09:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC))
Berend et al (2007), p. 353 lists all the monasteries whose existence is documented. It lists among the Orthodox (Greek) monasteries Tihany, Visegrád, Pentele, Cenad, Banatsko Aranđelovo, Sremska Mitrovica, Zebegény and Veszprém. So there were in fact many Greek Orthodox monasteries in the kingdom (due to the fact that many Hungarian queens were of Russian or Serbian origin), which caused the popes' concerns, but none of these monasteries were situated in the territory of present-day Romania in the 13th century. (Please note that the monastery founded at Cenad by Achtum had already in the early 11th century been granted to Benedictine monks.) So I still suggest that those "many" papal letters which indicate or imply the existence a sole Orthodox monastery in Transylvania or in Crisana in the early 13th century should be cited. Borsoka (talk) 09:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately I cant't satisfy your wish (I don't possess the original letters). But if your personal opinion is that the sources are wrong, it does not mean that this is the truth (SamiraJ (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC))
My personal view is not relevant in this context. Moreover, neither have I ever claimed nor could I ever claim that my view "is the truth". However, a source stating that there are "many" letters referring to "monasteries" existing in specified territories without referring exactly to those letters and without naming any of the monasteries seems to be lacking reliability. Borsoka (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
We should not use name of Transylvania, or Crisana if the primary sources do not mention those. What was the exact 'geographical' term in the popes' records?Fakirbakir (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I can't give you an answer, because I don't own the text of the letters. (SamiraJ (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC))
I am going to seek the original text. If the original letters do not mention those territories that statement will be an unproven OR.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Good luck in your research (SamiraJ (talk) 10:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC))
  • ....In a letter that has not been preserved, but which is resumed in a Papal letter of 16 April 1204, the Hungarian King Emeric informed Innocent III on the degree of decay of “some churches belonging to the Greek monks” (=Orthodox) in his kingdom (quaedam ecclesie monachorum Graecorum in regno Ungariae constitutae), because of the lack of interest showed by the diocesan bishops and monks. He requested that the Pope should create there an Orthodox bishopric under the direct authority of the Papacy, or to appoint at the head of these churches Latin abbots and clerics, able to reform them (ut auc[toritate] n[ostra] unus fieret episcopatus ex ipsis, qui nobis nullo mediante subesset; vel abbates aut praepositi Latini constituerent in illis). In his letter addressed to the bishop of Oradea and the abbot of Pilis, Innocent III express his intention to take under the direct control (nullo mediante) these churches that were to be administered by the two prelates. King Emeric is assumed to have formed to wish to create an Orthodox bishopric in the regions at the southern border of the Kingdom, but the Papacy denied it. This might have occurred before the conquest of Constantinople, when the denominational policy of the Hungarian king had not yet reached its subsequent Catholic and anti-schismatic firmness. The solution envisaged by the Pope for the bishopric of the land of the sons of Cnez Bela (quidam episcopatus in terra filiorum Beleknese) of 1205 –which is presented in the letter of Pope Innocent III to the Archbishop of Kalocsa of 3 May 1205–, reflects the same policy of putting the Orthodox ecclesiastic structures under the control of the Papacy, and not under the jurisdiction of the Hungarian Church. King Emeric had asked from the Pope the leave to put this bishopric, of which is said that it was not submitted to any Metropolitanate, under subordination to the Apostolic See, and to place it under the jurisdiction of the Archbishopric of Kalocsa. Innocent III admitted the king’s request, under the reserve that the bishopric in question should not have previously belonged to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In this case, the bishopric had to be maintained in dependency to the Patriarchate, which now had become Latin. The direct or indirect (in this latter case, through the Archbishopric of Ochrida) affiliation of a bishopric, lying in the North-West area of the Balkan Peninsula, to the Patriarchate of Constantinople was compulsory, and therefore the reserve expressed by the Pope was equivalent to a rejection of the king’s proposal. Subordination to the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople also involved the exertion of a control by the Papacy over this diocese, and prevention of its coming into subordination to the Hungarian Church. SourceFakirbakir (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • So, we can not demonstrate places of the monasteries. We can assume Orthodox presence at the southern borders (and central Hungary). Initially, King Emeric required a bishopric for the southern regions of Kingdom of Hungary, but Pope Innocent III denied it. They arranged another place and established a bishopric in "In terra filiorum Beleknese" (perhaps ?Beiuş?). Please check the source (link above).Fakirbakir (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • A. Ch. 1205. Idem Innocentius de quodam Episcopatu Graeco ad vnionem reducendo, ac A. Episcopo Colocensi subiiciendo, rescribit.
  • Innocentius Episcopus, Seruus Seruorum Dei, venerabili fratri, Colocensi Archiepiscopo, salutem et apostolicam benedictionem. Ex parte tua 460nostris fuit auribus intimatum, quod quidam episcopatus in terra filiorum Beleknese consistit quem, quum nulli subsit metropoli, ad deuotionem apostolicae sedis intendis reducere, ac iurisdictioni Ecclesiae subdere Colocensis; dum modo tibi super hoc nostrum praeberemus assensum: Nos autem, desiderio tuo, quantum cum Deo possumus, annuentes, praesentium tibi auctoritate concedimus, vt, si praemissis veritas suffragatur, episcopatum ipsum tibi sit licitum ad deuotionem ecclesiae Romanae reducere, ac ipsum Colocensis ecclesiae subdere ditioni. Prouideas autem attentius, ne episcopatus ille sit ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae subiectus: quia quum ipsa Constantinopolitana ecclesia nuper ad apostolicae sedis redierit vnitatem; eam nolumus suo iure priuari. Datum Romae, apud Sanctum Petrum, V. nonas Maii, pontificatus nostri anno octauo.
  • Apud Dobner Mon. T. II. p. 355. E reg. an. VIII. epist. 46. Katona Tom. IV. p. 767–8.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Please note that User:SamiraJ is blocked from editing due to being the banned editor ]]user:Iaaasi]]. And his contributions can be ignored / reverted for this reason. Hobartimus (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Hungary 1241.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Hungary 1241.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Carphatianbasin gepidia.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Carphatianbasin gepidia.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Hungary 11th cent.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Hungary 11th cent.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Hungary 1550.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Hungary 1550.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Politics regarding the Eastern Orthodox Church[edit]

I found an interesting source for this article in the set of resources of the University of Bucharest. The author is the reputed Romanian historian Ioan Aurel Pop. However in some passages (for instance in this one) there is another author cited (in this particular case "Gyula Moravcsik, Byzantium and the Magyars, Budapest, 1970, p. 116"). I don't know if Moravcsik or Pop should be mentioned as author here Sidinnou (talk) 07:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)