This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cuius regio, eius religio article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"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:
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)
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)
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)
This could do with being placed in a British context considering how relevant it is to both the Henrician Schism and later Glorious Revolution - the embodiment of, and rejection of, this phrase respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.136.12 ( talk) 12:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence after the table of contents reads:
What, perchance, does this sentence mean? I was going to delete it, but then it occurred to me that in some dialect of English it might perhaps make sense. I'm from America, and it doesn't make any sense in my language. (Unless "the old testimony" means "the true, original unblemished form of Christianity". If that's what it means, then I do understand the sentence. But in that case, this sentence is POV and irrelevant to this article.)
I was going to delete it, but it has been on this page since 7 Sept 2008, and many editors have revised the page since then, so the fact that this sentence has not been altered makes me think maybe that it does mean something to those editors. — Lawrence King ( talk) 05:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Update: Looking at the revision history, I see that this sentence was altered twice yesterday, and the changes were reverted both times. Why not just delete this sentence instead of revising it? After all, this Wikipedia topic is presumably about the phrase "cuius regio, eius religio", not about all the times in history that rulers chose or affected the religions of their subjects. Unless someone can show that this phrase existed before the religious conflicts in the HRE in the 16th century, then the page should begin with them. — Lawrence King ( talk) 05:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
While we're at it: What does the following paragraph mean?
Leaving aside the grammatical errors ("obey to", and also "papal obedience", which would mean the pope obeying someone else), I don't understand what the author is trying to say. Moreover, I don't believe that Catholic teaching ever stated that non-Catholic kings should obey the pope, so what's the relevance here? — Lawrence King ( talk) 06:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The so-called translation or meaning isn't proper English. It needs to be longer and explicit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 ( talk) 16:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I changed the introduction sentence. The sentence "cuius regio eius religio" does historically not indicate that the king's religion is the country's religion. The king's religion was the country's religion throughout the Middle Ages while this sentence was not formulated. "Cuius regio eius religio" comes from the 16th century and in this sense never means the king (i. e. the Emperor and king), but the territorial princes. Although there was no general unanimity as to whether a layman could have any (undoubtedly limited) influence in religious questions, it was clear that if so, this would belong to the king alone. Therefore, Luther would quite willingly have attributed supreme religious authority to Emperor Charles V if, little problem, Emperor Charles had given Luther's opinions supreme authority. Emperor Charles, however, was quite content in staying Catholic (and this even if he can by some reason be called an enemy of the Pope as a secular power). And here Luther referred to some territorial princes he could convince - and territorial princes were not kings and had only an authority deduced from the king and it was exactly the attribution of this decision in religious matters to territorial princes that is meant by "cuius regio, eius religio". -- 84.154.64.49 ( talk) 14:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Questionable statement: "The principle was re-applied under the absolute monarchy of divine right of the French "sun king" Louis XIV, and in neighboring monarchies, and was used to restrain the rights of Protestants, although Protestants were themselves the originators of this political principle. Later on, dissatisfaction with "cuius regio" led to the general spread of pluralism across Europe."
Louis adopted this principle? Indeed? show me the money, please (show me the cite). Louis did what he thought necessary to secure his kingdom and his own place in the sun, and the jurists simply had to keep up. I'm not aware that Louis had anything remotely to do with such a principle.
Questionable paragraph re the Visigoths, Arians, Muslims, etc. As far as the Muslims were concerned, when they overran the Iberian peninsula, the Christians and the Jews were peoples of the book. They could continue to practice their specific religion. The pagans, on the other hand, were not peoples of the book, and were required to convert to Islam or be executed. This is not Cuius regio, eius religio.
Finally, this page starts with a mistranslation, and then proceeds, error upon error, to built an entirely confounding article. How can this help whoever stumbles across it looking for illumination!
I'm going to revisit this page in a week, and if there are no citations documenting these extraordinary statements, I'm going to delete the sections. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 22:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
This is my first attempt at contribution, so forgive mistakes in process. I notice an apparent contradiction here: the article says that the phrase cuius regio, eius religio "was was coined in 1582 by the legist Joachim Stephani", yet it was central to the treaty of Augsburg in 1555. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AeolusSpring ( talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I tried to fix a lot of problems but they got deleted from here
This thing is like a history book
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cuius regio, eius religio article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"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:
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)
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)
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)
This could do with being placed in a British context considering how relevant it is to both the Henrician Schism and later Glorious Revolution - the embodiment of, and rejection of, this phrase respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.136.12 ( talk) 12:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence after the table of contents reads:
What, perchance, does this sentence mean? I was going to delete it, but then it occurred to me that in some dialect of English it might perhaps make sense. I'm from America, and it doesn't make any sense in my language. (Unless "the old testimony" means "the true, original unblemished form of Christianity". If that's what it means, then I do understand the sentence. But in that case, this sentence is POV and irrelevant to this article.)
I was going to delete it, but it has been on this page since 7 Sept 2008, and many editors have revised the page since then, so the fact that this sentence has not been altered makes me think maybe that it does mean something to those editors. — Lawrence King ( talk) 05:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Update: Looking at the revision history, I see that this sentence was altered twice yesterday, and the changes were reverted both times. Why not just delete this sentence instead of revising it? After all, this Wikipedia topic is presumably about the phrase "cuius regio, eius religio", not about all the times in history that rulers chose or affected the religions of their subjects. Unless someone can show that this phrase existed before the religious conflicts in the HRE in the 16th century, then the page should begin with them. — Lawrence King ( talk) 05:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
While we're at it: What does the following paragraph mean?
Leaving aside the grammatical errors ("obey to", and also "papal obedience", which would mean the pope obeying someone else), I don't understand what the author is trying to say. Moreover, I don't believe that Catholic teaching ever stated that non-Catholic kings should obey the pope, so what's the relevance here? — Lawrence King ( talk) 06:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The so-called translation or meaning isn't proper English. It needs to be longer and explicit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 ( talk) 16:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I changed the introduction sentence. The sentence "cuius regio eius religio" does historically not indicate that the king's religion is the country's religion. The king's religion was the country's religion throughout the Middle Ages while this sentence was not formulated. "Cuius regio eius religio" comes from the 16th century and in this sense never means the king (i. e. the Emperor and king), but the territorial princes. Although there was no general unanimity as to whether a layman could have any (undoubtedly limited) influence in religious questions, it was clear that if so, this would belong to the king alone. Therefore, Luther would quite willingly have attributed supreme religious authority to Emperor Charles V if, little problem, Emperor Charles had given Luther's opinions supreme authority. Emperor Charles, however, was quite content in staying Catholic (and this even if he can by some reason be called an enemy of the Pope as a secular power). And here Luther referred to some territorial princes he could convince - and territorial princes were not kings and had only an authority deduced from the king and it was exactly the attribution of this decision in religious matters to territorial princes that is meant by "cuius regio, eius religio". -- 84.154.64.49 ( talk) 14:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Questionable statement: "The principle was re-applied under the absolute monarchy of divine right of the French "sun king" Louis XIV, and in neighboring monarchies, and was used to restrain the rights of Protestants, although Protestants were themselves the originators of this political principle. Later on, dissatisfaction with "cuius regio" led to the general spread of pluralism across Europe."
Louis adopted this principle? Indeed? show me the money, please (show me the cite). Louis did what he thought necessary to secure his kingdom and his own place in the sun, and the jurists simply had to keep up. I'm not aware that Louis had anything remotely to do with such a principle.
Questionable paragraph re the Visigoths, Arians, Muslims, etc. As far as the Muslims were concerned, when they overran the Iberian peninsula, the Christians and the Jews were peoples of the book. They could continue to practice their specific religion. The pagans, on the other hand, were not peoples of the book, and were required to convert to Islam or be executed. This is not Cuius regio, eius religio.
Finally, this page starts with a mistranslation, and then proceeds, error upon error, to built an entirely confounding article. How can this help whoever stumbles across it looking for illumination!
I'm going to revisit this page in a week, and if there are no citations documenting these extraordinary statements, I'm going to delete the sections. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 22:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
This is my first attempt at contribution, so forgive mistakes in process. I notice an apparent contradiction here: the article says that the phrase cuius regio, eius religio "was was coined in 1582 by the legist Joachim Stephani", yet it was central to the treaty of Augsburg in 1555. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AeolusSpring ( talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I tried to fix a lot of problems but they got deleted from here
This thing is like a history book