Talk:Investiture Controversy

message: Reverted edits. None of the footnotes are accurate, I checked the books in question using Amazon Look Inside and they are bogus refrences. On further research found that the text is copyvio's from other websites. I'm curious if 147.226.216.174 will chime in here and explain why this was done, the intent seemed to be good, but the footnotes and copyrighted are clearly misleading. --Stbalbach 03:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: WTF?  "In addition, the Holy Roman Emperor had the special ability to appoint the pope".  This line is nonsense and should be removed.  The Bishops of Rome had been elected by the citizenry of the City up until 1059, when Nicholas II restricted the privilege to the Cardinal Priests of the Church. Solicitr (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This claim was inserted by Wetman again, uncited and pointing to his pet proprietary church article, so I removed it again.  Requires a verifiable and reliable source if it's going to stick. --Geoff Capp (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by 147.226.216.174

message: I do not have much Latin, but I am mostly convinced that this form is corrupt; that it derived from 'sacredotum' (modern spelling sacerdotum; genitive plural of sacerdos, 'priest' or 'cleric') via a faulty OCR scan. I cannot find the form 'sacredoium' in usage anywhere on the web that does *not* trace its origin back to this page, with a single exception (https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.151204/2015.151204.Early-Tudor-Poetry-1485-1547_djvu.txt) that is itself clearly the proceeds of an OCR scanning project. Recommend changing to 'sacredotus'.Sebum-n-soda (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "sacredoium" 

message: I would like this article to include information on the rcc's pope's title. If someone can do that in wikipedia standard that would be nice.
The origin of the Roman Catholic title according to http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0038.html was "born" during the Investiture Controversy. 
:The qualifier “holy” underlines the spiritual dimension of this fatherhood exercised in the name of God; and we have already said that it does not imply a moral judgment on the person of the Pope. The expression “Holy Father” was born in the time of the controversy over lay investiture, and it seemed normal that in its becoming common usage in the acts of the chancery, the Roman Curia had then wished to underscore the spiritual and supernatural level of the mission of the Pope by adding the adjective “holy” — to defend implicitly the superiority of papal power over imperial power.
::What is the connection of the assumed title with the Investiture Controversy? Isn't this part of the broader program discussed (badly so far) at Gregorian Reform? --Wetman 17:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "holy father" 

message: 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, Separation of church and state (medieval), 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. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 06:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dominium mundi]] 

message: This article is awful - like a bad A-level paper but with too many errors. THe claims in the opening paragraph are laughable. Please, can someone who knows something about this topic write a new piece? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.58.95 (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed! It is clearly a biased article worthy of a place among Luther's. To quote, "The crisis began when a group within the church, members of the Gregorian Reform, decided to rebel against the rule of simony by forcefully taking the power of investiture from the ruling secular power, i.e. the Holy Roman Emperor and placing that power wholly within control of the church." It completely disregards the fact that the Church had started off with bishops (and pope) elected by the clergy and people; it disregards the Pax Dei movement and Cluniac reforms which are part and parcel of the Gregorian reforms; it disregards the excesses of the "secular" bishops appointed by the Emperor. Instead it paints a picture of a cunning pope eager for power. Simony was one of the gravest sins for the early Church; so no they did not "rebel" against the "rule" of simony. Not that there wasn't a power-grab, but the article needs to be balanced by someone in the know.Chrystomath2 (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: TERRIBLE

message: * I plan to chip in bits 'n pieces to this article, a little bit here and there over a longish time period. I knew nothing about this topic before encountering this article & so will be learning as I go. All and sundry who watch this page are cordially invited to let me know where I err. Later! Ling.Nut (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  An improvement walk (not an improvement drive) 

message: Wow, I didn't know this:
*"China says it has the right to appoint bishops; Vatican says that's the pope's job"
* Chinese underground churches expose rift, CNN article.
* Ling.Nut (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  investiture... alive and well in China 

message: I removed the following sentence: This radical departure from the balance of power of the Early Middle Ages, among the other Gregorian reforms, eliminated the practice of investiture, the divinely-appointed monarch's right to invest a ..."
There are four problems with that text:
*the word "radical" implies that the changes were an innovation rather than a repudiation of uncanonical practices
*"Balance of power": that a king should be one - the only one! - to appoint bishops in his realm doesn't look like balanced to me, more like something totally imbalanced. Sure, there was a time when the Papacy claimed total supremacy as under Boniface VIII (at least rhetorically) but what one can see in the aftermath of the Investiture Controversy was not an imbalanced distrubution of power but rather one balance two sides.
*"eliminated the practice of investiture" - it did eliminate "lay investiture", not investiture as such, which strictly speaking cannot be eliminated.
*"the divinely-appointed monarch's right to invest" both informs the reader that the monarch was appointed by God and that he had that right - both are quite contentious claims.
12:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal

message: This article currently has a picture of a cat, described as a "medieval king" by the caption - this is clearly wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.144.197 (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  .... a cat? ... 

message: ...their first step was to forcibly gain the papacy from the control of the emperor.
— Gain?  Do we mean "wrest" or "remove"?  Sca (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Syntax

message: What is a "nobility leader"? The term is used twice in this article, but I can't find any evidence that it is English. Whatever it really means, I'm thinking it must be something wikilinkable. Ntsimp (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobility leader 

message: I was wondering why Pope Gelasius, St. Ambrose & St. Augustine were not included in the discussion of origins of this controversy, as the dialogue about separation of church and state is much older than stated.
76.27.193.75 (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: This article was reviewed by a professional Medieval historian and a paper written about it:
:
-- GreenC 20:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting. And I generally consider this article to be not nearly as good as it could be. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article reviewed  

message: The article Concordat of Worms currently contains a lot of information that's not about the concordat, but is actually background on the Investiture Controversy. In fact, it has more information on the controversy than the article on the controversy. As a result, I found it difficult to figure out what the Concordat of Worms did, exactly, just by reading its article. Moving most of the background material to Investiture Controversy would help. And actually the concordat can be explained in a single section, and it has to be explained in the controversy article anyway, because it resolves the whole thing, so unless the amount of material we have on the concordat itself is greatly expanded, I don't see the need to have a separate article for it, even though it's notable. -- Beland (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from Concordat of Worms 

message: I removed the following from the intro until it can be verified:
:According to historian Norman Cantor, the Investiture Controversy was "the turning-point in medieval civilization", marking the end of the Early Middle Ages with the Germanic peoples' "final and decisive" acceptance of Christianity. More importantly, it set the stage for the religious and political system of the High Middle Ages.
These are very bold claims! I'm wondering to what degree these are accurate summaries of the cited source, so I requested quotations. I'm also wondering to what degree other historians agree with it. I don't see any support for the first idea at Christianisation of the Germanic peoples, though if true of course it could be added. -- Beland (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold claims from intro need verification 

message: I moved the following from Concordat of Worms to this talk page instead of merging it into the article:
:A more immediate result of the investiture struggle identified a proprietary right that adhered to sovereign territory, recognizing the right of kings to income from the territory of a vacant diocese and a basis for justifiable taxation. These rights lay outside feudalism, which defined authority in a hierarchy of personal relations, with only a loose relation to territory.
I don't see where the Concordat addresses the issue of taxation. If that's a misreading, the above claim could use a lot more explanation of how this came about. It's also unclear to me there's a single definition of "feudalism" that separates fealty from taxation. That could also use more explanation if that claim is kept. -- Beland (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims about taxation and feudalism 

message: has created a new version of Concordat of Worms which is well-researched and has better footnotes than the Worms section of Investiture Controversy. But most of the new article is background info on the controversy and two previous unsuccessful summits not previously mentioned in either article. The half that's about the Concordat and its impact will fit neatly into Investiture Controversy#Concordat of Worms (1122). Merging would improve the target article, ease future editing by making only one place to update coverage of the Concordat, reduce repetition, and benefit readers interested in the Concordat with a more thorough background. -- Beland (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second merge from Concordat of Worms