The Great Schism

Church corruption and the mendicant orders:     Corruption in the Catholic Church prior to and during the Great Schism was widespread.  Clergymen, who were supposed to be well educated, began to fall into ignorance and led members of the church in an uninformed way. Clergymen also sold “indulgences” –pardoning sins – at high prices and promised eternal salvation in return for money.  Many of these indulgences severely overstepped their intended ability and many were illegally forged.  Much of this money was then used to fuel the Crusades, but some of it was simply kept for the clergymen’s lands.  Also corrupt were the sexual practices of members of the church.  Perhaps one of the most controversial was Pope Alexander VI, who fathered seven children by three mistresses.   The emergence of mendicant orders sought to oppose the cash-game that had become characteristic of the religion.  Mendicant friars preached for free –which began to expose the corruption the people had been experiencing.

The Great Schism:  The Great Schism itself separated Christians into two divisions: the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.  There are quite a few issues that ultimately led to this split, one of which was the issue of whether or not the fillioque clause was valid.  The Pope of the West added the Fillioque clause to the Apostles Creed to reflect the belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, not the Father alone –as the East argued.  There were also numerous small disputes between the two sides over other simple liturgical practices.

Other issues that led to the Great Schism were some preliminary schisms.  One involving a conflict between Pope Felix III and Patriarch Acacius concerning the tolerance of Monophysites (whom Felix called heathens).  A second preliminary schism involved the refusal of Pope Nicolas I to recognize the appointment of Photios in Constantinople. 

The disputes concerning the two patriarchs of Rome and of Constantinople led to much division.  Furthermore, the fact that half of the Christian would spoke Latin and the other half spoke Greek led to more confusion.  There were few people who spoke both languages and miscommunication was plentiful.

Followers of the church over time were forced to recognize one of two (or sometimes even three) authorities. 

The Schism also incited more fighting among the Princes of Europe, uprisings among the peasants, and extensive loss of faith in the church.

The Reformation:    The Protestant Reformation was led primarily by Martin Luther and John Calvin and led to the establishment of the Protestant Churches.  Luther was horrified by the corruption he saw within the church and sought to reform it.  Luckily at this time in history, the printing press had just been invented.  Luther published and inexpensive pamphlet called Ninety-five Theses and distributed it among the people of the church.  When Luther was later excommunicated by the Pope, John Calvin published more pamphlets in order to establish some loose agreements among countries in Eastern Europe.  One of the main outcomes of the reformation was a new widespread literacy of the people of the church.  A more educated body of followers was better able to understand and participate in the ongoing debates.

The Inquisition and the Wars of Religion:     The Inquisition sought to combat heresy and became widespread after the Great Schism and the Reformation.  As it began, only baptized members of the church could be convicted and the penalty was often death by burning.  However, non-members could be tried for blasphemy and put to death as well.  The use of torture was implemented after a decree led by Pope Innocent IV in 1252.  There were, however, less permanent penalties for being convicted of heresy or blasphemy.  Not surprisingly, one could be fined, imprisoned, sentenced to a public scourging, or ordered to wear a cross.

The Wars of Religion following the Protestant Reformation were also widespread.  Some countries involved were Germany, Switzerland, France, Bohemia, Denmark, Scotland, Ireland, and England.  All of these wars were the result of disputes stemming from the radical religious changes brought about by preceding years.  People of the church revolted against uncertain religious authorities, imposed beliefs, and unjust corruption of the rich and powerful.

Works Cited:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_Religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence#Abuses

http://ezinearticles.com/?Corruption-of-the-Church-in-the-Middle-Ages&id=969734

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation

Everyday Life in Medieval Europe

• Overview:  Life in Medieval Europe was very routine, and revolved around an agrarian calendar.  Most of the time was spending toiling over the land and attempting to grow enough food to survive.  Peasants lived and worked outside in simple dress and had a meager diet.  Church feasts marked important planting and harvesting as well as rest days.  Life was very much localized.  Social events like weddings involved the entire town.  Fairs involved performers, merchants, games of chance at the tavern, and tournaments featuring knights.  Superstition dominated the minds of the people.

• Cities:  Few cities existed in Europe before the 13^th century.  Viking invasions influenced the proliferation of cities in the West.  Cities’ origins were that of towns fortifying in order to protect themselves from being sacked and plundered.  Urban life became more prominent as time passed.

• Villages:  The majority of people lived in villages and their lives centered around farming.  People and buildings resided near the center of the village surrounded by fields and pastures.  Lives were lived out here with rarely a chance to leave.  Villages depended on common enterprise to survive and sometimes moved if the land became infertile or the weather too harsh.  Villages often had lords residing in castles nearby.

• Commerce:  (1) Merchants began trading with those of other cities and treaties were formed to protect those carrying goods from one city to another, with these caravans often protected by government troops. Within a city, merchants often swore association to protect each other within the walls.  (2) Medieval towns held markets at least once a week in the square, where stalls were set up and local merchants would sell their wares. Nearby towns may have also sent any surplus goods they could to be sold.  (3) Fairs attracted foreign merchant to sell things not easily found in the area.  (4) Particular trades banded together to form guilds, setting standards as well as protecting the members.  Apprenticeships were how people started in a particular trade.

• Women:  Women in the Middle Ages were usually treated as property. While medieval country marriages were often the result of love, marriage among the noble class was more a business transaction.

• Entertainment:  Monotony in medieval life was broken by holidays and festivals.  Medieval entertainment varied by status but included feasts, banquets, jousts, tournaments, plays, fairs, games including chess, and animals.

• Sources: 
http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/entertainment-middle-ages.htm
http://www.medieval-life.net/

Medieval Religious Practices and Institutions

Medieval Religious Practices and Institutions

The Catholic Church: or as it was called, the universal church was perhaps the most influential institution of the medieval era.  The Catholic Church teaches the gospel of Jesus Christ and practices sacraments such as the holy Eucharist, baptisms, and also performs various charities.   All people (including peasants – who often worked for free on Church properties) were required to pay taxes or “Tithes” to the Church either in money or in goods.  However, the Church itself was not required to pay taxes.  Thus, the Holy institution was easily wealthier than any King or noble family.  Much of this money was used to build beautiful cathedrals, churches, and monasteries of which some are still revered as some of the most elegant structures in Europe today. 

Church Hierarchy:  The pecking order of the church begins with the Pope – which is a Greek term meaning ‘father.’  It has been said that Saint Peter, the apostle, was the very first Pope.  Duties of the Pope during medieval times included simply to represent the sacred authority of the church.  With the declaration of the Doctrine of Two Swords in 1302, this authority was extended from the church itself to the state as well.  The doctrine declared that all people, in order to attain eternal salvation, must be entirely submissive to the will of the Pope.  It also stated that the two ‘swords’ of Catholicism were spiritual and secular and sought to reconcile the two by demanding the submission of the state under the church.  Thus, all institutions, though they may be carried out by men of the state, were ultimately under the direction of the church. 

            Under the Pope, the next highest power of the church was that of Cardinals.  The word Cardinal itself is Latin for ‘hinge’ which suggests their influential nature.  Duties of the Cardinal now include the election of Popes, but historically this duty belonged to the clergymen and diocese of Rome up until about 1059. 

            Under the Pope and Cardinals, there were Archbishops and Bishops, who levied taxes and were deeply involved in the undertakings of feudal society.  Priests conducted mass and because they were often the only people of the village (besides Monks – who often kept to themselves) who could read and write; priests were responsible for the keeping of records. 

            Finally, Monks were the most humble of the Catholic Church hierarchy.    Historically, they often lived alone, but eventually many came to live in Monasteries and became very well educated.  Most bibles came out of Monasteries – as Monks were responsible for making copies of the Holy texts.  Monasteries were self-supporting, so Monks were usually not allowed to leave them.  The life of a Monk was therefore devoted entirely to prayer, education, and obedience under God.  Monks were required to take three solemn vows of chastity, of poverty, and of obedience.  They could not keep money or own property and more often than not, were banned from communicating with the outside world even with their families.

Monastic Orders:  The emergence of Monastic orders was a result of the Church’s need for organization and designated leadership.  In the West, there were orders such as that under the rule of St. Augustine or St. Benedict. 

Mendicant Orders:

            Mendicant orders developed in an effort to ‘reinvigorated’ the life of Catholics.  There were five great orders of the medieval era: Francisians, Carmelites, Dominicans, Servites, and Augustinians.  Many were established in popular towns and revived the practice of public preaching and serving the poor and the sick – as followers of Jesus Christ.  Although the friars of the orders were not allowed to own property, the orders were funded by charity and as time went on, the Church gradually began to allow collective ownership of a property by friars.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_monasticism#Roman_Catholicism

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15126a.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_hierarchy#Cardinals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendicant_orders

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church

Universals

            Universals may or may not exist. They are the general forms, or ideas, behind everything that we experience in the corporeal world. The corporeal world is processed through our senses. The world of universals can only be accessed through the intellect. This is essentially the Platonic version of the universals, or ideals. Examples of ideals are the form, general idea, or species “cat,” as opposed to an actual example of a cat. The same could be said for chair, lamp, candle, shirt, and so on.

            Although I like Plato’s delineation of the ideals, as he refers to them, I agree neither with him nor with Aristotle about the nature of the ideals. I do not believe that they exist on earth in the forms that represent them, as Aristotle believed, or that they exist in a kind of Platonic heaven. I recognize that the idea behind them was a breakthrough in thinking, leading to Aristotle’s delineation of species by creating the idea of a genus, and I like that this concept has been used practically, but to think that an idea actually existing somewhere is frankly a little absurd. Numbers are examples of forms, so this is akin to saying that the number two actually exists somewhere. There are plenty of mathematicians who do believe this, and I find it a bit more plausible than the idea of “cat” existing somewhere, but I also believe that it is inaccurate.

            Abstract entities create a lot of problems because they are, by definition, hard to define and to pin down exactly, and because they can only be accessed through the intellect, it is impossible to actually prove anything about them. However, there are plenty of opinions on the forms, and I stay firm in mine. Universals are merely a fabrication of the mind, and although if we had never existed, two plus two would still equal four, it would not matter because there would not have been anyone to first create that idea. 

Universals?

A universal can be defined as an abstract of what many individual objects have in common.  For example, the property of “dog-ness” is a universal of what all dogs must have in common to be called dogs.  For an inanimate object, two chairs might be said to have “chair-ness” meaning that both chairs contain something that makes them similar and consequently both a chair.  One reason universals are so controversial is due to the difficulty in creating and upholding a demarcation criterion for things like chair and creatures like dog.  For what exactly is it that makes a chair a chair?  Four legs?  Well, what about beanbag chairs?  Is it the fact that it is intended to be sat upon?  So is a bench or a stone pillar or a tree trunk also a chair?  Where do we draw the line for what is a chair and what is not?  It is obvious that these questions could continue on and on for hours, at the very least.

              It would seem to me that all objects, all creatures, are indeed quite distinct from one another (in the literal sense that they do not occupy the same space at the same time).  But to be frank, I do not believe that universals exist because it seems to me that not only are separate objects of the same kind (whatever that may mean) distinct from one another in this literal sense, but it also seems that even the same objects are continuously changing.  Even myself – the very cells and bacteria that make up my body are different from those that made it up yesterday.  Furthermore, (I plan to post the abstract to an article that describes this) there are recent finding that neurons within the frontal lobe of the human brain- the part we believe is responsible for our personality – undergo rearrangement of DNA as time goes on.  That could mean that the literal cells responsible for our personality are different, changing continuously each day.  Thus, I am, in every sense of the word, a different person than I was yesterday.  And if there cannot be any meaningful way in which I might introduce myself as the same Hannah I was yesterday or three years ago – how could I say that the essence of anything at all is the same among different entities?

            This may seem a bit off-topic, but in essence, I do not believe universals exist mostly because when I am presented with two things – perhaps they are two dogs, I find it quite easy to describe what it is that makes them distinct from one another.  Even if the two dogs are of the same breed, the same size, have the same energetic disposition; it is usually quite easy to pick out the multitude of characteristics that makes them ultimately a different dog.  However, when I am asked to describe what it is that makes them the same, I find my task extremely difficult.  The same breed – that is just an arbitrary name, the same coloring – I find myself noticing the ways in which their colors are slightly different and suddenly I find myself simply trying again to separate the things that make the dogs different from the things that make them similar.  And in the latter set, usually all I am left with is a name.

Here is that link if anyone is interested:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2932632/

Universals Controversy

Universals are abstract concepts shared as common features among separate things.  For example, two pieces of white chalk share the universal properties of whiteness and chalkness.

These abstractions are so controversial because we are not sure whether they exist or not.  Do pieces of white chalk actually share the concept of whiteness, or are the instances of whiteness separate?  If the whiteness is shared, then Platonic forms may exist, and perfect whiteness exists as incorporeal and separate from sensible things in Platonic heaven, lending itself out to corporeal instances of chalk for a less perfect incorporation of itself.  Another point of controversy is whether universals exist in sensibles or not.  Is whiteness physically inside the chalk or outside of it?  It is also possible that universals only exist in language and in our minds and are an accident of our abilities to categorize things and label them with words.

My opinion is that universals are actual and exist within things, accounting for shared attributes among separate things.  There are reasons that two pieces of white chalk share their whiteness.  Certain physical properties that happen to be the same, like chemical makeup, cause the pieces of chalk to appear as white.  Similarly, another account for universals is that the univerals of separate objects are physically related.  Different pieces of chalk have been cut from the same rock or the same type of rock, humans are descended from common ancestors.

Other universals may actually be an accident of our drive to classify.  I don’t know if the whiteness of the paint on the wall is the same as the whiteness of the pieces of chalk, but classifying them both as white makes life easier and more convenient, especially in communication.

Early Disputes of Christian Doctrine

2 Great points of Christian dispute: Filioque & Papal Supremacy

Nicene Creed

-the most widely used Christian liturgy (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Angelican, major Protestant Churches)

First Council of Nicaea /FILIOQUE

-325, modern day Turkey

-established the first uniform Christian doctrine

-the first ecumenical council, about 300 bishops in attendance

-called by Constantine (the emperor who tolerated and later converted to Christianity) who wanted a unified church; an important instance of the church being given authority by the state

-the controversy of Filioque: is the Son of the Father divine?

-Arius and his follower (Arians) claimed that the Son was created by the Father, and therefore not equal in nature

-the consensus of the council was that the Trinity is united: the Father and Son are of the same substance & co-eternal

-Arius exiled

-the council was far from definitive however, as Arius’s views were not suppressed (the two emperors who followed Constantine were Arians)

-around 360 issues arose when people realized that the nature of the Holy Spirit was still a mystery

Theodosius/ First Council of Constantinople (381)

-last emperor to rule both the eastern and western empires (Byzantine & Roman empires), died 395

-named Catholicism the state religion

-called the Council to repair the schism between the East and West

-Differences between East and West : linguistic and cultural (Latin in West, Greek in east=translation nightmares)

-the East by now had gained greater influence, 3 presiding bishops were Eastern; the bishop of Constantinople was second only to the bishop of Rome

-Con. was firmly Arian; men had to decide the nature of the Holy Spirit; the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal, though the HS ‘proceeded’ from the Father, while the Son was ‘begotten’ of him

-there were a number of ‘heretical’ sects of Christianity, though most of them were relatively insignificant and died off due to lack of followers or oppression

Papal Supremacy

-what does it mean to be the Bishop of Rome? Is he the ultimate authority or merely the ‘first among equals’?

-the West naturally wanted to give greater authority to Rome than the East, this became a major source of conflict

-eventually the West demanded to be recognized as supreme, the East refused, and the Great Schism followed

The Great Schism

-differences of Doctrine, Theology, Geography, Politics, Language, Culture

-the other language is outlawed

-in 1054 both Bishops try to excommunicate each other, the Church split

-early 16^th century Luther and the 95 Thesis mark the beginning of Western Protestantism