It kind of lost all formatting in it's transfer, but here are all my notes. For some reason I don't have distinct notes for week 1/2 but Nick has provided notes on that. Additionally I lack notes on Francescas weeks because I got lost and unbelieving at time!
Hope these are ok and the best of luck!
xx
Monday, 14 May 2007
Schism and Concilliarism
Schism and Conciliarism
Review - some of the major issues raised by this course related to what we’re looking at this week.
Christianity’s transition from being a prescribed religion to becoming the favored religion of the roman emperors and then the religion of the whole european society as well as a few countries beyond e.g. Ethiopia.
Christians welcomed this but it also created some difficulties for them, when it was prescribed it was still quite easy to distinguish between the earthly and heavenly kingdoms, christians knew where there loyalties lay. Christians knew that they were part of heaven, in this world but not of it. It becomes a lot more difficult when the kingdom of this world embraces the kingdom of christ, declaring itself a christian empire. What to make of it if your christian?
a) heaven has now become earth - the end of the world has arrived. Christ will return and put the final seal on the system.
But as we’re also seen when the system began to collapse with things like the barbarian invasion, this view was no longer possible. So there’s still this nagging sense that the church still doesn’t quite belong here, that’s its not comfortable in this world, but because the earth is still embracing it, the church has not to reach some kind of working system with the world.
The way they reach this mode is to establish two spheres of influence, of governance. ONe sphere is the sphere of the christian ruler, the government, his job is protect peoples bodies. To ensure physical safety. The government of the church - the second sphere, is concerned with the soul, the body will eventually pass away but the soul is immortal, because its immortal it’s got to prepare itself for its immortal destiny either in heaven or hell. If the spiritual government doesn’t do its job the danger is hell - ahhhhh!!
Problem is the church is also responsible for the souls of the earthly kings, its often very hard for a christian king to conduct his life in the way that Jesus demanded - turn the other cheek, love and pray for your enemies - what happens when you’re invaded? Can you turn your cheek on behalf of your people?
What if heresy arises amongst your people. heresy doesn’t exactly put bodies in danger but it does put souls in danger, if you do nothing about it as a Christian ruler then you have allowed those in your care to go to hell.
What if the heretic is your brother? Your heir? The sherif? Which is more important the soul or the peace and protection of the people in the south?
What should a King do?
This is all part of a very long process of secularization slowly over the centuries form 313 europeans have attempted to establish christian states, but even while christianity is at it’s height its beginning to fall apart under the strain of the rivalry between the claims of this world and the next. the latin world for age/world saeculum its here that we get our world secular. There are two ages/saecula the world now and the world to come. But when the mediaeval talk of the saecula there are increasingly talking of this world rather than the world to come. Gradually we see the lords/kings etc asserting themselves more and more, they find that the churches view of the next world is interfering with there ability to get on in this world, so we see ourselves asserting themselves in this world and gradually taking over.
This is not a story of goodies and badies, both sides in this debate believe that they have the best interests of the church of Christendom at heart, neither side pulls it off entirely. al i want you to see and think about is how each sides struggled for what they thought would be best.
This framed in the language of the two swords - the sword of the king ( a real one!) and the sword of the spirit (which is yielded by the church) the 13th century church developed saying to describe this.
Pope Gelasius 494
‘There are two powers...’ again the idea that the king looks after the body etc.
Dictatus papae (1087) Gregory VII - a series of rules trying to state the churches position e.g.
‘That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal’
‘That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops...’
‘That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors....’
‘That he himself may be judged by none.’
Basically Popes are saying to the Kings that the Kings need to act as they should but Christian rules, if they don’t they loose the support of the church.
Three principles
i) the Pope holds Plenituda potestastis: fullness of power (i.e. over the whole church)
ii) ludex ordinaritus: right to reach judgments at all levels of the church - this is where it gets really dodgy, the popes also claim that the power of kings at least in europe is also delegated to them by the papacy. There’s a legend that constantine made a will, giving his authority to pope Sylvester I, because he had cured him of leprosy, this document didn’t appear to the 8th century, but at least in the early mediaeval ages everyone accepted it as genuine, the popes used it to say that under Sylvester the popes had taken that power then given it conditionally. The popes aren’t trying to claim political power - except in the papal states - but they do claim that they have it in theory. One of the basis to there claim that they can take it back. A very heavily contested claim by the time you get to the reformation
iii)They are the ordinary judge - basically it’s like the european court - you can appeal right up to the level of the papacy. He can step into any diocese over the head of the local bishop and interfere.
iv) Vicarius Christi: Christ’’s delegate to the whole church - until now they had been the vicar of Peter, they had said they could be Christ’s rep in Rome, now they are saying they are Christ’s rep to the whole kingdom. This has some very practical implications e.g. Innocent III (1198-1216), the Lateran council declared that any ruler who tried to tax the church without asking the pope using legitimate purposes then they are instantly excommunicated - taxes for crusades is fine, but not for warring families.
Rulers were not allowed to employ Jews in public office.
This is the height of papal self assertion in the 13th century it all goes downhill from now on, epitomized in a struggle involving Philip IV the Fair) and Bonfire VIII.
Philip was at war with Edward I, (as was Scotland) Edward was invading France, so Philip began taxing the church. Boniface issued a Bull condemning all taxation of the church - Clerics Iaicos (1294) . Boniface is treating Philip like a stroppy teenager and tries to slap an ASBO on him. But Boniface was in a very weak position at home, for most of the 13th century had been the platy thing of 3 noble Roman families, Boniface was a member of one of these families, his family would have supported him but would have come with ready made enemies, who are ready to ally themselves with anyone who hates boniface, so Philip had ready made enemies in Italy. He also succeeded a very strange pope, who wasn’t a member of any of these families, he was a hermit. Who had actually resigned, it was fearful of him so put him under a kind of house arrest, Celestone (the hermit pope) soon died under fairly suspicious circumstances.
In 1294, France and Scotland sign an alliance. Edward was also taxing the English church, Clerics laicos was also directed at the English.
The French and their Italian allies: The first tactic they take is to accuse Boniface as having improperly deposed his predecessor Celestone V and having murdered him (which he probably did. So they called a council to try and get rid of Boniface. Drawing up a whole list of crimes.
Boniface responded with another Bull - Unam Sanctum (1302) which is considered the strongest claim of the age - very hard line pinnacle of papal claims. Basically it’s to do with one holy catholic etc. It starts with a list of claims/statements ‘we declare, state, define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for very human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.’
In a way the louder the Pope shouts and rants the weaker they are, there must be a reason to try and state there authority. What this claim doesn’t mean that the pope wants to be ruler of the world, it’s purely authority of salvation. There’s one church and no salvation out with the church. In relation to the position in France, he’s saying that he must accept the church’s authority or loose his salvation.
Philip wasn’t taking this and called a council in the Louvre, and repeated the list of claims against Boniface. However this time it was before a general council, so they were attempting to go over the popes head. So the French got together an army of Italian mercenaries and invaded his home town where he had his papal palace and came within an ace of killing him. He was half hoping that he would make a Thomas Becket of him. But they held back from killing him and eventually retreated, Boniface went back to Rome and died a few months later, probably of shock.
This conflict represents a kind of tipping point, form this point on the papacy starts going on a bumpy ride down hill, the secular begin to gain the upper hand, it really take the reformation fro the papacy to once again gain the upper hand. The reformation could happen because the papacy was on a whole new low, after the papacy can redefine itself in a new Europe.
The Great Schism
The Popes in Avignon: The papacy in Babylon?
i) rulers spent a lot of time away from there capitals mainly to ensure that there peripherals did not rise up against them. They did a lot of time touring, for example in Scotland there were many capitals that the king divided his time. During the 12th century the popes spent about 60% of there time outside Rome. Certainly during the summer Rome is so hot anywhere that popes would generally go to cooler climbs.
Yes Avignon was different, the Popes spent 70 years there, but Avignon is not a bad alternative.
1. It’s on the river Rhone - very useful for transport - the rivers were like super highways. The super powerfully political families in England and France were all largely accessible by sea and river. For access to places of power Avignon is much more accessible and convenient place for the papacy to be. Eventually the popes also bought Avignon off its temporal rulers and it became part of the papal states.
After Boniface Philip was keen to get a Frenchman in the papacy, this happened in 1305 - Clement V, he was crowned pope in Lyon and decided for the time being the most convenient place for him was in France for he wanted to secure peace between england and france, the district he was from was actually English, so he was and English Frenchman, so wanted to do quite a bit of touring. He got ill and was nursed by the dominicans in Avignon. He died near them.
His successor John XXII was from Avignon decided to stay there and made Avignon his capital and began extending the bishops palace.
None of the following popes were french and were generally all sympathetic to French policy and would generally favor French policy against the English.
The list of Avignon popes show that they’re there for about 70 years, throughout this time the popes are making pious statements about there return to Rome, they know they should be there but they never quite make it. One of the things that is holding them back is the complete political anarchy in the papal states and in Italy in general, it’s a period of particularly bitter civil war, between cities, families etc. It’s very much a war zone. For example Urban V in 1367, did return to Rome very briefly the the rioting in Rome and the continuation of the civil war/mafia turf war, made it unbearable and after 3 years he headed back to Avignon, things gradually began to claim down in the papal states, so in 1376, decided to return to Rome. Part of his reasoning would have been now that the states were settled they’d be easier to tax so would’ve wanted to be there. The papacy certainly did not frame it that way. It was shown to be much more of as response to begging acts so he would seem pious. But shortly after his time in Rome he died.
The cardinals came together in the conclave to decide on a new pope, the Roman mobs were very keen to have a pope that would stay in Rome. Many of the families also saw it as an opportunity to claim the throne as there own, so put people in the mob to stir things up. The cry went up in the crowd ‘a Roman, a Roman.’ eventually the mob breaks in the cardinals panic, dress the oldest guy up in the popes robes and stuck him on the throne which seemed to claimed things down! A few days later they elected the Arch bishop of Bari once things were claimed down, he was crowned Urban VI. But Urban turns out to not be what they expect, he starts trying to kick the cardinals into shape.
As a result they try to get rid of him.... he’s crraaazzy!
On the 20th Sept 1378 they elected Robert of Geneva - Clement VII - often referred to as the anti-pope. Even at the time it was very unclear as to who actually was pope.
Clement failed to take Rome from Urban so headed back to
PAPAL schism - not GREAT WESTERN
For the ordinary people, particularly the monarchs, the schism was largely seen as a political interruption rather then anything theological. It didn’t really matter where the pope was to them, they used it was a court system more than anything else. So Europe divided between the two papacies or two obediences as they were called.
The French obviously followed Avignon so England followed Rome and Scotland also followed Avignon. Italy of course stuck with Rome.
The theological crisis arose in the Universities, all of them were discussing the legal, political and theological implications and ways it might be solved. the possible ways of ending the schism can be summed up in 5 ways...
1) Via facti: By military means (tried by both sides) had reached a kind of impass
2) Via cessionis: by resignation
3) Via compromisst: by arbitration
4) Via concilli: by decision of a general council
5) Via discussionis: by discussion between rival popes
A few worries, if you pick the wrong pope and die while there’s still schism then you might go to hell. Additionally there was a degree of admiration toward the pope (bowing to him etc.) if one of the popes was false then one of the popes was treated as an idol, as a result the theologians didn’t want to show either pope as popes so that was 5) cut down.
3 + 4 was cancelled out because they both involve someone or some group sitting in judgement of the pope, and as we already have seen by the legislation laid down by the
popes that no one but God sits in judgement of the pope.
So number 2 becomes the firm favorite - they want BOTH popes to resign. we’ll forget anything ever happened and just elect a new pope.
So from the 1390’s tremendous pressure is being placed on the popes by various monarchy to resign. Cardinals are beginning to say that if they are elected pope they will accept the office on the understanding that if the other pope resigns they automatically will too. So for example on the 28th Sept 1398 a new pope was elected in Avignon, a Spaniard renamed Benedict the XIII, he had taken an oath that he would do all he could to end the schism and on the death or resignation of the other pope he would resign. But as soon as he was elected he got cold feet, he was worried about the problem of idolatry and believed that one of the popes needed to be shown false but he wanted a clear judgement of the rights and wrongs of the schism. It wasn’t going to have some sort of flabby compromise. At this point the french church lost patience with Ben 13, they called a council in the same year and they undertook an act of subtraction - they withdrew there obedience from Ben 13 they placed the French church under the temporary obedience of the French monarchy - meaning that it can collect tax form it etc. they then declared Ben a schismatic. Medieval theology made a very interesting defining point - if someone was a persistent schismatic then they were also a heretic (reasoning from Augustine). So the council in Paris declared that he was both a schismatic and a heretic. Canon law allowed people to withdraw and depose the pope if he was a heretic, because if he was a heretic then ipso facto he was no longer pope anyway. Sets a very important precedent...
1) first time the church of a country had declared independence (important for Henry 8th)
2) a council has sat in judgement AND declared him a heretic.
3) they have a appealed over the head of the papacy to a council of a country (something Luther later does)
In 1406 the Roman pope died, the Cardinals went into conclave and swore the same oath as Avignon saying they’d resign etc etc. At this time the pressure was on for both popes to meet and come to a resolution. They both go to the region where they were meant to meet and basically circled each other both getting colder and colder feet.
In 1409 cardinals from both sides gave up in disgust assembled in council in Pisa and deposed BOTH popes, declaring they were schismatic, heretics, perjury, scandalous and stubborn in these respects. New pope John 23rd elected, but then both parties just go back and elect there own popes again!
The Pisa pope began to attract more and more european states, he seemed to have the legitimacy mainly because both the French and the English and a lot of Italy were on his side. John was able to take form and Gregory fled to the kingdom of Naples.
It was clear another council had to be called John 23 called one at Rome, it was very poorly attended and was quickly shut down. It became clear that a council had to take place outside both France and Italy. It became the task of the Holy Roman Emperor - Sigismund to organize a council in Germany. IN 1414 everyone goes to Constance in Switzerland. John 23rd arrives in full papal splendor but during the procession the wheel broke on his cart and he fell out - a sign of things to come?
It quickly became clear that the council was going to try and solve the schism as the council of Pisa had done by getting rid of the 3 popes and starting afresh. Pressure was put on John 23rd to resign, he just wasn’t interested in that. So his opponents begin to spread rumors about him - incest, sodomy etc. etc. He really wasn’t a saint to begin with so a lot of the mud, stuck.
Review - some of the major issues raised by this course related to what we’re looking at this week.
Christianity’s transition from being a prescribed religion to becoming the favored religion of the roman emperors and then the religion of the whole european society as well as a few countries beyond e.g. Ethiopia.
Christians welcomed this but it also created some difficulties for them, when it was prescribed it was still quite easy to distinguish between the earthly and heavenly kingdoms, christians knew where there loyalties lay. Christians knew that they were part of heaven, in this world but not of it. It becomes a lot more difficult when the kingdom of this world embraces the kingdom of christ, declaring itself a christian empire. What to make of it if your christian?
a) heaven has now become earth - the end of the world has arrived. Christ will return and put the final seal on the system.
But as we’re also seen when the system began to collapse with things like the barbarian invasion, this view was no longer possible. So there’s still this nagging sense that the church still doesn’t quite belong here, that’s its not comfortable in this world, but because the earth is still embracing it, the church has not to reach some kind of working system with the world.
The way they reach this mode is to establish two spheres of influence, of governance. ONe sphere is the sphere of the christian ruler, the government, his job is protect peoples bodies. To ensure physical safety. The government of the church - the second sphere, is concerned with the soul, the body will eventually pass away but the soul is immortal, because its immortal it’s got to prepare itself for its immortal destiny either in heaven or hell. If the spiritual government doesn’t do its job the danger is hell - ahhhhh!!
Problem is the church is also responsible for the souls of the earthly kings, its often very hard for a christian king to conduct his life in the way that Jesus demanded - turn the other cheek, love and pray for your enemies - what happens when you’re invaded? Can you turn your cheek on behalf of your people?
What if heresy arises amongst your people. heresy doesn’t exactly put bodies in danger but it does put souls in danger, if you do nothing about it as a Christian ruler then you have allowed those in your care to go to hell.
What if the heretic is your brother? Your heir? The sherif? Which is more important the soul or the peace and protection of the people in the south?
What should a King do?
This is all part of a very long process of secularization slowly over the centuries form 313 europeans have attempted to establish christian states, but even while christianity is at it’s height its beginning to fall apart under the strain of the rivalry between the claims of this world and the next. the latin world for age/world saeculum its here that we get our world secular. There are two ages/saecula the world now and the world to come. But when the mediaeval talk of the saecula there are increasingly talking of this world rather than the world to come. Gradually we see the lords/kings etc asserting themselves more and more, they find that the churches view of the next world is interfering with there ability to get on in this world, so we see ourselves asserting themselves in this world and gradually taking over.
This is not a story of goodies and badies, both sides in this debate believe that they have the best interests of the church of Christendom at heart, neither side pulls it off entirely. al i want you to see and think about is how each sides struggled for what they thought would be best.
This framed in the language of the two swords - the sword of the king ( a real one!) and the sword of the spirit (which is yielded by the church) the 13th century church developed saying to describe this.
Pope Gelasius 494
‘There are two powers...’ again the idea that the king looks after the body etc.
Dictatus papae (1087) Gregory VII - a series of rules trying to state the churches position e.g.
‘That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal’
‘That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops...’
‘That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors....’
‘That he himself may be judged by none.’
Basically Popes are saying to the Kings that the Kings need to act as they should but Christian rules, if they don’t they loose the support of the church.
Three principles
i) the Pope holds Plenituda potestastis: fullness of power (i.e. over the whole church)
ii) ludex ordinaritus: right to reach judgments at all levels of the church - this is where it gets really dodgy, the popes also claim that the power of kings at least in europe is also delegated to them by the papacy. There’s a legend that constantine made a will, giving his authority to pope Sylvester I, because he had cured him of leprosy, this document didn’t appear to the 8th century, but at least in the early mediaeval ages everyone accepted it as genuine, the popes used it to say that under Sylvester the popes had taken that power then given it conditionally. The popes aren’t trying to claim political power - except in the papal states - but they do claim that they have it in theory. One of the basis to there claim that they can take it back. A very heavily contested claim by the time you get to the reformation
iii)They are the ordinary judge - basically it’s like the european court - you can appeal right up to the level of the papacy. He can step into any diocese over the head of the local bishop and interfere.
iv) Vicarius Christi: Christ’’s delegate to the whole church - until now they had been the vicar of Peter, they had said they could be Christ’s rep in Rome, now they are saying they are Christ’s rep to the whole kingdom. This has some very practical implications e.g. Innocent III (1198-1216), the Lateran council declared that any ruler who tried to tax the church without asking the pope using legitimate purposes then they are instantly excommunicated - taxes for crusades is fine, but not for warring families.
Rulers were not allowed to employ Jews in public office.
This is the height of papal self assertion in the 13th century it all goes downhill from now on, epitomized in a struggle involving Philip IV the Fair) and Bonfire VIII.
Philip was at war with Edward I, (as was Scotland) Edward was invading France, so Philip began taxing the church. Boniface issued a Bull condemning all taxation of the church - Clerics Iaicos (1294) . Boniface is treating Philip like a stroppy teenager and tries to slap an ASBO on him. But Boniface was in a very weak position at home, for most of the 13th century had been the platy thing of 3 noble Roman families, Boniface was a member of one of these families, his family would have supported him but would have come with ready made enemies, who are ready to ally themselves with anyone who hates boniface, so Philip had ready made enemies in Italy. He also succeeded a very strange pope, who wasn’t a member of any of these families, he was a hermit. Who had actually resigned, it was fearful of him so put him under a kind of house arrest, Celestone (the hermit pope) soon died under fairly suspicious circumstances.
In 1294, France and Scotland sign an alliance. Edward was also taxing the English church, Clerics laicos was also directed at the English.
The French and their Italian allies: The first tactic they take is to accuse Boniface as having improperly deposed his predecessor Celestone V and having murdered him (which he probably did. So they called a council to try and get rid of Boniface. Drawing up a whole list of crimes.
Boniface responded with another Bull - Unam Sanctum (1302) which is considered the strongest claim of the age - very hard line pinnacle of papal claims. Basically it’s to do with one holy catholic etc. It starts with a list of claims/statements ‘we declare, state, define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for very human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.’
In a way the louder the Pope shouts and rants the weaker they are, there must be a reason to try and state there authority. What this claim doesn’t mean that the pope wants to be ruler of the world, it’s purely authority of salvation. There’s one church and no salvation out with the church. In relation to the position in France, he’s saying that he must accept the church’s authority or loose his salvation.
Philip wasn’t taking this and called a council in the Louvre, and repeated the list of claims against Boniface. However this time it was before a general council, so they were attempting to go over the popes head. So the French got together an army of Italian mercenaries and invaded his home town where he had his papal palace and came within an ace of killing him. He was half hoping that he would make a Thomas Becket of him. But they held back from killing him and eventually retreated, Boniface went back to Rome and died a few months later, probably of shock.
This conflict represents a kind of tipping point, form this point on the papacy starts going on a bumpy ride down hill, the secular begin to gain the upper hand, it really take the reformation fro the papacy to once again gain the upper hand. The reformation could happen because the papacy was on a whole new low, after the papacy can redefine itself in a new Europe.
The Great Schism
The Popes in Avignon: The papacy in Babylon?
i) rulers spent a lot of time away from there capitals mainly to ensure that there peripherals did not rise up against them. They did a lot of time touring, for example in Scotland there were many capitals that the king divided his time. During the 12th century the popes spent about 60% of there time outside Rome. Certainly during the summer Rome is so hot anywhere that popes would generally go to cooler climbs.
Yes Avignon was different, the Popes spent 70 years there, but Avignon is not a bad alternative.
1. It’s on the river Rhone - very useful for transport - the rivers were like super highways. The super powerfully political families in England and France were all largely accessible by sea and river. For access to places of power Avignon is much more accessible and convenient place for the papacy to be. Eventually the popes also bought Avignon off its temporal rulers and it became part of the papal states.
After Boniface Philip was keen to get a Frenchman in the papacy, this happened in 1305 - Clement V, he was crowned pope in Lyon and decided for the time being the most convenient place for him was in France for he wanted to secure peace between england and france, the district he was from was actually English, so he was and English Frenchman, so wanted to do quite a bit of touring. He got ill and was nursed by the dominicans in Avignon. He died near them.
His successor John XXII was from Avignon decided to stay there and made Avignon his capital and began extending the bishops palace.
None of the following popes were french and were generally all sympathetic to French policy and would generally favor French policy against the English.
The list of Avignon popes show that they’re there for about 70 years, throughout this time the popes are making pious statements about there return to Rome, they know they should be there but they never quite make it. One of the things that is holding them back is the complete political anarchy in the papal states and in Italy in general, it’s a period of particularly bitter civil war, between cities, families etc. It’s very much a war zone. For example Urban V in 1367, did return to Rome very briefly the the rioting in Rome and the continuation of the civil war/mafia turf war, made it unbearable and after 3 years he headed back to Avignon, things gradually began to claim down in the papal states, so in 1376, decided to return to Rome. Part of his reasoning would have been now that the states were settled they’d be easier to tax so would’ve wanted to be there. The papacy certainly did not frame it that way. It was shown to be much more of as response to begging acts so he would seem pious. But shortly after his time in Rome he died.
The cardinals came together in the conclave to decide on a new pope, the Roman mobs were very keen to have a pope that would stay in Rome. Many of the families also saw it as an opportunity to claim the throne as there own, so put people in the mob to stir things up. The cry went up in the crowd ‘a Roman, a Roman.’ eventually the mob breaks in the cardinals panic, dress the oldest guy up in the popes robes and stuck him on the throne which seemed to claimed things down! A few days later they elected the Arch bishop of Bari once things were claimed down, he was crowned Urban VI. But Urban turns out to not be what they expect, he starts trying to kick the cardinals into shape.
As a result they try to get rid of him.... he’s crraaazzy!
On the 20th Sept 1378 they elected Robert of Geneva - Clement VII - often referred to as the anti-pope. Even at the time it was very unclear as to who actually was pope.
Clement failed to take Rome from Urban so headed back to
PAPAL schism - not GREAT WESTERN
For the ordinary people, particularly the monarchs, the schism was largely seen as a political interruption rather then anything theological. It didn’t really matter where the pope was to them, they used it was a court system more than anything else. So Europe divided between the two papacies or two obediences as they were called.
The French obviously followed Avignon so England followed Rome and Scotland also followed Avignon. Italy of course stuck with Rome.
The theological crisis arose in the Universities, all of them were discussing the legal, political and theological implications and ways it might be solved. the possible ways of ending the schism can be summed up in 5 ways...
1) Via facti: By military means (tried by both sides) had reached a kind of impass
2) Via cessionis: by resignation
3) Via compromisst: by arbitration
4) Via concilli: by decision of a general council
5) Via discussionis: by discussion between rival popes
A few worries, if you pick the wrong pope and die while there’s still schism then you might go to hell. Additionally there was a degree of admiration toward the pope (bowing to him etc.) if one of the popes was false then one of the popes was treated as an idol, as a result the theologians didn’t want to show either pope as popes so that was 5) cut down.
3 + 4 was cancelled out because they both involve someone or some group sitting in judgement of the pope, and as we already have seen by the legislation laid down by the
popes that no one but God sits in judgement of the pope.
So number 2 becomes the firm favorite - they want BOTH popes to resign. we’ll forget anything ever happened and just elect a new pope.
So from the 1390’s tremendous pressure is being placed on the popes by various monarchy to resign. Cardinals are beginning to say that if they are elected pope they will accept the office on the understanding that if the other pope resigns they automatically will too. So for example on the 28th Sept 1398 a new pope was elected in Avignon, a Spaniard renamed Benedict the XIII, he had taken an oath that he would do all he could to end the schism and on the death or resignation of the other pope he would resign. But as soon as he was elected he got cold feet, he was worried about the problem of idolatry and believed that one of the popes needed to be shown false but he wanted a clear judgement of the rights and wrongs of the schism. It wasn’t going to have some sort of flabby compromise. At this point the french church lost patience with Ben 13, they called a council in the same year and they undertook an act of subtraction - they withdrew there obedience from Ben 13 they placed the French church under the temporary obedience of the French monarchy - meaning that it can collect tax form it etc. they then declared Ben a schismatic. Medieval theology made a very interesting defining point - if someone was a persistent schismatic then they were also a heretic (reasoning from Augustine). So the council in Paris declared that he was both a schismatic and a heretic. Canon law allowed people to withdraw and depose the pope if he was a heretic, because if he was a heretic then ipso facto he was no longer pope anyway. Sets a very important precedent...
1) first time the church of a country had declared independence (important for Henry 8th)
2) a council has sat in judgement AND declared him a heretic.
3) they have a appealed over the head of the papacy to a council of a country (something Luther later does)
In 1406 the Roman pope died, the Cardinals went into conclave and swore the same oath as Avignon saying they’d resign etc etc. At this time the pressure was on for both popes to meet and come to a resolution. They both go to the region where they were meant to meet and basically circled each other both getting colder and colder feet.
In 1409 cardinals from both sides gave up in disgust assembled in council in Pisa and deposed BOTH popes, declaring they were schismatic, heretics, perjury, scandalous and stubborn in these respects. New pope John 23rd elected, but then both parties just go back and elect there own popes again!
The Pisa pope began to attract more and more european states, he seemed to have the legitimacy mainly because both the French and the English and a lot of Italy were on his side. John was able to take form and Gregory fled to the kingdom of Naples.
It was clear another council had to be called John 23 called one at Rome, it was very poorly attended and was quickly shut down. It became clear that a council had to take place outside both France and Italy. It became the task of the Holy Roman Emperor - Sigismund to organize a council in Germany. IN 1414 everyone goes to Constance in Switzerland. John 23rd arrives in full papal splendor but during the procession the wheel broke on his cart and he fell out - a sign of things to come?
It quickly became clear that the council was going to try and solve the schism as the council of Pisa had done by getting rid of the 3 popes and starting afresh. Pressure was put on John 23rd to resign, he just wasn’t interested in that. So his opponents begin to spread rumors about him - incest, sodomy etc. etc. He really wasn’t a saint to begin with so a lot of the mud, stuck.
Medieval Cathedrals
Romanesque
In the middle ages painting and sculptures were made to fit into buildings e.g. churches, the ultimate goal was to be in a cathedral.
Medieval Christianity is a cosmic outlook, it’s not personal it;s cosmic. For the medievals, God is like the master builder. They feel the appropriate response is speak the language back to God.
Catacombs, christian art begins underground. Art is like the accessory to the building, themes such a jonah - deliverance, daniel - persecution, resurrection theme.
Church is a representation of heaven.
Idea that the church is heaven goes back to the temple of solomon,
Why do pilgrims like relics?
Peter Brown author of the cult of the saints noted differences between graeco-roman view of the dead and the Christians view.
the Romans didn’t like dead bodies, it revered the memory of the heroes but feared the dead they buried them outside the city walls - basic pagan impulse not to like ghost. Christians buried there dead within the city so the soul stayed near the body.
In the middle ages painting and sculptures were made to fit into buildings e.g. churches, the ultimate goal was to be in a cathedral.
Medieval Christianity is a cosmic outlook, it’s not personal it;s cosmic. For the medievals, God is like the master builder. They feel the appropriate response is speak the language back to God.
Catacombs, christian art begins underground. Art is like the accessory to the building, themes such a jonah - deliverance, daniel - persecution, resurrection theme.
Church is a representation of heaven.
Idea that the church is heaven goes back to the temple of solomon,
Why do pilgrims like relics?
Peter Brown author of the cult of the saints noted differences between graeco-roman view of the dead and the Christians view.
the Romans didn’t like dead bodies, it revered the memory of the heroes but feared the dead they buried them outside the city walls - basic pagan impulse not to like ghost. Christians buried there dead within the city so the soul stayed near the body.
The Cities
Guilds and the City
There’s a deep undergrowth of worker’s organizations - guilds. These guilds underlay the emergence of the autonomous cities in italy and the semi autonomous cities elsewhere.
1.
Christmas day 800, Charlemagne crowned emperor by the Pope. However he went on to have a lot of say over the spiritual realm. In between 800 and 1050, the emperors were having control of church, velvet glove on iron fist... they could choose bishops etc. Temporal above the spiritual. This is an era of territorial Christendom.
Most people in these societies there are not citizens with rights but serfs, servants who owed allegiance to the next guy up the feudal hierarchy.
What it general comes down to is the power of the sword.
The church managed to get itself out from under the emperor, it started with the monasteries and everyone followed, from the 11th century. By the 11th the monasteries seemed secularized, very rich liturgical life - more of a social club, so how to reform if the boss is just a baron. Starting at Cluny, a new monastery emerged, saying that they weren’t part of the hierarchy, they were answerable to the pope. With Gregory VII, reform emerged in order to refresh christianity, trying to pull clergy away from the secular. The spiritual is higher than the secular. because Mediaeval society saw itself as ONE society someone had to be the head, not two realms, so the pope had to talk in terms of higher sword.
In turn this unleashed things lower down.
From the 12th century the concept of sideways allegiance emerged... e.g. Dominicans, Benedictines. Other groups like clubs emerged, even travelers clubbed together, confraternities.
Gregorian reform meant a new religious spirit emerged.
It’s at this time the guilds arose, they were a voluntary group who would group together under a patron saint, and would follow a set of rules and would police who could join. It was a free allegiance. A guide for both secular and spiritual.
In Lombardy (a kingdom in Italy), the guilds merged together forming communes, dominating the religious and spiritual life. particularly in Italy and some of North Germany.
It basically cancels out the need for the baron - they all look after each other. They can take over things by policing themselves, by employing people for there own needs. In Lombardy it went so far that the cities declared independent from the feudal system and set about creating there own governments.
Where you had monasteries you had one allegiance to the pope and then to each other, once you had the precedent other movements emerged with this sideways allegiance. A mediaeval city was not unlike the monastery in its functioning. Additional linked to gregorian reform and additional the emergence of the mendicant friars.
Frederick III - Barbarossa (red beard) wanted to change the system and wanted his son to be emperor after him, before the pope would appoint the emperor of his choice. Barbarossa called himself Caesar, harking back to the old Roman empire. He tried to get his son appointed along side himself. This was not appreciated by the Pope, so Barbarossa set up anti-popes. He also really did not like the independent city states so waged war against them. He besezied them, he razed Milan to the ground. So a load of cities joined up, forming allegiance to give Barbarossa a bloody nose. The Lombard allegiance defeats Barbarossa at Legano in 1176.
From the 1200’s two people ran the city states, the captain of the people and a wealthy guy from another city, it was like having two mayors.
In England, guilds formed there own governments but not the cities, for example the universities formed there own governing bodies.
The guilds controlled membership of one craft, note: they could exclude.
Women, once universities emerged women could not be schooled in theology, there used to be very powerful abbesses etc.
They could also keep the jews out, before this they really weren’t particularly anti-Semitic, but to be a member of a guild you had to the a christian, so they were basically forced into money lending.
The guilds also prayed a lot, very pious putting on masses for the sick etc.
Additionally they put on mystery plays...
The first opera in Europe was put on in 1180 in a Benedictine monastery, basically it was the play on Daniel. It was meant to be funny. It didn’t have people walking round but different people playing the parts.
In 1150, a vernacular play was put on outside a church - they weren’t particularly welcome inside. Again it was meant to be a comedy.
There’s a deep undergrowth of worker’s organizations - guilds. These guilds underlay the emergence of the autonomous cities in italy and the semi autonomous cities elsewhere.
1.
Christmas day 800, Charlemagne crowned emperor by the Pope. However he went on to have a lot of say over the spiritual realm. In between 800 and 1050, the emperors were having control of church, velvet glove on iron fist... they could choose bishops etc. Temporal above the spiritual. This is an era of territorial Christendom.
Most people in these societies there are not citizens with rights but serfs, servants who owed allegiance to the next guy up the feudal hierarchy.
What it general comes down to is the power of the sword.
The church managed to get itself out from under the emperor, it started with the monasteries and everyone followed, from the 11th century. By the 11th the monasteries seemed secularized, very rich liturgical life - more of a social club, so how to reform if the boss is just a baron. Starting at Cluny, a new monastery emerged, saying that they weren’t part of the hierarchy, they were answerable to the pope. With Gregory VII, reform emerged in order to refresh christianity, trying to pull clergy away from the secular. The spiritual is higher than the secular. because Mediaeval society saw itself as ONE society someone had to be the head, not two realms, so the pope had to talk in terms of higher sword.
In turn this unleashed things lower down.
From the 12th century the concept of sideways allegiance emerged... e.g. Dominicans, Benedictines. Other groups like clubs emerged, even travelers clubbed together, confraternities.
Gregorian reform meant a new religious spirit emerged.
It’s at this time the guilds arose, they were a voluntary group who would group together under a patron saint, and would follow a set of rules and would police who could join. It was a free allegiance. A guide for both secular and spiritual.
In Lombardy (a kingdom in Italy), the guilds merged together forming communes, dominating the religious and spiritual life. particularly in Italy and some of North Germany.
It basically cancels out the need for the baron - they all look after each other. They can take over things by policing themselves, by employing people for there own needs. In Lombardy it went so far that the cities declared independent from the feudal system and set about creating there own governments.
Where you had monasteries you had one allegiance to the pope and then to each other, once you had the precedent other movements emerged with this sideways allegiance. A mediaeval city was not unlike the monastery in its functioning. Additional linked to gregorian reform and additional the emergence of the mendicant friars.
Frederick III - Barbarossa (red beard) wanted to change the system and wanted his son to be emperor after him, before the pope would appoint the emperor of his choice. Barbarossa called himself Caesar, harking back to the old Roman empire. He tried to get his son appointed along side himself. This was not appreciated by the Pope, so Barbarossa set up anti-popes. He also really did not like the independent city states so waged war against them. He besezied them, he razed Milan to the ground. So a load of cities joined up, forming allegiance to give Barbarossa a bloody nose. The Lombard allegiance defeats Barbarossa at Legano in 1176.
From the 1200’s two people ran the city states, the captain of the people and a wealthy guy from another city, it was like having two mayors.
In England, guilds formed there own governments but not the cities, for example the universities formed there own governing bodies.
The guilds controlled membership of one craft, note: they could exclude.
Women, once universities emerged women could not be schooled in theology, there used to be very powerful abbesses etc.
They could also keep the jews out, before this they really weren’t particularly anti-Semitic, but to be a member of a guild you had to the a christian, so they were basically forced into money lending.
The guilds also prayed a lot, very pious putting on masses for the sick etc.
Additionally they put on mystery plays...
The first opera in Europe was put on in 1180 in a Benedictine monastery, basically it was the play on Daniel. It was meant to be funny. It didn’t have people walking round but different people playing the parts.
In 1150, a vernacular play was put on outside a church - they weren’t particularly welcome inside. Again it was meant to be a comedy.
Mendicant Orders
The Mendicant Orders 1: The Big Picture
What are mendicant orders?
Cultural life between the 8th and 11th centuries largely came out of monastery. Most monks take vows of stability. Early in the 13th century, Francis and Dominic create a new type of monk - brothers. Friars are mobile. It does not have a physical basis but rather a legal basis. A friar takes vows to the constitution rather than a friar. A friar can move anywhere in the world. The Dominicans were created as a vision for preaching, Europe is being urbanized and there is a need for preaching. Monasteries are generally out in the sticks, not great for evangelizing. University theology eventually became dominated by the friars.
But what does mendicant mean? ALL monks take a vow of poverty, the monastery as a collective unit hasn’t taken a vow to be poor, it is on land and they can get a lot of money through various means, so collectively they’re quite wealthy. On the other hand a mendicant is a begger, coming from the latin word to beg. They depend on alms. With monks, you take individual the mendicants take a collective vow of poverty.
Founded
1206: Carmelites
1209: Franciscans
1215: Dominicans
They weren’t authorized until later.
1256: Augustians
1274: recognized by the council of Lyons II
Before Mendicant Orders...
Largely MOST were benedictines, in the dark ages it was the monasteries that kept literacy alive, preserving literature. They copied and copied loads of things, preserving the classics and biblical texts. Conservation attitude. Do not produce new ideas but rather
What are mendicant orders?
Cultural life between the 8th and 11th centuries largely came out of monastery. Most monks take vows of stability. Early in the 13th century, Francis and Dominic create a new type of monk - brothers. Friars are mobile. It does not have a physical basis but rather a legal basis. A friar takes vows to the constitution rather than a friar. A friar can move anywhere in the world. The Dominicans were created as a vision for preaching, Europe is being urbanized and there is a need for preaching. Monasteries are generally out in the sticks, not great for evangelizing. University theology eventually became dominated by the friars.
But what does mendicant mean? ALL monks take a vow of poverty, the monastery as a collective unit hasn’t taken a vow to be poor, it is on land and they can get a lot of money through various means, so collectively they’re quite wealthy. On the other hand a mendicant is a begger, coming from the latin word to beg. They depend on alms. With monks, you take individual the mendicants take a collective vow of poverty.
Founded
1206: Carmelites
1209: Franciscans
1215: Dominicans
They weren’t authorized until later.
1256: Augustians
1274: recognized by the council of Lyons II
Before Mendicant Orders...
Largely MOST were benedictines, in the dark ages it was the monasteries that kept literacy alive, preserving literature. They copied and copied loads of things, preserving the classics and biblical texts. Conservation attitude. Do not produce new ideas but rather
Dissent and Renewal
Dissent and Renewal: ‘Heresy’ and the Rise of the Mendicants
The religious movements of the Middle Ages
New fervor for religion. People were no longer happy at going to God via the church, the priest, they also wanted there own way. Some went in a quite orthodox direction others joined heretical cults.
Feeling that heretics are a constant danger/threat/presence due to Paul’s writing. If you see in the medieval text, there’s reference to Paul and Titus, and to the Songs of Solomon to the little foxes. Even if heretics were not actually an issue people were sure they were around. Exegetes assume from a very early age that there are heretics around trying to lead people astray. Augustine writing against the likes of the Donatists. Pelagians etc. did nothing but to fuel these ideas.
Theological basis for dealing with heretics was laid out by Augustine in his conflict with the Donatists.
1. Persuasion and isolation but they grew power
2. The use of force as a form of harsh love
Pricillian of Avila was burnt as the first heretic.
A group of duelist heretics were sent to the stake but they were more lynched than it was a state execution. They were burnt in a cottage rather than at a proper execution.
Why burn them?? Distant echo of roman practice to burn sorcerers. However most heretics weren’t actually killed, they were sent on pilgrimage, silenced etc.
These first heretics in the 11th century are generally mentioned in passing, in chronicles so not entirely sure what they were saying.
What constituted a heretic in the middle aged theologians.
Theology or distinctions were clarified in the 13th century from then on it was clear... someone within the church, relying on scripture but with a different interpretation.
Characteristics of a heretic
1. Pride - sets themselves in opposition to the church
2. Hypocrisy - piety not authentic but there to deceive others
3. Secrecy
4. Unlettered - inability to interpret the scriptures properly - this brings on some strange passages of orthodox theologians.
There were some incidents in the early medieval ages and when suspicions evolved the church reacted mildly, they didn’t really feel threatened. So despite applying ancient names, the early middle ages erased the heresies of the old church. There were no real heretics around.
IN the 11th century things were dramatically different, ecceleastiscal enthusiasm evoked all kind of wacked out living. Several reasons:
1. Anti clericalism, especially stimulated by gregorian reform.
Perfectly orthodox beginning - encouraged to live like the new testament but when people did some went OTT and were labelled heretics.
2. Economic boom, accompanied by the expansion of trade and opening up to ideas outside western europe. PLUS growing number of literate layman, particularly among merchants. Additionally there was also a quest for property so many went in other development.
The quest for the apostolic life
1. promotion of monastic lifestyle.
2. apocalyptic ideas about the end of the world
The religious movements of the Middle Ages
New fervor for religion. People were no longer happy at going to God via the church, the priest, they also wanted there own way. Some went in a quite orthodox direction others joined heretical cults.
Feeling that heretics are a constant danger/threat/presence due to Paul’s writing. If you see in the medieval text, there’s reference to Paul and Titus, and to the Songs of Solomon to the little foxes. Even if heretics were not actually an issue people were sure they were around. Exegetes assume from a very early age that there are heretics around trying to lead people astray. Augustine writing against the likes of the Donatists. Pelagians etc. did nothing but to fuel these ideas.
Theological basis for dealing with heretics was laid out by Augustine in his conflict with the Donatists.
1. Persuasion and isolation but they grew power
2. The use of force as a form of harsh love
Pricillian of Avila was burnt as the first heretic.
A group of duelist heretics were sent to the stake but they were more lynched than it was a state execution. They were burnt in a cottage rather than at a proper execution.
Why burn them?? Distant echo of roman practice to burn sorcerers. However most heretics weren’t actually killed, they were sent on pilgrimage, silenced etc.
These first heretics in the 11th century are generally mentioned in passing, in chronicles so not entirely sure what they were saying.
What constituted a heretic in the middle aged theologians.
Theology or distinctions were clarified in the 13th century from then on it was clear... someone within the church, relying on scripture but with a different interpretation.
Characteristics of a heretic
1. Pride - sets themselves in opposition to the church
2. Hypocrisy - piety not authentic but there to deceive others
3. Secrecy
4. Unlettered - inability to interpret the scriptures properly - this brings on some strange passages of orthodox theologians.
There were some incidents in the early medieval ages and when suspicions evolved the church reacted mildly, they didn’t really feel threatened. So despite applying ancient names, the early middle ages erased the heresies of the old church. There were no real heretics around.
IN the 11th century things were dramatically different, ecceleastiscal enthusiasm evoked all kind of wacked out living. Several reasons:
1. Anti clericalism, especially stimulated by gregorian reform.
Perfectly orthodox beginning - encouraged to live like the new testament but when people did some went OTT and were labelled heretics.
2. Economic boom, accompanied by the expansion of trade and opening up to ideas outside western europe. PLUS growing number of literate layman, particularly among merchants. Additionally there was also a quest for property so many went in other development.
The quest for the apostolic life
1. promotion of monastic lifestyle.
2. apocalyptic ideas about the end of the world
Pilgrimage
Pilgrimage
In Britain pilgrimage basically disappeared after the Reformation.
Communities were very close knit, everyone knew everyone’s business. Confession happened twice a year, basically everyone knew everyone else’s confession anyway. Everything was public - example of a Prostitute in the Loire valley getting sent on pilgrimage to chartes.
To evade nosiness one way was to go on pilgrimage, a surprising number would go to avoid the intrusion of the local priest and family and friends. They wanted to care for there spiritual lives but not in such a public way.
The quest for pilgrimage became a mass movement. Many people would go on several pilgrimages to try out new kinds of spirituality but very often in the background it was to avoid the narrow world from which they came.
A variety of spiritual reasons - some form choice, some as penitence, and some just wanted to experience something new - the clergy did not like this reason. The real experience was based on the internal experience not a external.
We’ll focus on those with series spiritual problems:
Pilgrimage is a journey made to a sacred place of religious importance. It was to be an act of religious piety/religious devotion and the pilgrimage does not start at the destination but rather it’s the journey, when you leave home and ends when you return.
A pilgrim is a person on a journey. A stranger, foreign, defenseless, traveller, alien. You are moving through the closely knit communities and quite often would not have even been able to speak the language.
Latin: pilgrious
Pilgrims sometimes even died on the way, they were not allowed to be buried in someone else’s parish so would have had to plan for provisions for there bodies to be taken back home.
Much planning was needed and hardships endured.
The penitential pilgrimage
THe early church knew neither penitential nor judicial pilgrimage, the sinner was excluded from his community and did public penance to be restored if that was possible, there was several crimes which was only forgiven at a death bed. Pilgrimage were not imposed until the 6th century, when the whole system of penitence was changed under gaelic monasticism, the monks thought it was a great idea, often imposing pilgrimage on clerics and monks, not so often layman. Think of St. Columbas. The Irish penitentials also introduced a distinction between public and solemn, this distinction was upheld through the middle ages. Henry had to go on pilgrimage following the murder of Thomas Becket. If he had no gone on solemn pilgrimage, his position as king would have been in danger. For those sins out of the public eye, it was your private sin e.g. Margery Kemp.
Thursday
Mont St Michel - angels have been venerated as relics, angelic shrines tend to be on mounts - higher to the sky.
Mary - attractive as Mother of Jesus, human aspects of Jesus’ life became a matter of speculation and contemplation. Blame Bernard of Clairveux. Allegedly bodily received into heaven so no bodily remains but other things are kicking around e.g. her veil, a painting done by Luke. Her veneration was universal, resembled Christ who was also everywhere! Other saints are generally bound to one place, it depended on how far the relics could be stretched. She was the queen of heaven and you could pray to her but you are not to worship her, veneration only!
The next group are the apostles and evangelists - James at santiago, Mark at Venice, Peter and Paul in Rome.
Next - the martyrs, these where venerated form very early times, people would pray for the the help of these martyrs. The city with the most = Rome.
Many saints and martyrs are not really that well known.
The idea of becoming a saint simply by acclamation e.g. people began venerating them at death or something. Pope Alexander came up with as system with formal procedures.
We have local saints, universal saints, all kind of saints! There’s loads of them.
Venerated NOT worship, what they could give or what people expected was protection. Children were given saints names to invoke the saints protection. Generally given the name of the saint whose day it was in the day of baptism. Churches also could take saints names for protection, also by having a little piece of there relics in the alter helped. The medieval view point saw saints as pretty invincible.
Relics - it was believed that the relics contained the spiritual powers of the deceased, so there remains were collected and venerated and often displayed in shrines. You could buy a necklace with a splinter of a saints bone or you could get something for home - ick. Numerous miracles were connected with saints. At the route of this was the idea that illness was brought about by sin, therefore it was logical that pilgrimage would cure sin that a saint could absolve. Some even thought saints had cursed them, so they would go ask forgiveness. It was thought that original sin had even satan there body and souls - illness a cause of the fall. Although baptism was a cure as soon as the person sinned again the body could be claimed by the devil. Relics could be placed on the ill parts of the body so the devil would be uncomfortable. Female fertility - divine gift, baroness - punishment.
These places were not places of silent contemplation. Many many pilgrims coming and going. Some would pray, others would see it as a great social occasion, singing songs, drinking wine etc.
Jerusalem
Holy Sepulchre - the most holy place. Jesus burial and place of resurrection. The other place was the place of his crucifixion, it’s actually in the same church as the burial, it’s a very big church, it was originally out of the city walls. pheasant
Rome
The main attraction had to be St. Peter, but he also had another relic - the napkin in which christ had wiped his head - the pope built some shrine or something. I’m lost!!
40 so called station - during lent, the pope would hold mass in a different church, it was possible to amass a huge number of indulgences. 7 major shrines.
Santiado de Compostela - St James the Greater
A new comer in relation to Rome and Jerusalem, was lifted by shrewd communication and excellent publication.
In Britain pilgrimage basically disappeared after the Reformation.
Communities were very close knit, everyone knew everyone’s business. Confession happened twice a year, basically everyone knew everyone else’s confession anyway. Everything was public - example of a Prostitute in the Loire valley getting sent on pilgrimage to chartes.
To evade nosiness one way was to go on pilgrimage, a surprising number would go to avoid the intrusion of the local priest and family and friends. They wanted to care for there spiritual lives but not in such a public way.
The quest for pilgrimage became a mass movement. Many people would go on several pilgrimages to try out new kinds of spirituality but very often in the background it was to avoid the narrow world from which they came.
A variety of spiritual reasons - some form choice, some as penitence, and some just wanted to experience something new - the clergy did not like this reason. The real experience was based on the internal experience not a external.
We’ll focus on those with series spiritual problems:
Pilgrimage is a journey made to a sacred place of religious importance. It was to be an act of religious piety/religious devotion and the pilgrimage does not start at the destination but rather it’s the journey, when you leave home and ends when you return.
A pilgrim is a person on a journey. A stranger, foreign, defenseless, traveller, alien. You are moving through the closely knit communities and quite often would not have even been able to speak the language.
Latin: pilgrious
Pilgrims sometimes even died on the way, they were not allowed to be buried in someone else’s parish so would have had to plan for provisions for there bodies to be taken back home.
Much planning was needed and hardships endured.
The penitential pilgrimage
THe early church knew neither penitential nor judicial pilgrimage, the sinner was excluded from his community and did public penance to be restored if that was possible, there was several crimes which was only forgiven at a death bed. Pilgrimage were not imposed until the 6th century, when the whole system of penitence was changed under gaelic monasticism, the monks thought it was a great idea, often imposing pilgrimage on clerics and monks, not so often layman. Think of St. Columbas. The Irish penitentials also introduced a distinction between public and solemn, this distinction was upheld through the middle ages. Henry had to go on pilgrimage following the murder of Thomas Becket. If he had no gone on solemn pilgrimage, his position as king would have been in danger. For those sins out of the public eye, it was your private sin e.g. Margery Kemp.
Thursday
Mont St Michel - angels have been venerated as relics, angelic shrines tend to be on mounts - higher to the sky.
Mary - attractive as Mother of Jesus, human aspects of Jesus’ life became a matter of speculation and contemplation. Blame Bernard of Clairveux. Allegedly bodily received into heaven so no bodily remains but other things are kicking around e.g. her veil, a painting done by Luke. Her veneration was universal, resembled Christ who was also everywhere! Other saints are generally bound to one place, it depended on how far the relics could be stretched. She was the queen of heaven and you could pray to her but you are not to worship her, veneration only!
The next group are the apostles and evangelists - James at santiago, Mark at Venice, Peter and Paul in Rome.
Next - the martyrs, these where venerated form very early times, people would pray for the the help of these martyrs. The city with the most = Rome.
Many saints and martyrs are not really that well known.
The idea of becoming a saint simply by acclamation e.g. people began venerating them at death or something. Pope Alexander came up with as system with formal procedures.
We have local saints, universal saints, all kind of saints! There’s loads of them.
Venerated NOT worship, what they could give or what people expected was protection. Children were given saints names to invoke the saints protection. Generally given the name of the saint whose day it was in the day of baptism. Churches also could take saints names for protection, also by having a little piece of there relics in the alter helped. The medieval view point saw saints as pretty invincible.
Relics - it was believed that the relics contained the spiritual powers of the deceased, so there remains were collected and venerated and often displayed in shrines. You could buy a necklace with a splinter of a saints bone or you could get something for home - ick. Numerous miracles were connected with saints. At the route of this was the idea that illness was brought about by sin, therefore it was logical that pilgrimage would cure sin that a saint could absolve. Some even thought saints had cursed them, so they would go ask forgiveness. It was thought that original sin had even satan there body and souls - illness a cause of the fall. Although baptism was a cure as soon as the person sinned again the body could be claimed by the devil. Relics could be placed on the ill parts of the body so the devil would be uncomfortable. Female fertility - divine gift, baroness - punishment.
These places were not places of silent contemplation. Many many pilgrims coming and going. Some would pray, others would see it as a great social occasion, singing songs, drinking wine etc.
Jerusalem
Holy Sepulchre - the most holy place. Jesus burial and place of resurrection. The other place was the place of his crucifixion, it’s actually in the same church as the burial, it’s a very big church, it was originally out of the city walls. pheasant
Rome
The main attraction had to be St. Peter, but he also had another relic - the napkin in which christ had wiped his head - the pope built some shrine or something. I’m lost!!
40 so called station - during lent, the pope would hold mass in a different church, it was possible to amass a huge number of indulgences. 7 major shrines.
Santiado de Compostela - St James the Greater
A new comer in relation to Rome and Jerusalem, was lifted by shrewd communication and excellent publication.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)