Download Written lecture: Medieval Movements of Reform

HIST 126: The Age of Reformations
Written Lecture: Medieval background, III: Movements of Reform
I. We left off asking whether reform from above was a lost cause.1 Until the 16th century this indeed seemed to be
the case. There were three major hurdles:
A. The first is perhaps the most obvious one, and one which we mentioned in class: the conflict between
self-interest and a selfless common goal. To begin, let us be clear on the fact that reformers were pretty
much always outnumbered by those for whom membership in the clergy was a way to strengthen or
multiply their privileges. After all, a clerical appointment brought with it not only prestige, but also judicial
privileges as well as income (from local Church revenues such as the tithe and land taxes).
B. The papacy had lost it power to lead effectively, in part because during the 14th century it had become
somewhat of a joke. At the core of this issue are the Avignon Papacy (1305-1378) and the Great Schism
(1378-1417). The attention of the papacy during the thirteenth century had been focused on the Holy
Roman emperors and upon the goal of keeping the Kingdom of Two Sicilies in southern Italy and the citystates of Lombardy in the north independent of imperial authority and not powerful enough themselves to
threaten the independence of the Papal States. This was of great importance to the clergy since it was clear
that the pope would never be able to be an independent moral force if the lands upon which he and his
administration were located were under the control of some secular power. If this seems difficult to
understand, consider that the men who created the United States took care to create the District of
Columbia, a territory independent of any state's jurisdiction, in which to situate the federal government.
Mexico City and several other national capitals occupy the same position, and for much the same reason
that the medieval popes wanted to be able to run the church from a place that was not under the jurisdiction
of anyone but the Church.
During this struggle, the popes perhaps failed to pay close enough attention to the growing centralized
power of the "national" monarchies in England, France, Castile, and Aragon. Perhaps, too, Boniface VIII
lacked perception and had been lulled into a false sense of security by the triumphant tone of the celebration
of the Jubilee year of 1300. Whatever the reason, Boniface seemed unaware that the French monarchy was
quite different, and much more dangerous, than the Holy Roman emperors had ever been.
Pope Boniface VIII and Philip IV of France soon clashed over two basic issues, both crucial to the ability of
the Church to have an independent voice in France:
1. the status of "Criminous" clergy, clerics who were accused of committing a criminal act. This was a
serious matter since the Church had traditionally claimed the right to discipline its own members
and to try any cleric accused of a crime in a Church court under the procedures of canon law.
Canon law was much milder and more rational than the prevailing secular law. It did not provide
for torturing defendants and witnesses and did not use the death penalty, for instance. This
made people who saw clerics charged with crimes being tried under such apparently mild laws
believe that the Church was coddling its own. Philip claimed that anyone breaking secular law
should be tried in a secular court, but Boniface disagreed, feeling that the Church could not be
independent if its personnel could be arrested at any time by secular officials.
2. whether clergymen and church property should be taxed like everyone and everything else. King
Philip pointed out that the Church and its property enjoyed the protection of the secular
government, used the roads and harbors that the government provided, and ought to pay for
1
This lecture was compiled in part from Euan Cameron’s The European Reformation, The Catholic Encyclopedia, The
History Guide (available at http://www.historyguide.org), the Encyclopedia Britannica, and Prof. Lynn H. Nelson’s
lectures on Medieval History (available at http://www.the-orb.net/textbooks/nelson/nelindex.html).
1
these things like everyone else. The pope issued the bulls Clericos laicos, which forbad members
of the Church to pay secular taxes unless ordered to do so by the pope, and Unam sanctam, in
which Boniface declared that the Church was superior to secular governments in all things.
A bit of a digression here. A papal bull is not an animal, but an official document in which a pope issues an order to
members of the Church or states the Church's position on an important matter. The word "bull" comes from bullum, a large
lead disk that was attached to the most important papal documents and upon which the papal seal was stamped. The name of
each papal bull comes from the first two or three words of its text.
Anyhow, Philip defied the pope, organized the French bishops and archbishops against Boniface
and called a representative assembly, the Estates General. Boniface tended to bluster, and
declared that he would depose Philip. Philip decided to adopt extreme measures, and called
upon his chief prosecutor, the villainous William de Nogaret, to handle the matter. De
Nogaret drew up a bill of charges against Boniface, charging him with all sort of ethical, moral,
and legal crimes. He then gathered a band of armed men, enemies of the pope, and arrested
Boniface and threw him in prison. People were outraged by the use of naked power against what
was still a revered office, and Boniface was soon released. He was a broken man, however, and
died shortly afterward. His successor tried to patch up the clash, and even went so far as to
increase French representation in the college of cardinals.
The pope may have been successful in staving off a foreign takeover of his lands, but he was less
able to maintain law and order there himself. During the preceding century, many of the citystates of Italy had grown rich and powerful through trade and manufacturing, but Rome had
fallen far behind. The papal administration paid as little attention to the well-being of the
residents of the Papal Estates, the lands in Italy under the direct rule of the pope, as the federal
government of the United States pays to those of Washington D.C. Then, too, the popes were
constantly taking the revenues that they gathered from their lands and investing them in
unproductive political struggles. It must also be admitted that the papal administration had
grown notoriously corrupt. In any event, the people of the Papal States were thoroughly
disenchanted with the rule of the Church. The nobles defied the popes and refused revenues and
military service, and recurring mass riots troubled the city of Rome itself. The papal election of
1305 chose a Frenchman who took the name Clement V and moved the papal court to safety at
Avignon, a papal property on the Rhone river. The papal capital remained there from 1305 to
1378.
There were also some serious problems faced by the papacy while at Avignon:
1. Finances: the Avignon papacy was broke!
There was a general recession throughout Western Europe, and some countries would not send church
dues to a pope whom they considered a puppet of the king of France. The papacy needed even more
money than before, however. Its attempts to restore order to the papal states were expensive, and it was
costly to build an impressive new papal capital at Avignon.
In response,
a.
Avignon made simony (that is, the sale of spiritual goods such as forgiveness for money) an
institution, cut the finances of parish priests, taxed bishops heavily, and cut costs wherever
possible. The papal court charged heavily for its services, and one could usually buy justice.
b.
The sale of indulgences became a common practice to raise money. (An indulgence is a
document forgiving the purchaser a certain amount of sin. The theory was that anyone who
bought an indulgence must repent his misdeeds, and that his money payment was a form of
penance.)
c.
Avignon even declared the belief in apostolic poverty was heretical. Apostolic poverty was
the position that Jesus and his disciples did not concern themselves with money or possession,
2
and neither did the Church in its early and pure days. The point was that, if the Church
wanted to imitate its founder, it should give up all its wealth and power.
2. Loss of prestige: the pope came to be seen as a puppet of the French king!
The papacy's reputation suffered because of its inability to reform itself, to bring an end to the 100
Years' War, or to provide sacraments during the Black Death. The last was particularly damaging, since
the papacy in Avignon had declared that the sacraments were necessary to salvation. When the Black
Death struck, however, the clergy were not able to minister to all of the dying or to bury them in
consecrated ground, which meant -- according to the Church itself -- that those dead whom it had failed
to help were destined to spend eternity in Hell. The church was generally seen as greedy and insensitive,
so people turned to mysticism, the national churches, and secular leadership. The Avignon papacy did
much to improve he organization and functioning of the machinery of the Church, establishing the
major offices that still operate today. They supported missionary activity in China, and encouraged
scholarship and art.
3. Identity
The papacy was generally identified with Rome and was never trusted while it was in Avignon. The
papacy always hoped to return to Rome, and spent a great deal of money and energy trying to bring
enough stability and security to the Papal States to allow that to happen. In 1378, the Avignon pope and
his cardinals visited Rome to inspect the situation. The pope died, and, under duress, the cardinals
elected an Italian as pope. Urban VI declared the papacy returned to Rome.
C. A third difficulty for reform from above was that, when it was actually attempted, it was usually piecemeal
and ineffective. The issue is not that complex: if only a few want to reform, and have to do so against
strong resistance from those who should instead be helping, their voices will likely be drowned. Many tried
reform, but mostly they failed to bring extensive change.
We also need to remember two other things:
1. the drive to create venal offices (that is, clerical positions that could be purchased (!) was too strong
because the Church was broke. This was a not-so-kosher but quick way to raise funds.
2. the desire to avoid simony conflicted with the needs of petitioners.
Long story short: the role of the Church was almost inherently contradictory: people wanted upstanding
priests, but also wanted whatever “quick-fixes” they could get for salvation.
II. Ok, so reform from above was not quite the thing. What are other options? One was what is known as
Conciliar Reform (or Conciliarism). Conciliarism is based on ancient gatherings of representatives from all
Christiandom to decide upon important matters of dogma and practice. These gatherings are known as
“ecumenical councils.” In a nutshell, conciliarism was the movement which argued that the sovereignty of the
church rested not on the pope alone but in a body representative of its members. On this basis, they claimed
that a general council of high clerics and/or their representatives have the power to depose popes and address
other problems facing the Church.
Because of their insistence on the power of a council, they were known as the Conciliarists, and the group soon
included virtually everyone committed to ecclesiastical reform. To support their position (that general councils
held supreme power within the Church), conciliarists:
1. used the biblical example of Paul and the Council of Jerusalem
2. used the historical example of Constantine and the Council of Nicea
3
3. stressed the parallels between their situation and other current ones (like monarchs' sharing of
power with representative assemblies on matters of national import)
In the century preceding the Protestant Reformations, the motto of this approach to reform was “reform in
head and members.” Two implications of this motto are
1. Church reform cannot/should not be partial
2. Improvement in the world at large (the “members”) cannot be achieved without improving the Church
(the “head”).
An aside here: the metaphor of “head and members” was quite commonly used in this period to refer to any hierarchical order. For
example, it referred not only to the Church/believers relationship, but also to the king/subject or father/family. It came from the
biblical reference to Christ as the head of the Church, which became the ultimate example of “correct” relationships between superiors
and inferiors.
For the Middle Ages, you should be familiar with 3 particular councils:
1. The 4th Lateran Council (1215)
This council
a.
moved to raise the moral level of the clergy by condemning simony and requiring that priests
be celibate - rules that, unfortunately were too often given only lip-service
b.
established the Inquisition to establish the principle of the supremacy of the religious doctrine
embodied in the Church and to make this principle a reality by suasion, teaching and, if these
failed, by force applied (at the order of the Church) by secular authorities
c.
also, at Pope Innocent III's recommendation, gave official recognition to the Dominicans and
Franciscans, both of which were reforming orders (more below).
2.
The Council of Pisa (1408)
This council was convened in Pisa in 1408 to end the Great Schism. Cardinals from both papacies
(the one in Avignon and the one in Rome) deposed both pontiffs, and elected a third. Neither the
Roman nor the Avignon pope would obey and excommunicated the cardinals. The Council of Pisa
had succeeded only in creating a third pope and making the situation even worse.
3.
The Council of Constance (1415-18)
This council officially ended the Great Schism and took on the issue of heresy (particularly the
Hussite version, explained below).
III. Another approach to reform was to reform specific areas, particularly the monastic orders. Monasteries faced
were, in some ways, microcosms of the Church at large in that they faced similar difficulties (like individual
interests and pressures from outside). Still the monastic orders were in some ways easier to reform because
they were “contained” (that is, monasteries were usually in the countryside and had limited access to the
outside). Monastic reform had been in place since the 6th century, when the Rues of St Benedict were
introduced (in order to limit corruption – spiritual, worldly, sexual, or otherwise). Still, the late Middle Ages
saw multiple attempts to reintroduce Strict Observance, or the strict following of the often austere rules of
the different orders.
There are three salient orders which attempted to “clean house: the Benedictines at Cluny (10th century), the
Cistercians (12th century), and Franciscans (13th century). These reform attempts had at least two attributes in
common:
1. the renunciation of worldly goods (the extreme was the vow of unconditional poverty taken by the
Franciscans)
4
2. the imitation of Christ as ultimate model (which means celibacy, labor, etc)
In some cases – like in Cluny – monastic reformers went so far as to argue for the separation of Church and
state and made a strong case for no secular interference. These two were intended to strengthen the position
of the Pope against other rulers.
Monastic Reforms were particularly attractive because the search for holiness (through abstinence and
discipline) which it embodies was attractive to and respected by the population at large. Here were clerics
involved in the real work of serving the flock as models! Also, monastic reform usually spread widely within
the congregations (collection of houses/monasteries in each order). However, the weaknesses were pretty
big: observant houses/orders were still a minority, and the impact of reform on the population/Church at
large was quite limited (in fact, it was not meant for them at all!).
IV.
Where did that leave others who sought a purer spiritual experience and better guidance? In a nutshell, many
individuals turned to alternative sources of spiritual action and leadership.
The most influential of these sources was the movement known as Devotio Moderna. “Modern devotion"
refers to a movement for the renewal of the spiritual life (began in Holland during the late 14th century). Its
theological emphases are:
1. an appeal to the original simplicity of Christian faith in a "golden age" now evidently lost
2. a call to clergy for a truly holy life
3. a valuing of the interior life with a corresponding lack of stress on the Church's institutionalized aids
to salvation
4. criticism of formalized acts of piety together with any naive reliance on the external aspects of
religion
5. an insistence that the knowledge of God lay open to scholar and illiterate peasant alike
6. a soteriological (related to salvation as ultimate end) urgency in the face of both human sinfulness
and the ubiquitous reality of death
7. intense and emotional meditation to the suffering of Christ.
The principal founder of the movement was Geert de Groote (1340-84), who was never ordained priest. He
became a missionary preacher but had his license withdrawn because of the vehemence of his criticisms of
ecclesiastical abuses. The classic text of the movement is St. Thomas a Kempis'The Imitation of Christ
(1441), which lay out individual and private exercises (outside of Church practice!) which emphasized the
individual’s internal faith rather than the following of external rituals.
The Devotio Moderna was successful among the laity (non-clerics) and found institutional expression in the
Brethren of the Common Life: associations of laity and non-monastic priests who were called to practice a
disciplined life within their existing callings.
While followers of the Devotio stressed internal life and not rituals, they nevertheless did not break away from
the Church or challenge its ultimate authority. Others, however, were not so “polite” (for lack of a better
word). We are talking here about heresy: in Church terms, the corruption of Christian faith. In the words of
St. Thomas Aquinas: “there are… two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in
Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to
certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The
subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths
revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole
deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his
5
own approval.”2 Do note that pertinacity, that is, obstinate adhesion to a particular tenet is required to make
heresy formal. For as long as one remains willing to submit to the Church's decision he remains a Catholic
Christian at heart and his wrong beliefs are only transient errors and fleeting opinions.
For our purposes, the crucial heresy to understand is that of the Hussites, because many of their
beliefs had resonance in Protestant theology.
The Hussites were a heretical group who saw themselves as devoutly orthodox Christians. They were
followers of John Hus (Jan Hus) who was declared a heretic and executed in 1418 C.E. Hus’s major
theological points were:
1. the reading of the New Testament and the Hebrew Bible by lay people in the common language
because he felt that lay people had the ability to interpret the scriptures for themselves.
2. a condemnation of the immorality of the priesthood. He wanted to raise clerical ethical standards in
order to address the financial abuses and sexual immorality which continued to plague the church.
3. support for giving all Christians full communion. At this time, only the priests were allowed to
receive wine during communion.
4. opposition to the papal selling of indulgences.
Hus' main view was that the Bible and the scriptures took precedence over Church leaders and councils. This
questioned the Church's authority. Essentially Hus felt that the heads of the Church needed a higher sense of
morality and that the Bible itself was where the people should find their religion. At his trial he insisted that he
would obey the Church completely, on the condition that the leaders could prove his statements erroneous.
This statement condemned him in itself because he trusted his own ability to reason rather than the authority
of the Church. The few surviving members of the Hussites either had to leave their homeland or reconcile
with the Church.3
We will learn more about John Hus and his theological points when we discuss Martin Luther’s own
theological points. Before that, though, we need to turn our attention to Humanism…
2
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (II-II:11:1). Quoted in The Catholic Encyclopedia
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm). Last accessed 2/1/06.
3
This section on Hus comes from the Hypertext Academic Projects at Kenyon, available at
http://www2.kenyon.edu/Projects/.
6