Medieval Heretics Exam Flashcards
Account for the rise of the Bogomil sect and explain its major teachings. How did the church combat it?
I: earliest medieval heresy - where emerged - influence
II: 4 reasons why tenth-century Bulgaria was the perfect place
III: 7 Bogomil teachings
IV: failure of church to combat it and 4 ways they combated
No matter how one defines the medieval period of time, it is certain that one of the earliest of medieval heresies was that of the Bogomil sect. It emerged in tenth-century Bulgaria and exhibited influence not only through its large following in the eastern Mediterranean, but even outside of the Byzantine church as far as Germany, France, and Italy.
There are many reasons why tenth-century Bulgaria was the perfect place for such a heresy to arise. The church in Bulgaria was confused from the beginning. For when King Boris converted to Christianity, he appealed to the pope. But the Eastern Church wanted Boris to become an orthodox Christian and thus a newly converted and nominally Christian people was influenced by both Latin and Greek missionaries who were in competition with one another. With the Byzantine Church working so hard to make Bulgaria one of its own, the culture of Bulgaria was infiltrated by Byzantine influence and not everyone in Bulgaria was very appreciative of this. The rising religious nationalism that resulted only invited heresy. Actually, heresy was probably already in Bulgaria from the beginning as well. The old dualist heresy of the Paulicians was likely brought by missionaries from the Balkans who blended in with the Greek and Latin missionaries vying for the church in Bulgaria.
Of course, one of the most primary breeding grounds for heresy is often the lack of piety among those claiming orthodoxy. Bulgaria was no exception with many monks living unchaste and drunken lives, living to please themselves and wasting time in idle gossip. As is common with many heresies, the apparent piety of the heretics contrasted sharply and drew many to hear what the heretics had to say. Our only evidence on what Bogomil himself actually taught comes from Cosmas, a priest who spoke against Bogomil. Judging from Cosmas’ words, it seems that Bogomil was a charismatic and successful preacher-or at least good at identifying ignorant and interested parties who would listen willingly.
There is no doubt that the Bogomil teachings were quite heretical. One of their primary underlying beliefs seems to have been a dualistic rejection of the material world as evil. This included a rejection of water baptism as well as the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Following from this first belief, followers of Bogomil claimed the devil was given the name Mammon and that he created mankind and all creation. It was Mammon who ordered men to take wives, eat meat, and drink wine. Thus all of those things were considered greatly evil as well. Their dualism was originally a mitigated dualism which means they believed that God was the father of both Jesus and the devil. Eventually, they became absolute dualists believing that good and evil are warring with each other and the devil was not ultimately subject to God the Father. They rejected the Old Testament and taught that the devil was the God of the Old Testament.
With regard to Christ, they were docetic, believing in a nonhuman, celestial Christ who only seemed to take on flesh. They didn’t believe he performed any miracles for that would imply that the creation is good. They explained miracles away as allegories. They also rejected the virgin birth and apparently spoke very insultingly about Mary.
The widespread influence of the Bogomil sect is indicative of the failure of attempts made to combat it. We have evidence of priests such as Cosmas describing it and warning people about it. He also did a good job recognizing the legitimate criticisms of the orthodox church and calling on the clergy to reform their ways. Other bishops were also warned to look out for followers of the sect. Attempts to argue against it and defend spurned practices probably helped influence at least some to avoid the heresy, but as already noted its widespread influence could be seen in both followers of the sect directly as well as its influence on other heresies such as that of the Cathars.
Describe the moral and spiritual conditions in the medieval church which disposed some people to find heresies, such as that connected with Stephen and Lisois, attractive.
I: 13 moral and spiritual conditions
II: 4 things we can learn from the history of heresy during the medieval period
The period of time from 950 to 1050 was an age of feudal transformation. Many places in Latin Europe, specifically, were racked by violence, most notably from Viking invasions. Many invaders from the north settled in parts of France and England during the tenth century and the local military forces were ineffective at stopping them. This led to a decentralization of authority with counts and dukes building up their own militaries and exploiting the local peasants by demanding payment in return for the protection of their castles. The foreign invasions didn’t last long though and these militarized landowners used this power to turn on each other and further terrorize the people on their lands.
This would be a perfect setting for the church to step in and offer solace and support. But the church had suffered greatly from these same factors and its imminent transformation failed to make it into the beacon many needed. One could say that the church turned inward to itself rather than outward to those in need. In addition to a focus on the human Christ and pilgrimages to honor the cult of local saints, the church was also trying to improve in reforming the life and behavior of the clergy. But rather than this being a source of outreach, the emphasis was on elaborate liturgical routines and personal lives which were as separate from the world as possible. The mass became a more elaborate affair as well with a focus on the priest rather than on the congregation and the sacraments were increased in number and complexity. In seeking to expand its authority, the church alienated many faithful at all levels of society.
The church also failed in many ways to live up to its own ideals. Many were disenchanted by a church which advocated personal poverty, but continued to accrue great economic wealth. Clergy were increasingly expected to live celibate lives, but they were often already married when appointed by local counts and dukes and they were generally unqualified in many ways. Their lack of celibacy and fondness for sacramental wine did not go unnoticed. Many heretics were able to exploit this greatly by making a great appearance of piety, poverty, and chastity.
Another important factor was the illiteracy of the populace. Society had made great strides in literacy over the previous centuries, but they still had a long way to go. The Bible was also not available in many common languages and few could read Latin. Rejecting the Church’s understanding of the scriptures, heretics were able to gather textual communities around them and offer their own charismatic and attractive interpretations as to what the Bible actually taught.
The history of heresy during the medieval period has much to teach us today. As can be seen from these examples named here, it isn’t enough for the church to argue about orthodoxy and chase down heretics. Jesus told us to let our lights shine before men that they may see our good works and glorify the Father in heaven. Hypocrisy and pride will prevent the growth of a healthy church. And additionally, literacy is very important for protecting people against heresies. We can take this for granted today, but in a general sense we have to remember that literacy is more than just decoding words. It is not enough to have the Bible in one’s language or be able to decode the words, it needs to be read and carefully taught. If we don’t take this seriously in our churches, then we are no better than the ascetic monks who isolated themselves from those who needed to hear the truth.
Who was Henry the Monk? Why did the church object to his teaching and how did it respond to the challenge he posed?
I: Who was Henry the Monk
II: 11 reasons the church objected to the teachings of Henry the Monk
III: 5 ways the church responded to Henry the Monk
Henry the Monk was one of many wandering preachers with a charismatic personality and giftedness in rhetoric and preaching. Little is known of his origin or background, but he most likely came from a French-speaking area, possibly Lausanne in modern Switzerland. There is speculation that he might have been a priest, but seems more certain that he became a monk sometime around or before the mid-1130s. A contemporary is quoted to have said that ‘by his speech even a heart of stone could be moved to repentance.’ He certainly made a show of holiness though some made accusations that this was just a false front.
He first came on the scene of history in the town of Le Mans in northwestern France. The bishop was just getting ready for a trip to Rome when Henry arrived and he was apparently so pleased with Henry’s appearance of holiness, wisdom, piety, and celibacy that he granted him license to preach. Henry’s sermons were welcomed by the people of Le Mans, but the clergy there, the bishop when he returned, and eventually the Roman Catholic Church all had many reasons to object to his teaching.
In the first place he spoke against the many abuses and excesses of the clergy to the point that the people of Le Mans were provoked to violence against them. They would surely have been harmed more seriously had not the local count stepped in to protect them. He also challenged their ideas of marriage by encouraging young men to marry women who had no dowry and speaking against the practice of dowries in general as something which left poor women destitute and fueled problems of prostitution. The church had recently turned marriage into a sacrament controlled by the church so his attack on marriage was very threatening.
Eventually, Henry’s ideas developed into a more intense rejection of the Church, its clergy, and their teachings. He rejected the Church’s claim to be an intermediary between God and the believer and the logical conclusions he then came to affected every one of the sacraments of the church. He rejected the practice of baptizing children with chrism and oil and he questioned the practice of infant baptism at all. He thought that baptism should be reserved for those who were able to understand the faith and he thought that children who died before the age of understanding (including children of Jews and Muslims) would all be saved. He went further with his ideas of marriage even questioning any church ceremony or religious rite for marriage. He argued that marriage does not have to be consecrated by a priest to be valid. With regard to penance and confession, he argued that confession to a priest was never required. He didn’t deny the value of penance and confession, but again denied the intermediary role of the priest. In keeping with this, he also thought that the Eucharist could be administered by any worthy person. He may have argued that it cannot be consecrated by an unworthy priest.
Once when gets a picture of all of Henry’s views, it is not hard at all to see why the church objected to its teaching. In addition to his views on the sacraments outlined above, he objected to the bishop’s use of ring, mitre, and pastoral staff as unnecessary displays of wealth and power. He thought they shouldn’t have wealth at all and they certainly shouldn’t flaunt it. He argued that the pursuit of wealth and power would lead to the corruption of the Church. He even went so far as to say that there was no need for church buildings at all. He reasoned that wherever two or three are gathered in His name, Jesus had declared He would be among them. Henry also felt that it was not necessary to go to a church in order to pray. He seemed to reject the doctrine of purgatory entirely, as well as prayers for the dead, pilgrimages, and the invocation of the saints. The Church in his day must have felt completely attacked on every front.
The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t seem to have responded by seriously considering any of Henry’s ideas. If anything, they became further entrenched as these doctrines were carefully defended. When Henry first appeared on the scene, the initial reaction by the bishop was to banish him from Le Mans. He then disappeared from the scene altogether for about twenty years. His more mature ideas outlined above came out when he debated a monk named William. He was then officially condemned as a heretic and ordered to be confined to a monastery. He doesn’t seem to have obeyed this order and he reappeared again in the Languedoc region where Bernard of Clairvaux followed after him and attempted to undo Henry’s damage in the area. Henry was captured soon after and most likely died in a bishop’s prison shortly after that. It’s interesting to see how many of his ideas were returned to by later reformers.
Identify the major features of the Waldenses. Compare them with medieval Catholic practices, and evaluate them biblically.
I: Who were the Waldenses and what were their major features
II: 9 Roman Catholic Teachings Valdes affirmed
III: why the Catholic Church rejected the movement
IV: compared to catholic practices
V: how to begin evaluating them biblically
VI: main problem with how they did ministry
VII: how the catholic church could have responded
The Waldenses were a group of people who followed after a man named Valdes in committing to a life of voluntary poverty and preaching. Both laymen and laywomen travelled from town to town preaching. They mainly focused on calling people to repentance and teaching against heresies, especially that of the Cathars.
The Waldenses were not a carefully organized or administered group, so it was inevitable that some of them would stray toward more heretical teachings (especially in the Lombard region of Italy). But ultimately, the Catholic Church didn’t seem to find much in the area of their doctrine to oppose. Valdes clearly affirmed the teachings of the Catholic Church and repudiated the errors of other heresies, especially the Cathars. He believed in the Gospels, had a right view of the trinity, and saw God as the creator, maker, and governor of all things visible and invisible in every part of the earth. He accepted the whole of Scripture and believed Christ was fully God and fully man and born of the virgin Mary. He also accepted the sacramental and sacerdotal matters of catholic teaching. He explicitly approved infant baptism, consecrated marriages, and the full catholic teaching on the Eucharist.
The Catholic Church was accepting of the Valdes movement at first, but eventually added them to their list of heresies and excommunicated Valdes from the church. The reason seems to be primarily that they preached without proper authorization from the Church, but it may have also been influenced by the Waldenses’ criticisms of the faults and excesses of local clergy or even the bad teachings which crept into certain areas of the movement.
The Waldenses certainly did things very differently from how the Catholic Church was accustomed to doing ministry at the time. Travelling from town to town preaching repentance was certainly not something most catholic priests would have ever done. Their embracing of a life of poverty was also not the norm in the church, though there were a number of other groups who followed the same path around that period of time. The fact that they embraced a life of poverty certainly assisted them in having the freedom to travel from town to town without needing to bring much with them.
When attempting to evaluate the movement Biblically, it does seem that much of what they taught and believed was consistent with scripture. They did a lot to counter the heresy of the Cathars and that is certainly a reason to be thankful for the Waldensian movement. The main point of conflict seems to be in their allowing untrained laypeople, including women, to preach publicly. Even attempts to evaluate this aspect of their movement is complicated because they were not officially founding churches and placing people in charge of those churches. Rather, they would have been encouraging people to be faithful to the Roman Catholic Church which they still supported.
One main problem is that they ceased to come under the authority of the church when they stopped heeding the permission of the priests in the towns to which they came. Scripture warns in many places that the church needs overseers who can protect the flock from fierce wolves. When laypeople travel from town to town preaching, and remove themselves from any kind of church authority, they are certainly being removed from the protection of pastors and elders. The Waldensians are a very good example of why this is so important for many were led astray by the very heresies they were seeking to preach against and some branches of the movement went astray as well.
When one looks at the history of the Waldensians, it is with a grievous heart for these dedicated followers of Christ who needed better guidance. It is sad that the Roman Catholic Church seems to have just categorized them as heretical and treated them as enemies rather than seeking ways to bring their movement under proper authority. Perhaps one could have sought ways to give them the gift of better training. Perhaps one could have provided ways for women to use their gifts and serve while ensuring that those women weren’t being placed in positions of authority and responsibility for which God did not design them. In the end, the Waldensan movement falls short when evaluated Biblically, but one doesn’t like to classify them along with most of the more serious heresies which existed during their time, and which they were perhaps the most effective in combating.
Although the Cathar heresy was the most radical contradiction to Catholic orthodoxy, it proved the most difficult to destroy. Explain why this was so.
I: what was the Cathar heresy
II: origin in Languedoc region of France
III: 8 reasons the heresy took root in Languedoc region
IV: attempts to destroy
The Cathar heresy was likely brought to Latin Europe in the 12th century. It seems to have been well-organized from very early on in its introduction and this was combined with many other timely factors to make it one of the most difficult heresies to destroy.
An account of the so-called Council of St. Felix-de-Caraman, which took place somewhere around 1167 or 1174, gives much clear evidence on the origin and nature of the heresy in the Languedoc region of southern France. It was presided over by an eastern missionary named Nicetas of Constantinople who introduced important administration reforms to the church in western Europe. His organization of the Cathar churches and founding dioceses patterned after catholic churches, defining boundaries, and establishing Cathar bishops did much to plant the heresy deeply in the region.
The Languedoc region of France seems to have been particularly suited to heresy, but perhaps they would have been better off being taken in by Henry the Monk and his heresies against the Catholic Church than by those of the Cathars. As it was, the Cathar heresy found a very receptive audience in the area. Additionally, the ministers of the heresy (called “perfects”) lived a life of constant travel as they went about winning converts. The laity who carefully supported and protected them were very effective at sheltering them from those who might be seeking to destroy them.
The heresy itself was well developed in many ways and found wide appeal due to its alternate explanation of evil as well as the lifestyle and religious devotion of its leaders. This stood in sharp contrast to the lack of morality as well as the ignorance of many Catholic parish clergy who were ill-equipped for their role.
But perhaps the heresy would never have taken root so deeply had it not been for the wide support they received among the secular nobility in the area. This support came from those who turned a blind eye as well as those who supported them actively. Some nobility even joined their church. The heresy became so deeply rooted that tolerance between Catholics and Cathars became a normal part of life. Some families were even divided with members in each.
Attempts to destroy the heresy through more aggressive means were riddled with problems of poor leadership, those seeking their own gain, and then the distraction of the bigger problem of Muslims in Spain. Count Raymond VI of Toulouse as the largest baron in the area was regarded as the man who should have been able to stop the heresy from ever taking root in the first place. However, he was nominally catholic at best and not really interested in getting involved. He married 5 times times and one of those wives was a Cathar herself.
Initially, catholic legates were sent into the region to preach against the heresy and win converts back to Catholicism. But when the pope’s personal legate, Peter of Castalnau, excommunicated Raymond VI, he was assassinated shortly thereafter. Pope Innocent III then called for a full crusade against the region, promising indulgences to any who would join the battle. Raymond VI found himself blamed for Peter’s death and realized the most advantageous thing for him to do was to join the crusade. He stood to benefit personally from the gain of lands in the crusade anyway.
The crusade was a traumatic event in the history of the area with mass casualties of innocent people, but if anything, it only strengthened the Cathar resolve. The leader of the crusade quickly became Simon de Montfort from Northern France, but as he continued to acquire lands for himself it became readily apparent that he was not so interested in the purification of the church as he was in the acquisition of land for himself. Eventually, Pope Innocent III found himself needing to back Raymond VI for fear of Simon de Montfort gaining too much power. And then when the Muslims in Spain began causing more problems, that became more important. Pope Innocent III rescinded his offer of indulgences for the crusade in the Langedoc region in order to turn efforts toward Spain.
When one considers all of the factors involved, it is not hard to see why the Cathar heresy was so difficult to reign in. It was a well-organized, well-defined and well-established cult with many dedicated followers. It was allowed to become integrated into the very fabric of society, and there doesn’t seem to have been a very solid catholic following in the area at all. It would have been a monumental task for good leadership who cared about these people to help them see truth. As it was, corrupt leaders who were only ever interested in their own personal gain and were working in conflict with one another did not stand a chance.
Identify the most prominent false doctrines of the Cathars and explain why any Christian body would condemn them.
I: Introduction of false doctrines
II: 5 areas of Cathar teaching and Biblical response
III: conclusion of why any Christian body would condemn
Of all the heresies of the Middle Ages, that of the Cathars stands out as certainly one of the most clearly heretical teachings. For all that the various branches of Christianity today might disagree on, they wouldn’t have any trouble agreeing on this point. Scripture is clearly opposed to their doctrines and any Christian body which affirms the Nicene Creed would quickly see that Cathar teachings run contrary to this creed on almost every point.
Before exploring any of the rest of their doctrines, it is important to understand their dualism. For it underlies everything else they believed. There wasn’t always perfect agreement among them over the exact nature of their dualism, but the idea that the material world is evil is one consistent thread which runs through everything they taught and believed. The later leader, Pierre Autier, clearly taught a radical dualism where two co-eternal principles of good and evil were warring with each other. He thought that God had created all the spirits and souls in heaven, but that Satan had entered the kingdom of heaven and tricked the angels into descending down to earth where they were enclosed in earthly bodies. Satan wasn’t able to give them life so he made a deal with God that if He would animate the bodies, the souls would all belong to God in the end.
So this world is not only the creation of the devil, but hell itself. And all of us are really just souls imprisoned in human bodies. Our souls will be trapped on earth migrating from one body to another until we finally reach the body of a consoled Cathar. Souls contained in catholic clergy are the leaders of the angels who followed Satan from heaven so they suffer the most.
Dualism has been condemned repeatedly throughout the history of the Church. It is clear from scripture that God created the world and called it good. The Cathar creation story is nothing like the Biblical account of God making man in His image. The essential goodness of creation and God’s loving us and providing for us with the things that He has made are also very clear in Scripture.
Cathars believed that all human sexuality was wicked. They rejected marriage entirely because it was the means of producing children and bringing them into an evil world. Childbearing was seen as just a continuation of the imprisonment of souls. Some Cathars were even known to mock pregnant women as carrying demons in their bellies. They claimed that if a woman died while pregnant, she could not be saved. All of this is clearly opposed to Biblical teaching. Right from the beginning, God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth. Children as a blessing from the Lord is a continual theme throughout Scripture.
Their views on Christ and the sacraments were affected by their dualism as well. They embraced a docetic Christology which denied that Christ had assumed a human form or was born of the virgin Mary, either in reality or in appearance. They believed that Christ was pure spirit and only appeared to take on a human form. He had no human needs so he didn’t eat, drink, thirst hunger, feel heat or cold, and he could not die. They rejected catholic baptism on the grounds that it involved the material substance of water and because infants could not assent to it. They also rejected the Eucharist as it involved material substances and of course they didn’t believe that Christ ever had a body or blood. Christ’s humanity is essential to all Christian teaching. Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. He became our perfect sacrifice by offering his real body and blood. As Paul said, without the resurrection of the dead, we are the most to be pitied. The only reason we have any hope of any kind of a resurrection is because Christ has been raised from a real, physical death. We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and we look forward to the bodily resurrection of the dead.
After rejecting all of the sacraments offered by the Church, they filled the void by creating some of their own. These were namely the consolamentum and the melioramentum. The consolamentum was the means by which a trapped soul could be freed from earth and finally escape back to heaven. It had to be administered by a Cathar minister called a Perfect. The catch was that any moral lapses following its administration would render it void. Also, if it was administered by a lapsed Perfect, it wouldn’t be effective in the first place. As an inquisitor and former Cathar put it, “all Cahers labor under very great doubt and danger of the soul.”
The melioramentum was a ritual greeting which Cathar believers would give by kneeling before a Perfect, placing their hands on the ground, and turning their head toward their hands. They would ask the perfect three times for their blessing and the perfect would respond with particular words each time before concluding with the exchange of a kiss. This ritual was the only way a believer could offer a prayer to God since they were still subject to Satan and could not make an appeal to heaven without the intermediary actions of the Perfects.
Cathar teaching strays so far from Biblical teaching that it’s barely even recognizable as having been derived from Christianity. A number of areas where their teachings are in direct conflict with scripture have already been pointed out, but really any Christian body which affirms the Nicene Creed would immediately recognize the heresy in Cathar doctrines. We believe that God is the creator of all things visible and invisible. We believe that Christ became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary and was made man physically. We believe that Christ suffered on this earth. We believe that His body was resurrected and we look forward to our own resurrection and the life of the world to come.
According to Frassetto, Fra Dolcino, leader of the Apostolic Brethren, “developed a new theology of history and foretold the destruction of the established ecclesiastical order” (p.22). Explain this assertion and show how Catholic authorities dealt with the threat the sect posed.
I: explain beginnings including Fra Dolcino II: Joachim of Fiore III: first pattern of four ages IV: church in 4 phases V: 3 year prophecy VI: response when none came true VII: atrocities VIII: church response
The Apostolic Brethren began as a group of followers of a man named Gerard Segarelli. Originally, they were defined by their commitment to an extreme form of absolute poverty and the importance of doing penance. After refusing to accept a rule which had been established by the Church, they were condemned as heretics and Segarelli himself was one of those burned at the stake. Following his death, Fra Dolcino became the leader of the movement and it took on an extreme form of hostility toward the Roman Catholic Church. Fra Dolcino wrote a number of letters in which he shared his own schema of history as well as prophecies for the future which included the destruction of the current ecclesiastical order. He believed that they had reached the end of the age and that the Apostolic Brethren were the one true church purposed to restore the proper mode of life and usher the church into Judgment Day.
Fra Dolcino’s view of history was originally modeled after that of a Calabrian monk named Joachim of Fiore. Joachim had described a pattern associated with the persons of the Trinity. The first age was that of the Father and of marriage. It was initiated by Adam and associated with the Old Testament. The Second Age was that of the Son and associated with the clergy and the New Testament. The Third Age was that of the Holy Spirit and was the age of the monks. It was a time of peace and spiritual reflection culminating in a time of tribulations when the antichrist would appear.
Fra Dolcino built upon this outline and went on to describe four ages. The first was that of the fathers of the Old Testament up until the time of Jesus. At this time marriage was praiseworthy for it established the multiplication of humanity. It ended with the decline of purity and honesty which is why Christ then came. The second age began when Christ arrived and lasted until the age of Pope Sylvester I and Constantine. It was the age of saints with displays of true faith, miracles, humility, patience, and chastity. The best life became that of virginity and chastity and those following the true path adopted poverty rather than wealth. But of course it experienced decline. The third age began with Sylvester I and Constantine when gentiles and many others converted to the true faith. The church began acquiring territorial possessions and wealth and the love of God grew cold. St. Benedict, St. Francis, and St. Dominic implemented and better ways, but each time the love of God continued to grow cold. It was the Apostolic Brethren who would restore the proper mode of life so they would survive and bear fruit until judgment day. The fourth age would commence with judgment day when Dolcino and his followers would provide the necessary medicine to cure its ills.
He also described the history of the church itself in terms of four phases. The first was during the persecution of a good, chaste, and poor church. The second was when the church acquired wealth and prosperity beginning with Sylvester I and Constantine, but the clergy, monks, and religious orders followed the examples of the saints. The third phase was the current one when the Church had declined into a perverse condition which would remain until all of the clergy were cruelly killed. Dolcino made a detailed prediction of how this would happen over the next 3 years, after which the church would be restored to its pure state. The fourth phase had also already begun for it was initiated by Gerard Segarelli and would last until the end of the world. The true church was established among the Apostolic Brethren who lived in true poverty and goodness.
Fra Dolcino’s detailed prophesies about the next three years included the destruction by the sword of God of all prelates, clergy, monks of all orders, and nuns from the highest to the lowers. This sword would be wielded by a new emperor and his kings. He predicted that Frederick II, king of Sicily would be this emperor and that he would create a number of new kings to assist him. He himself would kill Pope Boniface VIII and then all Christians would enjoy a period of peace in a millenarian kingdom, in preparation of the Second Coming. A new pope would then miraculously claim the throne and the new pope and new emperor would rule together until the time of the antichrist.
None of Dolcino’s prophecies came true, and yet he and his followers were undaunted. He just came up with a new set of prophecies which focused on the lives and reigns of two good and two bad popes. The first two popes were named, but another unnamed evil pope was not to follow until the new holy pope chosen by God who would be the angel of Philadelphia spoken of in John’s Book of the Apocalypse. He gave another schedule of events, but those didn’t come true either.
In order to understand how catholic authorities dealt with the threat of this sect, it is first important to understand the many atrocities committed by Dolcino and his sect following these prophecies. They went into hiding in the mountains between Vercelli and Novara with the intention of remaining there until God told Dolcino to reappear publicly. Some four thousand followers joined him in the mountains where Dolcino proclaimed a millennial kingdom in which all goods were to be held in common and “women were regarded as common property and could be used without sin.” While they were there, the supposed goodness, poverty, and peace of this sect morphed into a savage, plundering violence. They hanged many Christians, including a boy of ten. They hung men in front of their wives or starved them to death in their prisons. They cut off lips, noses, breasts, or feet of women. They cut off the arm of a pregnant woman whose child died shortly after birth. They burned and destroyed a number of villages in the lower Alps of Italy. They also destroyed numerous cantons and many private homes. They burned churches and destroyed or stole many sacred objects as well as books. It is astonishing how this sect which began with an radical devotion to extreme poverty became a violent group who accumulated a significant quantity of goods which they stored in their mountain hideout.
After hearing the complaints of the local bishop, in 1306 Pope Clement V (1304-14) issued a bull announcing a crusade against Dolcino and the Apostolic Brethren, complete with full indulgences for the participants. The Apostolic Brethren resisted the crusaders to the death. They were pursued by forces of the church until Dolcino and around forty of his followers were captured in a last stand. Dolcino and a woman named Margherita were held captive for months and tortured before being executed quite gruesomely.
These efforts did not stop the sect entirely, but it would never again achieve the size it had reached under Dolcino, nor become the serious threat which it had been. Later followers proved a confirmation of Fra Dolcino as the source of the radical and volatile threat that it was during his lifetime.
Was Marguerite Porete actually a heretic, when judged by Catholic standards, or was she a devout mystic loyal to her church, but badly misguided?
I: Who she was and why difficult to judge
II: orthodoxy of book and alleged heresies
III: how church could have responded
IV: concluding thoughts
Marguerite Porete was a woman associated with the Beguines who had a long-lasting influence on the Church through a very controversial book which she wrote and transmitted to others. The book is controversial for while it was officially condemned as heresy by the catholic church, this condemnation came from a group of scholars who did not read the entire book. They read selections which had been pulled out of context. Marguerite herself argued that those who read the book in full did support her teaching. In the end, the book is very difficult to evaluate because it is not a direct treatise on doctrine, but rather a poetic and allegorical piece of literature which can be read and understood in more than one way. One sympathizes with the position of the catholic church in that Marguerite refused to cooperate with the inquisitor who attempted to interrogate her directly. Her lack of clarification on her own views makes it difficult if not impossible to fully determine whether she was actually a heretic or not. But in the end, when judging by Catholic standards, one has to recognize that two of the counts under which she was condemned are both legitimate. She had been ordered to stop the propagation of her writing and she did continue to send her book to laypeople. And she did refuse to answer any of the inquisitor’s questions.
As already stated, it is quite complicated to evaluate the orthodoxy of the book itself. It seems to have taught antinomianism, pantheism, or even autotheism. It may be possible to associate her with the German heresy of the Free Spirit. Her description of the soul’s mystical ascent to God through seven stages was at least mostly in line with catholic teaching, but she added more stages than was normal and her descriptions of the fifth and sixth states ventured into daring and more original descriptions of mysticism. It’s important to note that there are echoes of scripture throughout her book which indicate Marguerite had a vast knowledge of scripture. Perhaps in the end, the best conclusion might have been reached by Godfrey of Fontaines, a highly respected scholar at the University of Paris, who conditionally approved of the book by saying it should only be read by the ‘strong of spirit.’ In other words, the book seems to have had the capacity to lead others astray if they were not already blessed with a solid and orthodox foundation. This is definitely a cause for concern and a situation where one would hope to see the church begin by attempting to shepherd Marguerite well. If a book is written in such a way that it has the potential of leading others astray, then perhaps something needs to be done to further protect those weak in the faith. Unfortunately, the catholic church seems to have only considered two options. Either they would accept the book in full or demand that they all be burned. By the time Marguerite was brought before the inquisitor, it seems clear that she would not probably have been willing to alter her book in any way, but perhaps if someone had made further attempts to shepherd her earlier on, the whole situation could have been avoided. She does seem to have sought after critiques of her book so one hopes she would have had the humility to accept guidance. It doesn’t seem that we will ever be able to fully determine whether or not Marguerite herself should be ultimately classified as a heretic, but if one is held to the standards of the catholic church of her day, then she definitely stepped outside of the bounds of their authority. It seems lamentable that she refused to cooperate with the inquisitor at all. We would like to hear a more clear defense of her book from her own words. Perhaps it can be argued that everyone involved was misguided. The church authorities had no plan for guiding someone back to the truth other than book burning and brute force and Marguerite didn’t seem to have any recourse for attempting to bring her book under the authority of the church.
Relate the major issues of dispute between John Wyclif and the papal church. Is it correct to regard him as a forerunner of the Protestant Reformation?
I: 6 major areas of dispute
II: scripture and secular powers
III: absolving, excommunicating and 5 other views
IV: transubstantiation
V: 3 reasons to consider him a forerunner
The major issues of dispute between John Wyclif and the papal church included the importance of the Holy Scriptures and Wyclif’s desire to see them translated into common tongues, Wyclif’s views on the king presiding over the clergy, Wyclif’s denunciation of the power and wealth of the Church, his belief in predestination and that the true church was composed of the invisible church of the elect, and his belief that the Church cannot absolve a sinner. Wyclif also rejected various other Roman Catholic teachings, but the most problematic point of dispute was Wyclif’s rejection of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. All of these issues were dealt with in one way or another during the reformation and whether or not the reformers were drawing directly from Wyclif, it is certainly true that Wyclif’s points of dispute were echoed in the Protestant Reformation.
With regard to the Holy Scriptures, Wyclif is quoted as saying, “All Christians, and lay lords in particular, ought to know holy writ and defend it.” He believed that the Bible should be available to all Christians and that truth was determined by what was contained therein. His high view of scripture is certainly echoed in the reformation doctrine of sola scriptura. Wyclif drew from earlier thinkers in arguing that secular powers were empowered by God himself. Scripture tells us that God raises up and deposes leaders. On these grounds, Wyclif argued they had the authority to rule over the Church, while they must also adhere to the dictates of the popes so long as there are in line with Scripture. This teaching was clearly opposed to the Catholic Church and certainly echoed in the ideas of many Reformation theologians along with his denunciation of the power and wealth of the Church.
Wyclif, along with many reformers, rejected the idea that the Catholic church could absolve a sinner or excommunicate anyone. Wyclif taught that a person can only excommunicate himself from the true Church which is made up of the elect who have been predestined to salvation. Wyclif also rejected other teachings which went along with these and were also rejected by the Reformers. These included purgatory, pilgrimages, the selling of indulgences, praying to saints, and he disapproved of clerical celibacy
The most problematic area, and the one which got him the most attention from the Catholic Church, was his view on the catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. He taught that the substance of the bread and wine of the Eucharist remains after consecration and that the body of Christ is figuratively and not physically present in the bread and wine. Wyclif explained that he was rejecting a teaching which had been formalized during the reign of Pope Inncent III. His view approached the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiality in that he thought the bread and wine exist together with the body and blood of Christ, although not the literal body born of the virgin Mary.
As has been shown, Wyclif taught many ideas which were later reflected in the Reformation. However, this isn’t the only reason one might consider him a forerunner. Wyclif gained a following of people, identified as the Lollards, who remained a viable movement in England right up until the period of the Reformation. It seems quite likely that the English people were more readied to receive the ideas of the Reformation due to the influence of Wyclif’s teachings. His influence extended beyond England as well in that there were many scholars on the continent who followed his teachings, whether in whole or in part. These especially included the Czech scholars who copied his works and taught them. Jan Huss did not follow all of Wyclif’s teachings, but the movement which bears his name had certainly been impacted by Wyclif and certainly had an impact on the Reformation. To call Wyclif a forerunner of the Reformation certainly does not seem to be an overstatement.
Although it is common to regard Jan Hus as a proto-Protestant, Frassetto has shown that it is not so. Explain the goals of Hus as he pursued his conception of reformation and show why his work did not anticipate Protestantism.
I: Introduction and why not proto-protestant
II: 3 areas of conflict
III: 4 areas of Hus’ goals
IV: why not a proto-protestant 8 areas of catholic affirmation
V: result of excommunication
VI: why not a proto-protestant
Jan Hus was a scholar and rector at the University of Prague who is commonly regarded as a proto-Protestant. Whether or not this is an accurate view of Jan Hus is at least partly dependent upon how the term is defined. Jan Hus is an interesting figure because he was influenced by some ideas which do seem to pre-figure the reformation, but in many ways he was a very conventional churchmen of his day and he accepted most teachings of the Church including many which would later be rejected by the Reformation.
The story of his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church begins with some Czech scholars who had begun copying the works of John Wyclif and had brought them back to Bohemia. As such, Jan Hus was able to glean from his writings and supported a few of Wyclif’s ideas. These included the ideas on the invisible church being composed of all the predestined and thus also Hus was critical of claims to papal primacy and authority over the Church. He maintained that the papacy was a human institution and that the pope was fallible and he regarded scripture as the supreme authority in the Church. Hus attacked papal indulgences (though he wasn’t entirely against them) and royal privileges in the church.
Hus sought to improve the life and structure of the Church. He was very moderate in his views and didn’t embrace any of the radical actions of some of the other Czech scholars. His main concern really seemed to be in exhorting his listeners to take up a life of repentance and holiness and to follow Christ. Hus described his own conversion as a change from living a life of frivolity toward a concern for holiness. In the end, when called upon to accept the authority of the pope and Roman Church in full and renounce Wyclif’s forty-five articles which had been deemed heretical, Hus declared that it would be “better to die well than to live evilly.” He really sought to live a life in accord with Scripture.
These aspects of Hus’ life, and his tragic burning at the stake for his beliefs, would seem to fit him very fully in the Protestant realm. But it’s important to remember that he really did take a moderate view on most things. He didn’t fully embrace the doctrine of sola scriptura even to the degree that John Wyclif did. Hus accepted the authority of councils, Church Fathers, and scripture. He accepted transubstantiation and approved of the veneration of the saints, especially of the Virgin Mary. He believed in purgatory, masses for the dead, sacraments, and other conventional beliefs and practices of the Church of His day. What set him apart were his teachings on the nature of the Church and the powers of the pope and clergy as well as his qualified support for and public defense of some of Wyclif’s teachings.
His execution did inspire a revolution. The people of Bohemia were enraged by his death and they became more determined to see reform in their churches. They wanted to see the laypeople receive the Eucharist, for example. They became more outspoken and it led to open warfare and five crusades against the Hussites. The foundation was laid for emergence of an independent church in Bohemia and in many ways the way was paved for the Protestant Reformation.
None of these things were things Jan Hus himself sought after though. To say that he himself anticipated the Protestant Reformation or that he was a proto-protestant would certainly be to overstate the case. The story of the Hussites is important to tell with regard to the Protestant Reformation and there are many reasons to admire the life of Jan Hus. He valued Scripture to a much higher degree than many around him and he sought to live a life of holiness. He was not a man who sought after controversy, but he was a man who was unwilling to compromise his convictions. But it probably wouldn’t be fair to say his work anticipated the reformation or to call him a proto-protestant.
