Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: AnthonyPadua on December 30, 2023, 07:42:19 AM
-
After watching this video today near the end it mentions that Charlemagne had 9 wives and many concubines. This seems like a big issue for his Catholicism, I was unaware of this before the video, is this perhaps one of the reasons he is not a canonised Saint?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAt6MqcqGRI
-
As someone who can trace their lineage to Charlemagne, this is quite interesting. Probably explains why I've got plenty of company.
From Britannica (online): "Never far from his mind was his large family: five wives in sequence, several concubines, and at least 18 children over whose interests he watched carefully."
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Charlemagne/King-of-the-Franks
-
Why is this a "big issue for Catholicism?" Charlemagne's indiscretions have been well known for centuries. Concubinage was a very common, even "traditional" custom among pre/early- feudal Europeans. It's bad, obviously, but it was no shocker. A more significant barrier to his canonization was probably his rejection of Nicea II.
-
Why is this a "big issue for Catholicism?" Charlemagne's indiscretions have been well known for centuries. Concubinage was a very common, even "traditional" custom among pre/early- feudal Europeans. It's bad, obviously, but it was no shocker. A more significant barrier to his canonization was probably his rejection of Nicea II.
For some reason I always thought he was a 'good Catholic'. :(
-
Solomon has a thousand wives and fell into pagan idolatry, but no one has a problem with that.
" Wisest" man ever they say right?
Personally, I think he was an idiot.
Who could put up with a thousand wives, when most men can barely handle one?
-
For some reason I always thought he was a 'good Catholic'. :(
.
Sounds like your problem rather than Catholicism's ;)
.
Charlemagne did a lot for the Church, notwithstanding his indulgence. He can (and should) be admired and appreciated for the good he did.
-
Solomon has a thousand wives and fell into pagan idolatry, but no one has a problem with that.
" Wisest" man ever they say right?
Personally, I think he was an idiot.
Who could put up with a thousand wives, when most men can barely handle one?
Solomon was before Christ and His Church. Marriage was fixed back to 1 wife at a time with no other relationships allowed (no concubines).
-
Solomon was before Christ and His Church. Marriage was fixed back to 1 wife at a time with no other relationships allowed (no concubines).
So bigamy was allowed until Jesus "fixed" it. Got it.
Apparently, divorce was too, until he "fixed" that as well; ::)
Matthew 19:8-9
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sɛҳuąƖ immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
-
So bigamy was allowed until Jesus "fixed" it. Got it.
Apparently, divorce was too, until he "fixed" that as well; ::)
Matthew 19:8-9
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sɛҳuąƖ immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
There seemed to be an exception for the patriarchs. Though I do not have the details.
-
As someone who can trace their lineage to Charlemagne, this is quite interesting. Probably explains why I've got plenty of company.
From Britannica (online): "Never far from his mind was his large family: five wives in sequence, several concubines, and at least 18 children over whose interests he watched carefully."
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Charlemagne/King-of-the-Franks
If he was that much of an, ahem, "ladies' man" (there are stronger words), probably anybody on this forum who has any continental European blood, could trace their lineage back to one of his wives, concubines, or whatevers.
-
His is listed as “Blessed Charlemagne” in an older edition of Butler’s Lives. How is that?
-
So bigamy was allowed until Jesus "fixed" it. Got it.
Apparently, divorce was too, until he "fixed" that as well; ::)
Matthew 19:8-9
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sɛҳuąƖ immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
First, you need to use the Douay Rheims version of the Bible.
Secondly, the important part was not highlighted: “and marries another woman”. You cannot put away your wife and then remarry.
-
So bigamy was allowed until Jesus "fixed" it. Got it.
Apparently, divorce was too, until he "fixed" that as well; ::)
Matthew 19:8-9
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sɛҳuąƖ immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Upon rereading your post, I hope you didn’t mean this in a blasphemous way?
-
I didn't know the guy very well; he was off ruling his empire or whatever.
I got nothing; sorry I can't be of more help.
-
If you want to seriously know about Charlemagne, if you are seriously interested in history and want to know the truth, you're going to HAVE TO crack some actual books, and not just sit back with a Hot Pocket and queue up passive entertainment for the masses on Youtube.
I'm going to bring up Idocracy again, and yes I'm somewhat guilty of getting a certain number of people to go see it, since I keep talking about it. But the movie really had something to say. It made you think, even if those thoughts weren't pleasant to consider.
In the movie, the most popular movie is called "Ass" and it's just a closeup of a butt on the screen passing gas. No one knows whose butt it is, or why it's farting. TV channels are of a similar caliber, such as a show with a single plot: a guy gets smashed in the rocks in countless different ways. THAT is mainstream, popular-level entertainment in the future.
Looking at Youtube, I'd say we're three-quarters of the way there!
As far as literature or content goes, Youtube is worse than comic books, or the back of cereal boxes, used to be considered back in the 80's ("back in the day").
Half of it is lies, distorted, half-truths, and bad sources. And almost none of it has an Imprimatur, or is from a Catholic source.
What I learned about Charlemagne in the seminary is that no, he was not a saint. He was EXTREMELY rough around the edges to say the least.
-
The clout chasers on TikTok might possibly be the demise of social media.
-
If you want to seriously know about Charlemagne, if you are seriously interested in history and want to know the truth, you're going to HAVE TO crack some actual books, and not just sit back with a Hot Pocket and queue up passive entertainment for the masses on Youtube.
Thank you Matthew. Having grown up pre internet it is frustrating how "web rambling" and YouTube have replaced serious research and credible sources. I also live on a farm and our internet is delivered over ageing rural phone lines, videos are pretty much not watchable most days. Our local library is thinking of replacing physical DVD's for checkout with a streaming service and are getting some serious negative feedback from the rural community.
Back in the day anything filmed was for entertainment, serious and credible information was always in written format.
(https://i.imgur.com/WtkVVrG.jpg)
-
At first glance it looked like the subject line read "Was Charlemagne an indulterer?" and I thought, what, weird, oh no here we go again... :popcorn: :facepalm: :laugh1:
Seriously though. The Old Testament on its own wouldn't seem to bode well, but God knows exactly what He's doing. The pagan, corrupt, and finally decaying Roman Empire is what became the vector for the spread of Christianity. Same with the Holy Roman Emperors, some of whom may not have been that holy personally.
Ponder less about what Charlemagne was up to in his spare time and instead stand back and gaze thankfully upon the vastness and wisdom of Divine Providence. And skip 99% of those fast media "sources" that only plant seeds of confusion and doubt.
-
I would start with the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, and find the writer's sources for the article. Never trust Encyclopedia Britannica. In general Encyclopedias are not scholarly sources and are always to be avoided. Some specialized Encyclopedias are not too bad. As for the video/narrator posted by the OP, the guy has done four videos and has 400 followers on X (twitter). Find the most authoritative author on Charlemagne and start there.