Talk:Cuius regio, eius religio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Calvinism Portal Cuius regio, eius religio falls within the scope of WikiProject Calvinism, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Calvinism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Corrections

"neither the Reformed nor Radical churches (Anabaptists and Calvinists being the prime examples)" - these are out of order - the Calvinists were Reformed and the Anabaptists were Radical. I'm switching the order so they match.

Removed:

In Visigothic Spain, for instance, the Arianism of the rulers was expected to be enforced upon their subjects, as a matter of course.

The Visigoths were Arian but their Hispano-Roman subjects were Catholic. -- Error 04:28, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Indeed. And the Visigothic bishops and the public version of Christianity in Visigothic Spain was consequently Arian, was it not? That's what cuius regio eius religio entails.Wetman 04:35, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The ruling Visigoths had their custom law and the Arian church for themselves, while the Hispano-Romans kept the Roman law and the Catholic church. But all of them were subjects of the Arian Visigoth king (until the mass conversion with Recaredus (?). That is not what I understand under c.r.e.r. Or am I wrong? -- Error 04:51, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The point is that cuius regio is the principle under which the popular religion (even paganism, under Christian emperors) is suppressed. Even when the Arian Visigoths stopped exiling Catholic bishops, the repression continued, even at the highest social levels.This gives better Visigothic background than I could: " while there is no record of an actual persecution of the Spanish Catholics by the Arian rulers except for the brief period from 583 to 585 during the reign of Leovigild, there was constant friction between the Catholics and the Arians. Thus Amalaric (507-531) treated his queen, Clotilda, so cruelly because of her Catholic religion that he provoked a war with her brother, the Frankish ruler, Childibert I. Agila (549-5 54)" Isn't that the principle at work?  ;) Wetman 05:41, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I understand that Clotilda was treated as a Visigoth since she married one. But since the Lex Romana Visigothorum (I skimmed your URL) respects the Catholic church and there were differences among kings, I think that the pre-conversion Visigoths are a bad example. But the mass conversion to Catholicism induced (forced?) by the king could be one. Are we actually discussing the meaning of the principle or the facts about the Visigoth rule (which I don't really master)? -- Error 01:29, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

We're probably unwise to extend the principle back in time, or away from the H.R.E. anyway. But the principle is not one of toleration but of sovreignty. The Prince decides. His suzerain cannot impose. That's what should come across in the entry. We agree on that, don't we? Wetman 16:00, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Still today

I read somewhere that today (or before WWII) you could find that the church tax maps still follow the old imperial fiefs. -- Error 02:02, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"State sovereignty, considered absolute and unquestioned until after World War I, was undeniably eroded in the later 20th century."

Uh, what? English Civil War, Glorious Revolution, anyone? Deleting this nonsense. --Cruci 23:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last two paragraphs

• There are two lines in the last two paragraphs that I think could use a little more context and or clarification. 1) "The disaffection of the population was a factor." I have heard that strife between Arians and Catholics was alive and well in Spain at this time, but could someone please elaborate on this statement? 2) "there was little loyalty to the emperor in Constantinople, partly because of recent controversies over the nature of Christ." Please elaborate. I know there are existing Wiki pages dealing with this issue, so a short sentence and an appropriate link should be all this needs for clarification.--Hraefen 15:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Nope, in 711 the Visigothic Kingdom was officially a Catholic kingdom, since the convertion of Reccared I in 587. But the strife still existed within the kingdom against king Roderick. --85.48.96.96 17:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Could we include pronunciation guides to this phrase?

By the way, I am glad this article was here. I was reading a document on-line that used this phrase but did not provide any background or translation. Thank you, Wikipedia community. - Bounton 03:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)