The Council of Constance vrs Vatican I Part II

The Great Western Schism, which saw seven claims to the papacy divide Christendom into factions of the Catholic Church. Different Countries took different sides to those that that claimed they were the true pope. 

So in the last post I demonstrated through historical evidence on how Papal Infallibility entered the pages of church history. I showed that Papal Infallibility was actually not much of an issue until the late middle ages. As will be shown in this post, even many late Medieval Christians rejected this doctrine. It is not my attempt here though, to get into Vatican I'd definition of Papal Infallibility, that discussion will be reserved for the final post.
 Today's topic will be about Concialirism vrs Papal Supremacy, and how this debate laid the foundations for the coming Protestant Reformation. Above all, I want to put particular emphasis on the Council of Constance, and it's Conciliar stance. When I have done this, you will  see why Constance is opposed to Vatican I.

The Spiritual English Franciscan, William of Ockham, did not simply reject Papal Infallibility. His view that the church is superior to the pope, would be pivotal to the Conciliar debate before him. Not only would his views contribute to the great Western Schism, but perhaps more effective than this, his views on this subject would spur the Protestant Reformation, which would split the Roman Catholic Church into two factions as had never yet been seen.

Saint Francis of Assisi contributed to Christian history more than he ever expected. Francis had lived a life dedicated to God, and without worldly goods. While Pope Innocent III had granted Francis to this right, Pope John XXII would later try to revoke it. This would split the Franciscans in two, with the more dedicated one of the order becoming known as the Spirituals.  As explained in the previous post, the Spiritual Franciscans, especially William of Ockham, would lay the foundations for the Conciliar movement, and later the Protestant Reformation.  

   
 

Before Pope Innocent III, Pope Gregory VII was very instrumental in the power of the papacy. But as I have said elsewhere, the bishops of Rome since ancient times, clearly saw themselves as the leader of the Christian Church. On the other hand, as will be discussed more later, one will find a hard time finding Medieval Popes that saw themselves, or their predecessors, as infallible.

 All that said, when we look at the Middle Ages, we see eras when sometimes the popes are more powerful than kings, and sometimes the kings are more powerful than the popes. The debate of how far the pope's power went had been discussed for centuries, and in many ways not definitely settled. Perhaps that is why, Pope Gregory VII, or Pope Innocent III may speak more powerfully than other popes. On the other hand, perhaps we could reason from the facts of history, that some popes simply seemed more powerful than others because of certain issues they were dealing with.  When Pope Urban II preached for the First Crusade in July of 1095, he was exercising direct authority to an issue that he thought was needed to not only reclaim the Holy City Jerusalem, but also to protect the Christian east from the Saracens. Many perhaps would be surprised though, to learn that the Crusades were not the first wars in history called upon by popes. Popes had been involved in wars or the calling of them, centuries before the Crusades. While I may save for another discussion, it would be hard to deny the fact that Primacy exceeded that of ordinary bishops. Whether it Pope Leo I, or Pope Gregory the Great, or Pope Clement I, the bishops of Rome had presided as the leading bishops of the church for nearly 2000 years. To deny this, I think is just dishonest. On the other hand, we certainly need to ask the question, how far does Papal Primacy go? 

 I'm not going to get into all the debates and discussions in this post about popes authority over kings, or vice versa. Nor am I going to get into the political rights of the papacy. While all those are good topics for the future, for now I want to develop on my past post, by writing on the Conciliar debate.

 
           During the Great Western Schism of the Middle Ages, which lasted from 1378 to 1417, three principle reviles to the papacy would square off for who was truly the leader of the church.  Those now rejected by the Roman Catholic Church as illegitimate popes, are commonly called anti-popes. However one looks at it, the Great Schism saw these Papal Claimants rip Christendom apart into different factions.
 Not only did Christendom become divided into following the trues successor of Saint Peter, but because of this great schism, the leaders in factions excommunicated the followers of the others. As a result people became unsure of knowing if their sacraments were valid and pleasing to God.
 But this is how the Western Schism got started.
 Pope Urban VI was elected to the papacy in the late fourteenth century. Because of his hot temper, many of the cardinals regretted electing him thereafter. Some of them later declared him deposed, and chose Pope Clement VII instead. As two men now claimed to be the pope, this was the beginning of the Western Schism.
It did not end there however. I am trying to make these historical details quick and as short as possible so that I can get to the real topic ahead.
 The Western Schism posed a great conflict for Western Christianity, that went on for decades. But the real reason, I have given all this historical background is to explain the coming Council of Constance. I will not be contrasting The Council of Constance, from Vatican I, as I intend to do that in the final post. For now, I will briefly explain the possibly most important session of this great Ecumenical Council.
 To solve the crisis in the church, church leaders met at the Council of Constance, from 1414 to 1418. It produced a most interesting document, that actually put the authority of the church above, the papacy.
 ''The Holy synod of Constance, constituting s General Council, lawfully assembled to bring about the end of the present schism and the union and reformation of the church of God in head and members, to the praise of Almighty God in the Holy Spirit, in order that it may achieve more readily, safely, amply, and freely the union and reformation of the church of God, does hereby ordain, ratify, enact, decree, and declare the following:
 First it declares that being lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit, Constituting a general council and representing the Catholic Church Militant, it has its power directly from Christ, and that all persons of whatever rank or dignity, even a pope, are bound to obey it in matters relating to faith and the end of the schism and the general reformation of the church of God in head and members.

 Next week, we will see how Vatican I's definition of papal infallibility, is directly at odds with this fifteenth century council.



Further Sources: The Complete Illustrated Guide to Catholicism edited by Ronald Creighton-Jobe, Western Civilization: The Continuing Experiment by Noble Strauss, The Battle for Christendom: The Council of Constance, The East-West Conflict, and the Dawn of Modern Europe by Frank Welsh.

Contrasting the Council of Constance with Vatican I Part I

 This is the first of three posts on the debate of Papal Infallibility. This first one covers some topics of Christian history before the Medieval Council of Constance. The second post, will concentrate on this debate within the context of the Protestant Reformation and it's Counter response by the Catholic Church. The this part will concentrate on what happened at Vatican I. The actual contrast between Constance, and Vatican are saved however, for the next two posts.
I am about to write one of my longest blog posts. Because this topic is a long and complicated one, I may to split in in several parts.

I thought I would do a post on the differences between the councils of Constance and the first Vatican council. This post specifically addresses the debate over whether the pope is Infallible.  This has been a topic that I have been looking at for quite sometime. I expect this post to be a controversial one.
In another post on this blog that I wrote, I defended the Fact that Medieval People knew the Bible. By reading that post, it may also shed more light on the one I am writing today.
My research on the debate of papal infallibility has been one of extensive work. I have carefully studied both sides of it before drawing a conclusion. Some people may hate my views, cast the word heresy upon me, but none can truthfully say that I have not been fair in researching both sides.
With all said, I proceed to this post. Some of my closest friends and I have fundamental differences with each other on theological issues. Lewis and Tolkien did likewise, yet retained being friends. I hope my friends will shed the same grace on me despite our differences, as I do on them.
First of all, it is important to understand what papal Infallibility is.
Papal Infallibility is the doctrine of Vatican I, that when the pope speaks Ex Cathedra on an issue of faith and morals, he is promised by God that he will not err in so doing. Thus any dogma pronounced  by him is inerrant.
Many Catholics disagree among themselves how many dogmas the pope has proclaimed as Ex Cathedra. Some say only the Immaculate Conception of Mary as well her bodily Assumption qualify as Ex Cathedra statements. Other Catholic theologians list statements before and after these as Ex Cathedra.
But of course, the number of Ex Cathedra statements are not the issue of this post. Theologians can debate which doctrines are dogmatic, but historians have to carefully comprehend when doctrines were first formed. This post will reflect more on a historical understanding than papal Infallibility, rather than a theological one.

 Last, it is not my intention to get in a doctrine debate here. This blog is not an advocate for Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox beliefs. I like to evaluate as historians do, how certain doctrines were developed, and why. People can choose to believe or not believe Papal Infallibility.  But on how this doctrine came to be, let us not avoid the obvious facts of church history. 

 With that, I proceed to this post. 

  First of all it is true that Infallibility of the Pope was not suddenly taught for the first time at Vatican I in 1870. In fact, this doctrine had supporters and objectors of it for centuries prior. One of the things that Vatican I did do was make this teach dogmatic. 

 Now before I continue this topic on Vatican I, I want to address where this doctrine came from. 

 Some people may say that Infallibility of the Pope is taught in Matthew 16 when Christ gives Peter the keys of the kingdom. If this were true, it is awful odd that it would take roughly 1840 years later for this to be dogmatically affirmed as true teaching. After all, why was papal Infallibility not dogmitized during any of the church splits with the Greek Orthodox and Protestants that the Catholic Church had experienced centuries prior? Would this not have been a good time to affirm such an important doctrine, especially if it were truly apostolic? 

 Many of those that defend Vatican I will say that the church had already taught Papal Infallibility long before this. Well, if this is true why did not a single patristic church father teach it? Why did no church council in the ancient or medieval church affirm it? Why did none medieval canon law teach Infallibility of the pope? Perhaps most intriguing, is the lack of popes for the first thousand years of Christian history, that did not refer to themselves as infallible. 

 These are all important questions that many apologist of Vatican I cannot honestly answer.

  Historians once again can shed important light on this. In this post I am going to address one historian on the issue of papal Infallibility. He is not just any historian, his view on this subject has been widely accepted by scholars.  He  like many scholars, affirms that this dogma of Vatican I was a later teaching in the history of the church.

 I have said in other posts that many theologians tend to more biased than do historians. You can check my previous posts on why I say that.

  In my post Medieval People Knew the Bible, I illustrated the fact that some Protestants in an attempt to exaggerate the catholic church of the past have held to their opinions over clear historical facts. But just as some protestants are guilty of twisting history for their agenda, so are some Catholics. For those Catholics that ignore obvious historical facts, this is is perhaps never more true than when it comes to papal Infallibility. Some Catholic Apologist that defend Papal Infallibility will ignore facts not from Protestant historians alone, but even catholic ones, when it comes to twisting historical facts for their agenda.

 I have personally seen this bias many times among different Christian denomination. I find it particularly irritating, because we choose to believe a doctrine or not, but people should not twist facts to fit their agenda. Yes, many catholic apologist have done the latter when it comes to their false claim that papal Infallibility was somehow always part of church teaching.
 I said this post maybe controversial. For me, that is nor rare thing. Ha-Ha.
 One of the biggest factors that runs contrary to Vatican I, which is not only Papal Infallibility, but also the impossibility of a church council being summoned against the pope, is the fact that Medieval Canon law says otherwise.
 Gratian's Code of Canon Law was quite clear that a heretical pope could be judged and deposed by a church council. So was his holiness, Pope Innocent III.
 ''If the pope, being neglectful of his own salvation and that of his brethren, be found useless and remiss in his works, and, more that, reluctant to do good { which harms himself and others even more}, and nonetheless brings down with him innumerable throngs of people...Let no mortal man presumes to rebuke him for his faults, for, it being incumbent upon him to judge all, he should be judged by no one, unless he is suddenly caught deviating from the faith. '' -Gratian
 ''For faith is so necessary for me that, while for other sins I have God only as my judge, only for that sin which is committed against faith could I be judged by the church. '' -Pope Innocent III
 ''The Pope should not glory about himself about his power, nor should he rashly in his glory and high estate...still less can the Roman Pontiff glory,  because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to already be judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe, is already judged. '' -Pope Innocent III
 ''It is necessary to obey the pope in all things as long as he does not go against the universal customs of the church, but should he go against the universal customs of the church, he need not be obeyed. ''-Pope Innocent III

 There you have it! Clear examples I have laid out of Medieval teaching concerning the papacy. It was a widely believed thought, that a heretical pope could be deposed. Saint Augustine sounds the same: ''Well let us suppose that those bishops {including the pope} who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary council of the universal, in which these judges might be put on their defense; so that if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed. '' -Saint Augustine

 It was quite common in the Middle Ages,to believe not only that a heretical pope was a theoretical possibility, but that he indeed could be deposed by a church council. This is is not a hard fact to find from the writings of Medieval Christians.

 The first historian I want to address on the issue of Papal Infallibility, is Cambridge Medievalist and historian, Brian Tierney. Dr. Tierney has written the controversial book Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150-1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages.  I own several books from Dr. Tierney, and most of what I know about Papal Infallibility is probably from him.
 At some point or another, I guess I became more and more interested in studying the doctrine of papal infallibility. While doing so, I came across Dr. Tierney book, and purchased it used for one 130 dollars. This was the cheapest copy I found online for it!
 I found the book most interesting. It focuses primarily on the Spiritual Franciscans of the 14th century. The book shows that Papal Infallibility actually originated by some of these Franciscans such as Peter Olivi by claiming that Pope John XXII had committed formal heresy and therefore needed to be deposed. The pope's alleged heresy was of changing church teach from these Franciscans pint of view, on Apostolic Poverty. While he believed Christ and the Apostles, owned property, they did not. Also in contrast to their views, the pope believed he could change teachers from his predecessors. However, the Spiritual Franciscans found comfort in Papal Infallibility, as they saw it as protecting their Apostolic living on nothing whatsoever. In time, these Spirituals believed they were the true remnant of the church, and believed they were holding to what the popes before John XXII had taught.
 It's also interesting to note that Pope John XXII did not simply have a different opinion than the Franciscans. Rather, he tried to force his view on the Franciscans by masking them own worldly goods through force.  Just as he charged them with disobedience for not adhering to his Papal Bulls, so they likewise accused him of heresy. Over time, many of them were burned at the stake, ane essentially, wiped out.
 It is also interesting to note that a certain English Franciscan friar by the name of William of Ockham, never took some of the extreme theological views later advocated by Martin Luther. This Franciscan, unlike some of his colleagues  rejected Papal Infallibility. Like the other Spirituals however, he did believe the pope was a formal heretic. Not all the Spiritual Franciscans however taught Papal Infallibility. William of Ockham was among this group's leaders. He has been called the first Protestant, and this is with good reason, and in time his teachings would influence Luther.
 William of Ockham has been called the first Protestant.
 Most of what I have said is from the book about Papal infallibility that I mentioned above, written by a Cambridge Medieval Historian. Check it out if this topic is of great interest to you.
 All that said, this first part was really just the introduction to this great debate of Christian History. The second part will follow next week. For now, Adieu!



''Because of the errors and heresies above by others, I turn away obedience from the false pope...because of his errors and heresies the same pseudo-pope is heretical, deprived of his papacy,  and excommunicated by canon law itself, without need of further sentence...if anyone should like to recall mew to his obedience...let him try to defend his constitutions and sermons, and show they agree with holy scripture, or that a pope cannot fall into a wickedness of heresy, or let him show by holy authorities or manifest reasons that one who knows the pope to be a notorious heretic is obliged to obey him.''
 -William of Ockham


 Jesus said unto them,''If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. ''
-Matthew 19: 21

 Further reading:
The Spiritual Franciscan: From Protest to Persecution in the century after Saint Francis by David Burr, Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150-1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty, and Tradition in the Middle Ages by Brian Tierney,  Papal Primacy: From It's Origins to the Present by Klaus Schatz, Encyclopedia of Catholic History by Matthew Bunson, Medieval Christianity: A New History byKevin Magidan, The Battle for Christendom: The Council Constance, the East West Conflict, and the dawn of modern Europe by Frank Welsh, The Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages edited by Norman F. Cantor, Usborn World History: Medieval World by Jane Bingham. 
http://ldysinger.stjohnsem.edu/CH_502_Modern/02_conciliarism/00a_start.htm
http://ldysinger.stjohnsem.edu/CH_502_Modern/02_conciliarism/00a_start.htm

A Review of The Discarded Image by C S Lewis

I recently finished The Discarded Image by C. S. Lewis. This book was published in 1964, one year after the author's death. This book has been described as Lewis's masterpiece. I agree with that assessment.
All that said, here are few things of particular interest, that Lewis talks about in the book.
1. Despite Medieval man's illiteracy, he knew more from the books than do many today.
2. Medieval man knew more about geography than modern man usually gives him credit. For example, navigators did not see Jerusalem as literally the center of the earth despite the fact that maps often portrayed it as such. Maps were meant to be more artistic than entirely realistic. 
3. Medieval man valued the earth more than many do today. People in the Middle Ages spent many long hours outside.
4. Medieval People did not distinguish History from stories. That is why Medieval historical account often mention mythical stories as their origins. It is also interesting to note, that many medieval English people, believed they were descendants of the Trojans. This theory, perhaps is largely attributed to Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain.
5. Lewis shows his extensive knowledge of the medieval world by the number of works, people and literature he speaks of. He was certainly well read in all that he addresses.
6. Lewis demonstrates through evidence in the book, how Medieval man understood astrology.
7. Lewis goes through the Aristotelian Model of the Earth and Heavens as the main premise of the book.

 I ultimately found this book a great defense of Medieval Culture on many points. It is one of several books by C. S. Lewis on Medieval Literature. 

Why I am now an English Major

                                                           

Recently, I have decided to switch my major From History to English.That said, I will still minor in History. There are clear reasons why I have decided to make English my major.
 One of them is that English I think will benefit me on the long run for my novels. I am a novelist, and my concentration on historical fiction I think will be slightly more benefited by an English degree at this point, than I would be from a History degree. Also, Liberty University has no minor in English online, so I wanted to major in one of these fields of study while minoring in the other. That's why a major in English, with a minor in history, is a good choice for me. While I love non-fiction, I write fiction much more. This was ultimately a hard draw for me, between History and English. I hope I work with my utmost ability now to gain my English degree.
 On a different point, most of my mentor writers were English Majors. This seemed to really occur to me one day despite the fact that I never really considered an English degree until like a year ago.
I have obviously not included everyone on this list that is or was a famous English Major. But here are a few: J. R. R. Tolkien { who was originally getting a classics degree}, C. S. Lewis, Michael Shaara, Dr. Seuss, Georgie Henley, Emma Watson { who was originally getting a history degree}, Tom Clancy, Harrison Ford,  Matt Damon, Hugh Grant, Katherine Hepburn, Mitt Romney, Jodi Foster, Chevy Chase, Barabara Walters, and Clarence Thomas. There are of course more than that. I just wanted to list for my readers some famous English majors.
 I'm going to need a lot of prayer for my college work ahead. Soon I will be officially enrolling as an English student. My preferred future careers are being a teacher, or a librarian.
 Some of my friends are suggesting areas for me to eventually master in. I am surrounded by many with much wisdom. For now though, I am far too interested in gaining my undergraduate degree than to think about potential master degrees down the road.
 I hope all are doing well! Blessings in Christ.

Beowulf and the Song of Roland

 I though I'd make this post about two Medieval Works I read in high school. They were both about a noble hero, and in each story, they end with a tragic death of the hero.
 Beowulf is a work of Anglo-Saxon literature. In fact, Beowulf is one of the principle works of Old English literature.  It was written near the end of the early Middle Ages. The story is about a hero that takes on several monsters successfully. Beowulf himself though, is slain near the end of the story by a great beast.
 On the other hand, The Song of Roland is one of the eldest works of Medieval French Literature. This story, written in poetry like Beowulf, is about a knight under Emperor Charlemagne that fights the Saracens in Spain. The tragic killing of Roland by the Muslims, is considered one of the greatest in world literature. Also, this French epic would have heavy influence upon the Latin Christians in the Crusades.
 That's just a brief of these works. I'd recommend all lovers of the Middle Ages to read them. I prefer The Song of Roland of these two works. 

                                                       ''Hand to hand is how it will be,
                                                        a life and death fight against the fiend,
                                                        and he whom death bears off shall submit
                                                        to the judgement of the Lord.''
                                                                        - Beowulf




                                                     ''We must stand here for our king,
                                                      One must suffer hardship for one's lord,
                                                      And endure great heat and great cold
                                                      One must also lose hide and hair.''
                                                              -The Song of Roland