How is the Church of Charis getting new priests?

Hank Plantagenet wrote:

n7axw wrote:
Welcome to the forums. For now just a question... You name interests me. Do you have ancestry going back to Medieval times in England of France? Will address you point later. Right now I gotta run...

Don

I have been on a history reading kick of late, and have been studying medieval England. It just struck my fancy to imagine how Henry II would have been addressed in modern day America. A silly notion at best.

I too bid you welcome! As for your forum name ..., I think it would have been shortened a bit more - Hank Plant? West Coast Florida had a late 1800s Railroad Baron named Henry B Plant, one of his ultra class hotels became the home of Teddy Roosevelt for the Spanish American War and later the University of Tampa.

hanuman wrote:

Taurus2 wrote:I think you're wrong about all the seminary institutions being located in church territory. Maikel seems to have spent his entire career in Charis, apart from the traditional Temple pilgrimage.

Exactly. Besides, if we go by the practice of the various Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic churches, which the CoGA seems to be based upon, then a substantial proportion of the priesthood will be trained not in the seminaries, but in the monasteries.

Most Catholic priests were in-fact trained in the seminaries that each diocese maintains (in some cases multiple seminaries until recently). This is necessary due to the shear numbers involved rendering the logistics of a single training institution unmanageable (and this would be even worse in a pre-steam culture. It was rare for a monastic priest to be seen outside a monastery let alone in a parish church.
In Europe these formed the basis for the older universities with advanced Theology having other subjects tacked on later - like Medicine. Until the 1800's in Europe an university education required entry to the priestly orders for most of the students before graduation.
The textev on Safehold indicates that the priests joined their orders after initial local training. So loosing the central authority would have no more impact than the break of the Anglican church had from the Roman church (broadly disruptive but locally a non event in the short term (in the long term, doctrinal drift leads to other fractures without a central authority, give it a century and you will see everything from equivalent of the Puritans and Mennonites to the Holy Christian Jumpers (with the odd Methodist, Baptist and their fractals)).

AirTech wrote:
Most Catholic priests were in-fact trained in the seminaries that each diocese maintains (in some cases multiple seminaries until recently). This is necessary due to the shear numbers involved rendering the logistics of a single training institution unmanageable (and this would be even worse in a pre-steam culture. It was rare for a monastic priest to be seen outside a monastery let alone in a parish church.
In Europe these formed the basis for the older universities with advanced Theology having other subjects tacked on later - like Medicine. Until the 1800's in Europe an university education required entry to the priestly orders for most of the students before graduation.
The textev on Safehold indicates that the priests joined their orders after initial local training. So loosing the central authority would have no more impact than the break of the Anglican church had from the Roman church (broadly disruptive but locally a non event in the short term (in the long term, doctrinal drift leads to other fractures without a central authority, give it a century and you will see everything from equivalent of the Puritans and Mennonites to the Holy Christian Jumpers (with the odd Methodist, Baptist and their fractals)).

There are more churches who call themselves 'Catholic' than just the Roman Catholic Church, you know. I realize the Roman Church follows the seminarian tradition of training priests, and have done so for a long time, but in Medieval times it primarily followed the monastic route. That is still the tradition followed by most of the minor Catholic churches.

hanuman wrote:

AirTech wrote:
Most Catholic priests were in-fact trained in the seminaries that each diocese maintains (in some cases multiple seminaries until recently). This is necessary due to the shear numbers involved rendering the logistics of a single training institution unmanageable (and this would be even worse in a pre-steam culture. It was rare for a monastic priest to be seen outside a monastery let alone in a parish church.
In Europe these formed the basis for the older universities with advanced Theology having other subjects tacked on later - like Medicine. Until the 1800's in Europe an university education required entry to the priestly orders for most of the students before graduation.
The textev on Safehold indicates that the priests joined their orders after initial local training. So loosing the central authority would have no more impact than the break of the Anglican church had from the Roman church (broadly disruptive but locally a non event in the short term (in the long term, doctrinal drift leads to other fractures without a central authority, give it a century and you will see everything from equivalent of the Puritans and Mennonites to the Holy Christian Jumpers (with the odd Methodist, Baptist and their fractals)).

There are more churches who call themselves 'Catholic' than just the Roman Catholic Church, you know. I realize the Roman Church follows the seminarian tradition of training priests, and have done so for a long time, but in Medieval times it primarily followed the monastic route. That is still the tradition followed by most of the minor Catholic churches.

I think you are right about what happened in Medieval times. The orders sometimes deteriorated out and failed to provide quality training for priests. A major concern for the Reformers was the complaint about ignorant, uneducated priests. Rulers in Lutheran lands shut down the orders and confiscated their property, using the proceeds to establish seminaries for clergy. After the breech with Rome, Henry VIII conficated the property of the orders, but I don't remember what provision the Church of England had for training clergy, although I reather vaguely recall that at least some of it was handled in the universities.

Don

See RFC in the FACs on the Safehold education system. Priests are trained in Tertiary education seminaries. So of course these will be well distributed about Safehold for the reasons discussed above. Besides, before the present little unpleasantness, the whole of Safehold was Church territory.

As for the curriculum in CoC seminaries, the Archbishop simply has men of good will teaching the students what they sincerely believe themselves. The whole question of lying to the students is just the question of lying to the general population writ a little larger, and Maikel seems to have reconciled his conscience with that OK, at least for the present.

Hi Randomiser,

Thank you very much for saying what I was about to point out, ie Safehold had all been church territory so the seminaries were everywhere already.

Given 90% of the clergy were already Charisian, with so many graduates of St Zherneau, I don't think Maikel has problem finding tolerant type teachers.

L

Randomiser wrote:See RFC in the FACs on the Safehold education system. Priests are trained in Tertiary education seminaries. So of course these will be well distributed about Safehold for the reasons discussed above. Besides, before the present little unpleasantness, the whole of Safehold was Church territory.

As for the curriculum in CoC seminaries, the Archbishop simply has men of good will teaching the students what they sincerely believe themselves. The whole question of lying to the students is just the question of lying to the general population writ a little larger, and Maikel seems to have reconciled his conscience with that OK, at least for the present.

I forget which book noted that the crown (charis) always had the authority to press gang crews but never used that authority. So why not press gang priests? On the more serious side Judaism hasn't had priests for roughly 2000 years (since 70 or 135 depending on your interpretation) and seems to have survived. Maybe a non-heirarchial church would be optimal for Safehold in the aftermath of the Jihad.

chickladoria wrote:I forget which book noted that the crown (charis) always had the authority to press gang crews but never used that authority. So why not press gang priests? On the more serious side Judaism hasn't had priests for roughly 2000 years (since 70 or 135 depending on your interpretation) and seems to have survived. Maybe a non-heirarchial church would be optimal for Safehold in the aftermath of the Jihad.

Nah, the tradition is in place. There is nothing inherently wrong with priests or a hierarchical church. It's the doctrine that matters, and how involved the church is in secular affairs. Too involved, and you have a CoGA. Not involved enough, and the church lose touch with the concerns and needs of its adherents.

Randomiser wrote:See RFC in the FACs on the Safehold education system. Priests are trained in Tertiary education seminaries. So of course these will be well distributed about Safehold for the reasons discussed above. Besides, before the present little unpleasantness, the whole of Safehold was Church territory.

As for the curriculum in CoC seminaries, the Archbishop simply has men of good will teaching the students what they sincerely believe themselves. The whole question of lying to the students is just the question of lying to the general population writ a little larger, and Maikel seems to have reconciled his conscience with that OK, at least for the present.

I can see your point, but I would believe that perhaps the priests who were trained in the lies would be rather resentful of that fact.