I’m interested in introducing a false priest as a potential story hook but I wanted to clarify the implications of this Dark Secret as discussed briefly in The Church, pg. 27.
Firstly, how would this come about? My understanding is that many priests are made curates or given benefices by the bishop upon ordination, which doesn’t seem to leave room for a false priest to take over a parish. Even if a vacancy opened up because of death or illness, and no newly-ordained priest was available, wouldn’t the senior clergyman be able to verify the person requesting the benefice isn’t ordained? How tightly organised and controlled is the Church in Mythic Europe? Are false priests relegated mainly to extremely remote areas?
Secondly, what is the implication on the souls of his flock? I can’t quite figure out if the Sacraments have any effect when administered by someone who is not ordained. I see baptism can be provided by anyone who knows the right words, but I’m assuming that’s the exception and not the rule. It’s mentioned in a few places that only an ordained priest can conduct Mass, but is that a social rule or a Divine decree?
I think there’s story potential in a false priest conducting everything right, including confession and penance, but because they aren’t ordained the Sacraments just don’t work, which might put curious magi in a bit of a conundrum when demons start knocking on their door. But I’d like to make sure I haven’t missed anything.
Have a look at this: Simony. This was a huge problem, since sacraments bestowe by priests ordained by simony were suspect. See sub rosa #16 1050AD: Strange Alliances p.92 APPENDIX: THE WESTERN CHURCH
REFORMING for more.
Thanks! I hadn’t really thought about simony despite it being mentioned in the same section on Dark Secrets.
Maybe that works for this character hook instead of being outright false. A priest ordained by simony could have the same effect on the Sacraments until his secret his discovered. I like it.
A case where I could see this happen are proprietary churches. In theory, the proprietor proposes a candidate priest to the bishop, but how closely the bishop checks the candidate and whether there is a power difference that makes it hard to refuse is another matter. The German Wikipedia mentions lay people being assigned as priests.
Proprietary churches would be an interesting angle to take as I was already thinking this parish belongs to an abbey aligned with the Cistercian order, so perhaps the abbot proposed the candidate to the bishop and the bishop feels unable to refuse because of the political power of the abbot and the Cistercians as a whole.
I guess that probably happens more often with churches belonging to secular lords though.
Either case opens up some political games where the magi might want the priest removed for various reasons and so makes an appeal to the bishop, only to accidentally step in it with a nobleman or abbot who acts as the false priest’s patron.
War eine Pfarrei als Pfründe an eine kanonisch nicht geeignete Person (ungeweihte, minderjährige) gekommen, so musste das Pfarramt von einem Vikar mit Priesterweihe versehen werden; die Einkünfte aus den Pfarrpfründen genoss dabei der Pfründeninhaber (Pfarrektor).
So yes, the income of the Parish could legally go to a Prebendary who was not ordained as a Priest. But this Prebendary has to appoint a Vicar: an ordained Priest to hold services and perform the functions of a Priest for the Parish.
Appointing a lay person as a Priest would be a serious transgression of a Latin Church Bishop. That doesn't mean that it couldn't happen.
Actually, I was thinking about these quotes (sorry for posting them in German, but automatic translat:
Geistliche Ämter wurden oft gekauft (Simonie). Vielfach wurden Geistliche oder sogar Laien bestellt, um deren Versorgung sicherzustellen oder als Gegenleistung. Diese fielen nicht selten durch einen sittenlosen Lebenswandel und Ungehorsam gegenüber dem Diözesanbischof auf. Wenn ein der vollen Befehlsgewalt des Grundherrn unterstehender Unfreier als Priester eingesetzt wurde, konnte dieser zusätzlich zu niedrigen Arbeiten verwendet werden.
Ecclesiastical offices were often bought (simony). In many cases, clergy or even laypeople were appointed to ensure their livelihood or as a quid pro quo. It was not uncommon for these individuals to stand out for their immoral conduct and disobedience toward the diocesan bishop. If a serf subject to the full authority of the lord was ordained as a priest, he could also be put to work performing menial tasks.
Folgen waren Verweltlichung des Klerus, Entfremdung des Kirchengutes und Laieninvestitur. [...] Im 12. Jh. wurde das Recht des Eigenkirchenherren durch Kirchenreformen dahingehend beschnitten, dass er bei der Berufung eines Geistlichen nur mehr ein Vorschlagsrecht ("Präsentationsrecht") hatte. War der Vorgeschlagene dem zuständigen Bischof genehm, so wurde er durch diesen oder seinen Stellvertreter ins Amt gesetzt. (In der Praxis blieb die bischöfliche Anerkennung vielfach reine Formsache, und die Kirchenpatrone setzten aufgrund des "Patronatsrechts" weiterhin Personen nach eigenem Gutdünken ins Amt.)
The consequences were the secularization of the clergy, the alienation of church property, and lay investiture. [...] In the 12th century, church reforms curtailed the rights of the patron to the extent that he retained only the right to propose a candidate (“right of presentation”) when appointing a clergyman. If the nominee was acceptable to the competent bishop, he was installed in office by the bishop or his representative. (In practice, episcopal approval often remained a mere formality, and church patrons continued to install individuals in office at their own discretion based on the “right of patronage.”)
I am not a historian, I don’t know the details of the struggles around lay investiture and even less about the realities of it. Given that most priests went through a sort of vocational training by another priest, that illiterate priests were not uncommon, and that appointments of priests were influenced by more factors than just merit, I would guess these things happened often enough that I would not feel bad about including them in a saga.
The English translation for the term Eigenkirche is Proprietary Church. As a product of feudalism, the founder of a church had vast rights about it - but already in Carolingian times these rights were limited also in German lands:
Within the Carolingian Empire, the rules concerning proprietary churches had been expressly formulated in the ninth century, at the reforming councils of 808, under Charlemagne and of 818/9, under Louis the Pious. Then proprietary churches had been officially recognized, but the capitulations identify some of the associated excesses, for it was agreed that the proprietor should not appoint nor depose priests without the assent of the bishop, nor appoint unfree persons. Every church was to be provided with a manse and its garden that were free of seigneurial dues, where the priest could support himself, providing spiritual services.
That such rules were necessary points to Lords abusing rights over these proprietary churches still in Carolingian times. To allow such abuses to continue in typical ArM times centuries later, a bishop would have to be fully in the pocket of the Lord or very negligent.
Yes, and i assume that would also be quite common. Often the Bishop would be drawn from local nobility, so they would be certain to make life easy for their relatives… and that's without the warlord bishops who were too busy fighting to do much admin.
While it wasn't a question of proprietary churches but of the (hereditary) advocacy (Vogt) for religious religious institutions, this is exactly what lead to Engelbwrt of Köln's downfall:
1 - He let his cousins and favoured vassals abuse their Advocacy to line their pockets so much that the cloisters write to the pope to complain.
2 - The pope told him to do something about it.
3 - He told his magnates (including those related to him, who benefotted most from this) to ease off or face consequences.
4 - He got murdered in a bungled kidnapping attempt.
So yes, definitely a realistic scenario (that could be played through in Ars Magica…)
Indeed, Engelbert was killed by ministeriales of his relative, Friedrich von Isenberg, when Engelbert defended the claims of the Abbess of the Essen Frauenstift against Friedrich. These claims were about a lot of yearly income and fought with all means: forgeries, involvement of the pope, and finally and utterly uselessly with violence.
Engelbert was a stern and assertive politician: having unordained priests take over parishes in his archbishopric was not something he would have condoned.
Engelbert was first and foremost a warlord and politician who let his family and some vassals get away with robbing the church institutions under their care because it bought him their loyalty and co-operation with his military adventures.
Letting them get away with filling church positions with convenient randos is exactly on line with his buying off of feudal underlings.
Life as a succcessful noble politician encompasses more than having relatives get away with church crimes.
I reckon you can read German - so I refer you just to the German wiki about the life of Engelbert. Look especially at his changing relation to Innocent III from 1206 to 1216, leading from his ban, excommunication and deposition to his election to archbishop of Cologne with support by the same Innocent III.
No, Engelbert is not the example of inconscious, limited churchman on beck and call for his family you need for your argument.
I have read about Engelbert extensively as prep for the Wrath of Köln, as well as listening to podcasts and watching videos on YT on him. And yes, German has given me a larger pool
Him making Dompropst at age 14 had nothing to do with his devotion and rules following, but rather to him being a peak nepo baby, with his uncle beig Archbishop in the period.
He was a politician, that goes without saying, he did work hard to centralise power in his person. But the fact that he had to threaten the nuclear option in Soest is exactly because he had let his temporal magnates get away with so much that he ended up with the pope breathing down his neck. So yeah, giving the archdeaconry to a relative of his or his magnates, who will not kick up a fuss about bad religious practices locally so long as it keeps his fellow nobles pliable and amenable to their liege lord, is exactly par for course.
