Talk:Investiture Controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Investiture Controversy article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated Start-Class) Middle Ages Portal Investiture Controversy is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. WikiProject Middle Ages To do: WikiProject European Microstates     (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of the WikiProject European Microstates, which collaborates on articles related to European Microstates. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. Additional information: Related work groups: Vatican City work group WikiProject European history (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of the WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of the history of Europe. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Lacks adequate sub-heading structure, almost no citations. Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Edits by 147.226.216.174 2 "holy father" 3 Edits by 66.235.44.73 4 Dominium mundi

[edit] Edits by 147.226.216.174

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)

---

Added a section on the English investiture controversy. Many elusive circumlocutions in bureaucratspeak need to be made more crisp and informative in this sometimes flaccid report. --Wetman 1 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)

[edit] "holy father"

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)

[edit] Edits by 66.235.44.73

There is NO WAY that the Gregorian Reforms, begun in 1056, are not connected with the Great Schism of 1054. Indeed, the reason behind the Great Schism was Rome's aggressive assertion of Papal Primacy which the Greek Orthodox world could not stomach. This smacks of the very Papal Absolutism characterizing the Gregorian Reforms! Thus, it seems unambiguously clear beyond all doubt that in this period of the 1050s, a Papal Absolutism party took final control of the RCC, leading to a break with the Orthodox East (1054), the absolutist Gregorian Reforms (1056+), the crushing of then-Orthodox England (1066) still in communion with the Greek East, and the Investiture Controversy (1075+), and even the First Crusade (1095). During this period, the RCC aggressively shed all restraints to its absolutist powers and proclaimed itself the inerrant avatar of Almighty God on Earth for all peoples, to wit, Global Ruler. These assertions alienated all of its neighbors, leading to conflicts with the Orthodox World, England, Germany, and the Muslim World.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.235.44.73 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] 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, 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)