Bibles of the English Reformation: The Wycliffe Bible

In my previous post, I went briefly over the English versions of the Bible from the Reformation eras. This post is the beginning of my series of posts on each of the main English versions of the Bible.

 For the previous one thousand years, St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate, had been used almost exclusively in the west. The Roman Catholic Church was leary of Vernacular translations, although not entirely opposed to it. Many of the Catholic hierarchy felt that Bibles used by the people, in the common language, would make heresy more easily spreadable by people not going to the church for it's interpretation of the Scriptures. The Protestants believed this was an excuse of the Roman Catholic Popes and Bishops to keep people dependent upon the church, and especially on indulgences for salvation.  The ushering debate of Papacy vrs. Church Council, and the Church vrs. Scripture Alone, would be only foreshadows of the things to come.

 The Crusades to the Holy Land had been essentially over by the fourteenth century. The knowledge of Latin exclusively alone had faded through the Crusades however. Crusaders came back to Europe with knowledge of many things unknown to Western Christians, one of them being other languages. As new languages spread, the dependency on Latin likewise began to decline in the West.
John Wycliffe was not the first person to translate parts of the Bible into English. In fact, it is still debated how much he actually contributed to the Wycliffe Bible. What is certain, is the English Reformer John Wycliffe laid the foundations for the English Reformation in England.
 I first read a biography of John Wycliffe in my mid teens. My views have Wycliffe have went a little up and down over the years, but I have always considered him quite interesting.
 John Wycliffe was an Oxford scholar. Having Sympathy for the poor, Wycliffe's followers were mostly poor themselves, although some noble knights did also join his cause. Wycliffe held to the doctrine of Apostolic Poverty, and attacked the Roman Catholic Church for it's excessive property and money. Wycliffe felt he was follower of St. Augustine. One of his most important beliefs, shared also by his followers, was that the Bible should be in the vernacular, or common language for men to read.  As many of Wycliffe's works were later burnt, much of his theology is left obscure and unclear to modern readers. Frequently, this English reformer sided with the royalty of England over the church hierarchy. While this last point may sound surprising to many modern evangelical protestants, the fact is that Protestants historically supported Monarchy and Church states much like Roman Catholic.  Wycliffe died in exile for his alleged heresies, though his influence upon the English Reformation, would come to great influence with a certain scholar by the name of William Tyndale.

 Wycliffe's followers were known as the Lollards. Some of these groups opposed all forms of war, especially Crusades { check out The Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards by John Purvey}. The Lollards were not a unified movement theologically speaking, they attracted large amounts of different people. The coming Peasant Revolt against King Richard II, was supported by some Lollards, and hence Wycliffe was later blamed for initiating this rebellion. As might be expected,  some of the beliefs of the Lollards were exaggerated of what Wycliffe had actually taught.
 Geoffrey Chaucer was a student of John Wycliffe. To this day, it is still debated where Chaucer theologically stood. On one hand, The Canterbury Tales certainly mocks abuse in the Catholic Church, but on the other, no document has ever shown Chaucer to not be a Roman Catholic. Whatever Chaucer's beliefs, he was greatly influenced by Wycliffe.
 With all that as in introduction, I want to say a little bit about The Wycliffe Bible. 

 The Wycliffe Bible was the first complete English Bible, itself being produced by the Lollards. This landmark in English Literature, was translated from the Latin Vulgate into English.  Many scholars believe Wycliffe had nothing to do with the translation however, which was completed largely by Nicholas of Hereford. A later second edition was written by John of Purvey, which was more radical than the first by it's further attempts to break with Rome. The Lollards incorporated more than a thousand words previously not found in English from Latin. The King James Version of the Bible would be heavily influenced by The Wycliffe Bible.


 For God louede so the world, that he yaf his oon bigetun sone, that ech man that belieuth in him perische not, but havbe everlasting liif. - John 3: 16, The Wycliffe Bible. 


 On a different subject, Wycliffe not only influenced the best selling book in history, The King James Version of the Bible, he influenced the father of English Literature, Geoffrey Chaucer, author of The Canterbury Tales.

Further Sources : https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp file=47891, http://catholicencyclopedia.newadvent.com/cathen/09333a.htm,  English Literature by Benjamin W. Griffith, Medieval Christianity: A New History by Kevin Madigan,

An Introduction to the Bibles of the English Reformation

 The Bible is by far the most sold Bible in the History of the World. The King James Version of the Bible alone has sold over 1 billion copies. The Bible's impact upon history, literature, art, linguistics, politics, and science is beyond compression.  What many takes advantage of now, however, is the fact that the Bible is more accessible to us than ever.
 This post will focus on some brief history of Bibles during the English Reformation. In future posts, I will reflect on these individual Bible translations with more care and attention.  My intent here is not to get into the Roman Catholic vrs. Protestant debates, but merely reflections on English translations of the Bible. I will leave it to theologians and historians to debate the context of the English Reformation, especially of whether or not it was morally right. Again, this post will merely focuses on the work of English Bibles.
 As we look at translations of the Bible from Latin or Greek into English, it is important to keep in mind the fact that it took much more work to produce copies of the Bible then it does today. Gutenberg's Printing Press was just the beginning for the publication of the Bible.
 As an introduction, the Bible had been used almost exclusively through the Latin Vulgate for the previous 1000 years before the time of the Protestant Reformation. Illuminated Manuscripts of the Bible had been used my monks from one Monastery to the next. With the invention of the printing press in the 15th century, everything suddenly changed.
 While parts of the Bible had been translated into English during Medieval Times, the entire Bible had never been. John Wycliffe's translation of the Bible from The Latin Vulgate to English, set the foundation for the English versions of the Bible, though many later versions of the Holy Scriptures, were based upon the Greek rather than the Latin text.
 The English Lutheran William Tyndale, was perhaps most influential on the history of the English Bible. He translated nearly all the Hebrew and Greek text of the Old and New Testaments into English. Tyndale, would go on to be burnt at the stake under the reign of  King Henry VIII of England. Protestants commonly claim that Tyndale was put to death for trying to get the Bible into the hands of all English people, not just the clergy of the church, whom many of the reformers felt were corrupt.  Roman Catholics on the other hand, commonly claim that Tyndale's execution was based on the fact that many of the notes of his Bible attacked the teachings of the Catholic Church, and that therefore, Tyndale was not simply put to death for writing an English Bible. Whichever of these two views the reader takes, what is universally agreed, is that William Tyndale was heavily influential upon the coming English Reformation.
 In 1534, Henry VIII cut ties with Rome. He had Roman Catholics and Protestants alike put to death, and made all submit to him as the head of the church. While most historians believe he started the Anglican Church, others say it would be not started until Elizabeth I. Henry VIII was the first English monarch to authorize a full translation of the Latin Scriptures into English. The Great Bible, alike to The Coverdale Bible, became in frequent use among the English clergy thereafter until the later Bishops Bible.

Called The Great Bible for it's massive size, this English translation of the Holy Scriptures, would pave the way for the most influential book in history, The King James Version of the Bible. 

The Geneva Bible was full of many reformed notes that attacked popes beginning with Gregory VII. The notes of the Geneva Bible also attributed the Whore of Babylon, found in The Book of Revelation, to the Catholic Church. 

 Building on a number of English Bibles, including Tyndale's Bible, The Geneva Bible, The Douay Rheims Bible, and The Bishop's Bible, The King James Version of the Bible would be more moderate than other Protestant Versions, yet still clearly Protestant. It's preface would attack ''Papist'', a derogatory term for Roman Catholics, yet it would retain the use of Charity, rather than love, in 1 Corinthians 13.





 To be continued....


Further Sources: The Nortan Anthology of English Literature, English Literature by Benjamin W. Griffith.

Some Great Books that Defend Medieval Times

  Too often do people get their understanding of history from Hollywood or the media. Both the media and Hollywood have shown again and again to lie about Christians, and degrade the Western Christian past.
 The Crusades have been the subject of constant criticism in recent years. These expeditions to Outremer, and elsewhere, are also now used as a scapegoat to victimimize Muslims and convince people that the Muslims were either/and or should have not been attacked, and even evangelized by Christians instead. Too often those that make such ignorant comments forget about the Medieval Christians that did try to evangelize the Muslims, including St. Francis of Assisi. On a final point about evangelism, just as it would be absurd to say Christians should have just evangelized the Nazis rather than fight a war against them, so the same reasoning goes for the fact that the Crusades were absolutely necessary. 
When 9/11 happened, then President Bill Clinton said that the Muslims are getting back at the West for what happened in the first crusade. President George W. Bush called the War in Iraq a ''Crusade,'' and was then accused by the east of behaving like Richard the Lionheart.  A few years ago, then President Barack Obama, equalized modern jihad with the Crusades and Inquisitions of Christians of the past. Obama's criticism of the Crusades then a saw a return in criticism against him from Republican presidential candidates: Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and Bobby Jindal.  When President Trump said during the 2016 presidential debates and campaign,  that we need to bring back more of Medieval torture and ban Muslims from the country, no wonder he struck a chord with the left. Trump repeatedly talked about building a ''Medieval Wall'', and the fact the fact that Muslims have killed Christians more now than ever since the Middle Ages. For decades, the left has lied about American History, and Western History in general. The left's attempt is to make Americans no more proud of their Western roots than that found in any other culture. For to long, many Christians have been ignorant of their past, apologized for the Crusades, and have wrongly assumed that Muslims are victims of Christian bloodshed. This has resulted in many Christians apologizing for the Crusades and hoping their apology will soften the hearts of Muslims. There is no apology for truth, truth must be defended at all costs. Conservatives in recent years have seen the effects of Muslim immigration. Whether it be UKIP with Brexit in the U.K., or the Trump movement in the U.S., many Christians have been waking up to the dangers of Islam. The fact that not all Muslims are violent does not take away the danger of Islamic immigration. Closed Churches in the U. K. have become Mosques, and more people now attend Mosque than Church in France.
 Unfair generalizations are now given to the Christian past, and not simply to the Christian heritage of the Middle Ages, but also to the Christian roots of Puritan England. The left demonizes the Roman Catholic Inquisitions of the past, but it does the same to the Puritan Protestant's burning of witches in New England. Now, Christians of conservative doctrines,  are sometimes labelled ''Medieval,'' as a derogatory  insult. Whether it be Roman Catholicism or Protestantism, for decades the left has brutally attacked the reputation of Christians of past church history. This is seen in many films. Satire is now deployed against the Christian past. The left has a common way of making Christians looking silly or as hypocrites. The Monty Python films are no exception to this rule. In Monty Python: Life of Bryan, originally called Jesus Christ: Lust for Glory, another man is born next to Christ, and mistaken to be the Messiah. These are just some examples of blasphemy against Christ, which usually goes with mocking the holy church.
As someone that has for years defended the Crusades and Medieval Culture against unfair prejudice  and liberalism, I just wanted to post here some titles of books that defend Medieval Culture, the Medieval Church, and the Medieval Crusades. As liberals seem to hate Medieval Culture, I think it's important that Western Christians study more of their past to defend their Christian heritage. The books listed blow, also defend the Medieval West in more general terms as well.

 This book is just a good defense of the Crusades in general, while also exposing truths about Islam. The book shows well that not only was Islam a cult violent religion of Mohammed, but that the Crusades were in fact, very much defensive wars, called upon with good reason to defend Christendom from the Jihadist.

 This book is great for showing just a handful of the many of the devout Christians from Medieval Times. It particularity exposes how evangelistic was the Medieval Roman Catholic Church, and the great lives of some notable saints.

 This book is a good source for showing that Medieval People were not ignorant.

 This is one of my favorite books about the Middle Ages in general, focusing heavily on literature that influenced the Medieval World. Lewis's book also does much the same as the book listed above it, it shows the intelligence of art and science of medieval man. Sadly, many have seemed to have forgotten of the much knowledge that Medieval man had in certain subjects, that many now do not. For more information on this, check out my previous post on this very subject. C. S. Lewis, himself a Moderate Protestant, has always been an inspiration to my writings and theology. As a Moderate Protestant myself, I agree essentially with everything I have ever read from Lewis.

 This work is great for defending the fact that Science was not rejected by many Medieval people. Pope Sylvester II has been called the ''Science Pope'' for good reason.

 This work by G. K. Chesterton is great for showing one of the most heroic of all Medieval Christians.

 This book is a remarkable source for showing that Francis of Assisi went to the Muslims and preached to them the gospel of Jesus Christ. Perhaps more surprising to modern ears, this book shows that Saint Francis actually supported the Crusades.

 What better way to understand Medieval Times, then to understand the Medieval Christian's worldview? Augustine's City of God, was besides the Latin Vulgate Bible, the basis for the Western Christian worldview. 

 Saint Augustine's writings served not only to defend the doctrine of original sin, but formed the basis for many of the Western's minds understandings of subjects like Predestination and Free Will. Augustine also defends the concept of just war in his writings, as well as the use of torture for those that do not hold the Catholic Faith. Whatever one thinks of Augustine,  it was his worldview, it was his writings like Confessions and City of God that were some of the greatest foundations of the Medieval World. As Augustine did not teach may of the teachings later taught by the Roman Catholic Church, most notably infallibility of the pope, it is perhaps no surprise that his writings were used as much by Protestants as they were by Roman Catholics.
                                                                

While it is true that many Medieval Christians were anti-Semitic, some were the opposite. Saint Bernard felt it was God's right alone to punish the Jew for unbelief. For this topic, I can think of no better source than the above book. 

John Gillingham has written quite respected books that have defended the reputation of Richard I. He is probably the best historian of the lionheart's life. 

 Many modern day feminist have a way of criticizing the culture of the Middle Ages for Medieval Women. This small book is good for disproving many of the feminist claims. 

Protestant theologian Dr. George Grant, has been one of my longtime mentors. His book is a great source on the origins of Islam and related subjects. 

 Roman Catholic historian Dr. Jonathan Riley Smith, now deceased, is widely regarded as the greatest modern historian of the Crusades. His work is a must read. 

This is one of the good books on defending the Knight's Templar from common liberal lies that I would recommend. 

This work is good for defending the Templars against many modern lies, as well as the false accusations brought against them by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in the late Middle Ages. Historian Frale, has recently discovered documents in the Vatican showing that they were innocent of the accusations of Sodomy. 

The above book is an account about a Friar that went to and evangelized the Mongels. I recommend it primary as a source to the common evangelism found in the Medieval Church. 

Saint Thomas Aquinas has been recognized as the universal doctor of the Catholic Church. Many of his writings are the basis for Medieval Culture's worldview in general. 

 The second book listed here by Aquinas, is not only a defense of the Christian faith against Islam, but also of Latin Christianity vrs. Greek Christianity.

This small book of woodcuts and illustrations of the Protestant Reformation is another very fair source to that period of history. 

 You may like Mary Tudor or not! She has been called, ''Mary Bloody Mary'' by Protestants ever since her queenship for her execution of hundreds of Protestants. Still, some have exaggerated her cruelty over the years, and it's important to know that Elizabeth I killed more Roman Catholics than Mary Tudor killed Protestants. 

His holiness, Pope Innocent III, defends the papacy from the Scriptures in his book. Whether or not, one believes in the papacy or not, no one can fairly say that Medieval Popes did not know the Scriptures. 

 This an excellent book showing that Medieval Christians were not ignorant of the Koran.

However you feel about the Council of Trent, that is not the subject of this post. The Introduction to to the Roman Catechism by TAN Books is an outstanding defense of the Medieval Church. It clearly shows that Medieval Christians quite often knew the Holy Scriptures etc. 

Protestant Church Historian Alister Mcgrath, is one of the world's most admired theologians. His work above, is an excellent source on a fair understanding of the Protestant Reformation and it's Roman Catholic counterpart. 

I hope you all enjoyed this. I encourage all to quit apologizing for the Christian past. Even now, many Christians wrongly think that apologizing for their past will somehow make people feel more welcome to be Christians. It's time the Religious Right experience reveal, and realize the threat of Islamic aggression.  

Thoughts on the Gawain Poet Part I: Pearl Part I

This is the first of two posts on the Medieval Poem, Pearl. Finishing Sir Gawain and the Green Knight was an expectation I had been waiting for, for many years. Like Gawain and the Green Knight, I read the translation of Pearl by J. R. R. Tolkien.  While this poem is widely respected, it never gained the momentum of Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales. Perhaps what is more surprising though, is that the anonymous author of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, commonly called the Gawain Poet, wrote other Medieval Poems that are rich in Christian symbolism. One of the works written by the Gawain Poet, is Pearl.  

 The story begins by a man falling asleep, while dreaming of the Pearl Woman he had once lost in life. He dreams of her, as she teaches him about Patience, connecting it to the Medieval poem, Patience, believed to be by the same author. The maiden or Pearl of the dream, tells him not to lament for his loss of her. Through much spiritual guidance, the story ends, by the man trusting in the Divine Will of God.
The story is full of theological references including the Immaculate likeness of the Virgin Mary. Jesus Christ, is an important character from within the text, and like His earthly mother, is called, ''Immaculate.''  In Pearl, Christ says that all our called, though only a few are His favorites. I personally found that to be a little funny. The theological implications of the story I think are personally more superior than the plot itself. Like many Medieval works, it teaches a moral lesson to it's readers.

 An important note to mention is that there are two Pearls of the story, one is literal, which itself is bore by the woman, the other is the woman herself. The woman is described as being most fair, which is not surprising, considering the many redheads in Medieval art and literature. 

 Check out the Pearl. I intend to post more on this work at some point. 

 ''Patience is a conquering virtue.'' -Geoffrey Chaucer

''Trust in the Lord with all Thine heart; and lean not unto thy own understanding. In all thy ways, acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths. -Proverbs 3: 5-6

Analyzing and Interpreting Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen Part I

Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility probably left more an impression on me as a little boy than I would have expected. Though I had seen the 1995 edition of it long before this, around the age of twelve, I would begin to take a more serious note of the story based on the films of I that had seen. It wasn't that I liked a film about early 19th century romance, it was just that I thought that Sense and Sensibility was truly a good story. Exactly why I thought so, I am not certain, but the story was one I was familiar since I was very young. One thing is possibly for certain though, no matter what Jane Austen work is your favorite, Sense and Sensibility is possibly the most emotionally driven. 

Austen's first work, Sense and Sensibility, certainly was not published right after the author completed it. The book was written in 1795, then revised in 1795-1797 and 1809, and not published until 1811. Later in 1813, a revised edition would be published, which is the currently read edition. Originally called Elinor and Marianne, Sense and Sensibility is about the sense, Elinor, and the sensibility, Marianne. 

 In early 2019, I would buy a copy of it and read it swiftly through. It was one of the few books that I had ever read, that I thought was thoroughly entertaining from beginning to end.
So I have been rereading Sense and Sensibility for the second time. As perhaps would be expected,  I have picked up things in rereading it that I did not get the first time.  That said, this post is an addition to my first posts that were reviews of the book. What I want to demonstrate here though, is more about touching on the literary work itself rather than on why I like it.
 Yes, I am a fan of Jane Austen's works. I certainly plan to read all her works eventually, and not just her novels, but also her non-fiction works. However, as I said above, this post is not about reasons I like Jane Austen or Sense and Sensibility, but rather themes and influence found in Sense and Sensibility that have given literary impact.
 To start off, I'd like to give quotes from a notable literary figure on the text and influence of Sense and Sensibility.
{ Speaking of Sense and Sensibility,} ''gives us all the agony of passion the human heart can feel...it is here that we find the human heart in English Prose narrative for the first, and, alas, for the last time.'' -George Moore, novelist.

Jane Austen took on many forms of writing including Gothic. However, the ''Sentimental Novel'' is what she is most known for. This is perhaps never more true, than in Sense and Sensibility, which heavily builds upon the emotional relationship of the Dashwood sisters, both to each other, and to those around them. Austen demonstrates in Sense and Sensibility, not just make the romance in her stories seem real, but the very heart of Marianne Dashwood, and the mind of Elinor Dashwood.

 A concurring them of the story is comparing and contrasting the Dashwood sisters. The story shows their disappointments throughout in several suitors, yet constantly shows the difference in reaction to their situations. Elinor, holds from within much that happens throughout, while Marianne assumes she alone is in grave pain. The maturity of Eleanor is thus contrasted largely with the immaturity of her younger sister. On the flip side, Marianne is more in touch with her feelings than is Eleanor with her own. By the end of the story, both sisters come to a more middle ground. The personality of both sisters, would later lay the foundation for Elizabeth Bennett in Pride and Prejudice.
 It surprised me recently learning that all of Jane Austen's works were presented as written by anonymous in her life. It would be after her death, that her brother would make known the author of these books. I suppose we owe him a little credit too then, for unmasking the writer behind such great classics. 

  I will have more to say later. Enjoy your week! 

 Further Sources: The Companion to English Literature edited by Margaret Drable, Introduction to Sense and Sensibility by Margaret Drable, Merriam Webster's Encyclopedia of Literature edited by Kathleen Kuiper, Sense and Sensibility: An Annotated Edition edited by Patricia Meyer Spacks.

Why You Should Read Sir Gawain and the Green Knight

Recently, I finished the classic epic poem, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. In fact, I finished the book several weeks ago, but have been busy focusing my last three posts on the debate of Papal Infallibility. Now that those posts are finished, I can now return to posting more on Medieval Literature again, as well as other areas of Medieval History that I'd like to post about soon. Of course, I also occasionally do a post on other areas of literature or history that are not strictly Medieval.  

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is among the most important works of Medieval literature. It touches on chivalry, allegory, and piety-all important concepts throughout English Medieval literature. A contemporary work of other important Middle English texts by the same anonymous poet, Sir Gawain, and the Green Knight blends Gothic darkness with the virtues of Christianity. In many ways, I argue that the Green Knight symbolizes paganism while Gawain represents Christianity. I hope to touch more on this in a future post. 

 The translation of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight that I used and read was the one written by none other than the great J. R. R Tolkien. We often think of Tolkien as the maker of Middle Earth, but he did so much more than even The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien taught Anglo-Saxon and was well aware of its influence upon culture.  I enjoyed this book but found it a hard read. I didn't find it an easy read at all. That said, I greatly enjoyed it.

                                          The great J. R. R. Tolkien in the above picture.





 The actual story of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight was full of many surprises. After finishing the poem, I read a children's version of it to better understand the story. While I am not going to reveal here the plot or the surprises that go with it, the story largely focuses on the romance between Gawain and his lady, as well as Gawain's search for the mysterious green knight. This book was written by an anonymous author at around the same time that Geoffrey Chaucer was composing The Canterbury Tales. Make sure to check it out!

The Council of Constance vrs. Vatican I Part III

Christ promising to the Apostle Peter the Keys of the Kingdom in Matthew 16

In the last two posts, I have demonstrated by historical evidence not only that Papal Infallibility was a later teaching in the history of the church, but that the Council of Constance taught that the church is higher than the pope, implying that a pope can be deposed, as was taught in Medieval canon law. In this final post, I will brief over how Papal Infallibility contradicted the Council of Constance, by its dogmatic definition at Vatican I. As I have a lot of history here to cover, I will try to be brief, lest this post become the size of an entire book.
 First off, shortly after the Council of Constance taught the superiority of a church council over the papacy{ a belief titled called Conciliarism,}  the leadership of the Catholic Church would seek to quickly to abolish this teaching. In 1460, Pope Pius II would issue a papal bull called Excrabilis, condemning this teaching. The Fifth Lateran Council would also deviate from Conciliarism by its teachings that the errors of a pope cannot be addressed to a church council.
 With all that said, the background is interesting to note that many of the Conciliar Roman Catholics were of Northern Europe, much like those that would come to support the coming Protestant Reformation. In other words, the debate of Papal Primacy, was even before the debate of justification, and papal primacy would come to be the true divide that would separate Catholics and Protestants for the next five hundred years. Before the Ninety-Five thesis, before Luther's excommunication, before Henry VIII of England would break from Rome,  Western Christians had already been divided. The divide did not start with Martin Luther in 1517, that was simply when the official lasting break would take place. The Conciliar theory had already been in direct opposition to Papal Supremacy for primarily two hundred years before the Protestant Reformation would kick off with Luther. As explained in a previous post,  the Spiritual Franciscan, William of Ockham, was actually the first Protestant.
 But Conciliarism would not end with Pope Pius II's condemnation of it, those that held the theory would either break from Rome, or hold the view for centuries after the Protestant Reformation.
 If I may now fast forward to Vatican I, we will see how the abuse of Papal Power would forever contribute to the crisis the Roman Catholic Church has found itself in today, in least regard to the papacy. But before we look, at the facts of what happened at Vatican I, it is important to keep all already in memory of what has been discussed.
 Vatican I was centuries after the Counter Reformation. This council claimed to have rejected the liberal beliefs of it's today, but it is one of the most controversial church councils in the history of the Catholic Church. The definition of Papal Infallibility, promulgated at the council, would add another huge area of division between Catholics and Protestants.
 Now Vatican I covered several core areas of doctrines, but that is not the topic of this post. All I want to do here, is to demonstrate the direct contrast between Constance and Vatican I.
 As sometimes misunderstood, Papal Infallibility was not suddenly taught for the first time at Vatican I. Indeed, many Roman Catholic Christians had already this doctrine for centuries. I think it's also important to truly understand, the limits of Papal Infallibility, which too has been misunderstood by many Christians. On the other hand, I have demonstrated, with much thanks being to Cambridge Medievalist, Brian Tierney, that this doctrine did not originate until the debate of Apostolic Poverty between Pope John XXII and the Spiritual Franciscans. Considering the unfounded claims made by many Catholic Apologist that Papal Infallibility was somehow always the teaching of the church,  this is especially important to know. It's interesting to know, as I have said many times, that many Catholic and Protestant historians alike, believe Papal Infallibility was a later teaching of the church.
 Strictly understood, many Catholic theologians have differences among each other on what doctrines qualify as Infallible, and which don't.  But Papal Infallibility as defined by Vatican I, claims infallibility of the papacy only on issues of faith and morals. It is not enough for a pope, to express an opinion on something, he must define a doctrine by his supposed apostolic authority, based on his supposed understanding of what has always been taught. As if, this is not enough, Vatican I anathamizes anyone that says otherwise, in other words, according this council, a Catholic is or aught to be excommunicated if they do not believe this doctrine.
 ''We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks Ex Cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise  of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine of faith and morals to be held by the whole church, he possess by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, the infallibility which the divine redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine of faith and morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not be consent of the church, irreformible. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject the definition of ours: let him be anathama-Vatican I.

                    Popes during the time of the Reformation, like Leo X above,  became notorious for immortal and luxurious lives. Their abuse of Papal Power, would hurt the Catholic Church perhaps more than they ever would have expected. While many widely believe that these Popes did not change church teaching, nothing could be further from the truth. Pope John XXII's change of the the doctrine of Apostolic Poverty, was the cause of the later long debate in the west, that still goes on today, of Papal Supremacy, and how far it goes.

 Vatican I teaches elsewhere, the great  Supremacy of the Pope over the universal church. The definitions of this council, thus taught that the pope was above that of a council, and that a council could not reform his teachings. Let us look again at the Council of Constance, to see the stark contrast between it and Vatican I.
''This holy synod of Constance, constituting a general Council, lawfully assembled to bring about the end of the present great 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 it's 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.'' -Council of Constance

                                                          Vatican I: 1869-1870


 It is indeed a pity, that Rome would later attempt to do away with the canon of Constance, by it's teaching that a pope's error, cannot be addressed to a church council. Vatican I, as well as the 1983 Code of Canon, both teach the immovability of a pope by a council of bishops. This is a direct contradiction to that confirmed in Medieval Canon law, and the Council of Constance. Perhaps this helps also explain not just the modern dilemma of whether a heretical pope, can be judged and deposed by the church, but one of the key factors why 40% of European Christians became Protestant. The debate of Concialirism then, was at the core of the Great Western Schism and Protestant Reformation, the debate of justification then, only contributed to this great conflict in the church.
 Now that I have shown the clear contradictions between the two councils, just one last area of this post, I wish to cover. That is, how Papal Infallibility became a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. This doctrine had been rejected by many Catholic theologians and catechisms before Vatican I, but in 1870 it would become MANDATORY TO BE A ROMAN CATHOLIC. It was not enough, that many had had differences over this doctrine for centuries, Pope Piux IX, would push it's way to dogma at Vatican I.
 At Vatican I, many bishops rejected the dogma simply out of fear that it would be misunderstood, some rejected it outright, especially those from the United States of America. One final group, actually believed everything the pope said was infallible.
 Without getting too much into the history of Vatican I, lest it get off topic of the post, I think it's important to mention that the Pope essentially just pushed the doctrine into the Council's documents. One cardinal objected to it, basing his rejection on church tradition. The pope answered, ''I AM THE TRADITION.''
 The effects of Vatican I are still being seen today. One of the only reasons C. S. Lewis never became a Catholic, was because of Papal Infallibility. . Who knows, but maybe someday a church council will again affirm the authority of itself over the papacy, as Constance once did.
 Some historians believe the Medieval Church was not so much led by a monarchy as the Catholic Church became at Vatican I. In recent years, some Catholic theologians have again assembled to the Conciliar doctrine, that a church council is above the papacy. The debate over Papal Primacy, has truly been one of the most controversial doctrines in the history of the church, and the confusion, the chaos, and the exaggerations that surround it, are still the topics of many debates. Much clarity is still needed, and dialogue between Catholics and Protestants on the differences between the two over the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Church.
 It took one debate over Apostolic Poverty, to set Europe on fire by major differences in doctrine. What perhaps is most least known of all, was that the Protestant Reformation's roots were with a handful of Spiritual Franciscans that were truly just living their lives in imitation of the Apostles.


Further Sources: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwigg Ott, Papal Primacy: From it's origins to the Presnt by Klaus Schatz, The Battle for Christendom: The Council of Constance, the East-West Conflict, and the Dawn of Modern Europe by Frank Welsh, History of the Catholic Church by James Hitchcock, Creeds of the Churches by John H. Leith, Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages by Norman F. Cantor, Encyclopedia of Catholic History by Matthew Bunson.