Chapter 43 Chapter 9 Church Reformation in the Eleventh Century AD

For the first time since the fall of the Western Roman Empire, Europe saw rapid and sustained progress during the eleventh century AD.During the Carolingian Renaissance, there had been some kind of progress in Europe, but it turned out that this progress was not consolidated.The progress of the eleventh century AD was long-lasting and manifold.This progress began with the reformation of the monasteries; it spread to the papacy and ecclesiastical institutions; and by the end of the century produced the first scholastics.The Saracens are driven from Sicily by the Normans; the Hungarians become Christians and end their raiding career; the Norman conquest of France and England saves these areas from further Scandinavian raids .Except for the areas affected by Byzantium, the buildings that had always been simple in the past suddenly possessed a magnificent scale.The education level of monks and lay nobles has also improved significantly.

In the minds of reformers, the initial stages of this movement were purely morally motivated.Regular monks and monks in the world have long been corrupted, so ordinary zealots began to urge them to live more according to their rules and regulations.But behind this purely moral motive there is another, perhaps unconscious at first, but which gradually becomes more and more evident.This motive was to completely separate monks from the masses, and thereby increase the power of the monks.Therefore, the victory of the church reform will naturally lead directly to the violent conflict between the pope and the emperor.

Priests had long formed a separate and powerful social class in Egypt, Babylon, and Persia, but not in Greece and Rome.In primitive Christianity the distinction between clergy and laity arose gradually; when we read the word bishop in the New Testament, the word did not yet have its present connotation.The separation of monks and laymen has two aspects, one is doctrinal and the other is political; the political side depends on its doctrinal side.Monks possessed certain miraculous powers, especially in relation to the sacraments—with the exception of baptism, which laymen could also perform.But weddings, absolutions and anointing at the end of life were not possible without the help of monks.Of particular importance in the Middle Ages was the incarnation: only priests could perform the miracle of the Mass.Although the theory of transfiguration has been believed by ordinary people for a long time, it did not become one of the creeds until 1079 AD in the eleventh century AD.

Because priests had the power to perform miracles, they could decide whether a person would enjoy eternal life in heaven or hell.When a man dies in a house-breaking, he goes to hell; if he goes through all the proper rites performed by the priests, and if he has duly confessed and repented, he will finally go to heaven.However, he may have to endure a period—perhaps a long period of torment—in Purgatory before entering heaven.Priests could shorten a person's time in Purgatory by celebrating Mass for that person's soul.They are happy to do this for a suitable pecuniary reward. We must know that all of these are not just publicly proclaimed creeds, but are firmly believed by both monks and laymen.The miraculous power of the monks gave them repeated victories over powerful monarchs with armies.This power, however, was limited by two kinds of outbursts of furious passion among the laity, and by divisions among the priesthood.Until the time of Pope Gregory VII, the inhabitants of Rome had little respect for the Pope himself.They did not hesitate to kidnap, imprison, poison, or attack the Pope when the tumultuous partisanship induced them to do so.But how is this compatible with their beliefs?Part of the answer, no doubt, was their inability to self-denial;Another reason, though less effective in Rome than elsewhere, was that the king in his country could bend the bishops to his will, so that the king could acquire enough priestly magic to Save yourself from eternal punishment.Therefore, church discipline and a unified church management organization have become indispensable to the authority of the monks.These goals, which were an important part of the moral innovation of the monks, were finally achieved in the eleventh century AD.

Monks' authority, in general, was acquired only through the great sacrifice of the individual monk.The two evils that were unanimously denounced by the priestly reformers were priesthood buying and selling and concubinage.We must describe the two above separately. The Church has long since become rich due to donations from devout believers.Many bishops owned enormous fortunes, and even diocesan priests lived as a rule with contemporary comforts.The appointment of bishops is usually in the hands of the king, but sometimes it is in the hands of some lower-ranking feudal nobles.It was customary for kings to sell bishops; in fact this sum constituted a significant part of their income.The bishop then goes on to resell the higher priesthoods within his purview.There are no secrets in this matter.Galbert (Sylvester II) imitated the tone of the bishop and said, "I paid gold and became a bishop; as long as I act according to my own authority, I am not afraid that I will not get the money back. I appoint a priest, and I receive gold; I install a deacon, and I receive a heap of silver, and behold, the gold that I gave, is now returned to my purse." Peter Dar of Milan Mian found in AD 1059 that every monk in the city from the archbishop down was guilty of buying and selling priesthood, which was not unique at the time.

Buying and selling priesthood is certainly a sin, but that is not the only objection against it. It made the promotion of the church not by merit but by wealth, it affirmed secular authority in the appointment of bishops and their subordination to secular rulers; and it reduced the episcopal office to a feudal system.In particular, when a man has bought a high priesthood, he is naturally eager to get back the price he paid for it, and his concern for worldly things will outweigh his concern for spiritual matters.For these reasons, the anti-clergyman movement finally became a necessary link in the Church's struggle for power.

A very similar observation applies to the celibacy of the monks.Eleventh-century innovators often referred to what we should more correctly say "marriage" as "taking a concubine."Monastics, of course, were not allowed to marry because of their vows of chastity, but there was never an explicit prohibition on marriage among lay monks.In the Eastern churches, until today, parish priests are allowed to marry.In the West in the eleventh century AD, most parish priests were married.Bishops, for their part, often appeal to the following words of St. Paul: "A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife".There is no obvious 1 Timothy, chapter 3, verse 2 here as in the case of the buying and selling of priesthoods.

"Cambridge History of the Middle Ages", Volume 5, Chapter 10. Moral issues, but in the case of monks' celibacy, there are very similar political motives to those in the anti-clergy movement.Once the monks were married, they naturally attempted to pass on church property to their heirs.If their sons became monks they could more legally confer; so when the Reformers gained power, one of the first steps they took was to prohibit the granting of priesthood to the sons of monks.In the chaos of the time, however, there was still a danger, for if the monks had had children, it would not be difficult for them to find some way of illegally appropriating part of the ecclesiastical lands.

Added to this economic consideration is the fact that if a monk is as much a family man as his neighbours, he does not seem very different to them.Since at least the fifth century A.D. there has been a fervent praise of celibacy, and if the monks were trying to command the veneration on which their power depended, it was extremely advantageous for them to clearly differentiate themselves by prohibiting marriage.There is no doubt that although the innovators' status of marriage is not sinful in fact, it is lower than the status of celibacy, and it only means a concession to carnal desires. St. Paul said: "If you can't restrain yourself, you can marry. "; but a holy man must be able to "forbid."So the celibacy of the monks was essential to the moral authority of the Church.

After these general introductions, let us turn to the actual history of the Reformation movement in the church in the eleventh century AD. The beginning of the movement can be traced back to 910 A.D. Duke of Acquita, William the Pious founded the Cluny Abbey, which has been independent of all external authorities since its establishment-except the authority of the Pope; Authorized to govern those monasteries that were subdivided from it.At this time, most monasteries were rich and indulgent; although Cluny avoided extreme asceticism, he also paid attention to maintaining dignity and etiquette.Odu, the second abbot of the academy, was appointed to manage several monasteries in Rome after he came to Italy.But he was not always successful: "Falfa Abbey - torn apart by a feud between two rival abbots who had assassinated its predecessor - boycotted the Clunian monks introduced by Odu , and slew with poison the abbot whom Alberik had appointed by force." (Alberik was the Roman ruler who invited Odus.) In the twelfth century A.D. Cluny's innovative zeal gradually cooled.St. Bernard had disapproved of the splendor of the abbey; like all the most devout men of his day, he considered the splendor of the monastery a symbol of sinful pride.

In the eleventh century A.D., reformers founded many religious orders.An ascetic hermit, Romuald founded the Order of Kamal Dorits in AD 1012; Peter Damian, who will be described below, was one of the believers of this order.In 1084 AD, Bruno of Cologne founded the Carthus Order, which has always been known for its prudence, and in 1098 AD, founded the Cistercian Order; in 1113 AD, St. Bernard joined the order.This order strictly adheres to the canon of Benedict.It banned stained glass windows.It employs a group of lay brothers to engage in labor.These people also took oaths, but were not allowed to learn to read and write; they were chiefly employed in agriculture, and other work, as in construction.Fontaine Abbey, York, of the Cistercian order— Cambridge History of the Middle Ages, Vol. 5, p. 662. To those who see all beauty as belonging to the devil, this monastery is indeed a remarkable building. From the Farfa incident - which was not unique at the time - we can see that monastic innovators required great courage and courage.Wherever they succeeded, they had the support of those in power in the secular world.It was these innovators and their disciples who first brought about the reformation of the Holy See, and secondarily of the Church as a whole. But the innovation of the papacy was at first primarily the business of the emperor.The last hereditary pope was Benedict IX, elected in AD 1032, when he was said to be only twelve years old.He was the son of Alebric the Tuscanymite; whom we have already mentioned in the account of the abbot of Odu.As Benedict grew older, he became more and more licentious, shocking even contemporary Romans.At last his wickedness reached such heights that he resolved to resign the Pope in order to marry.He sold the post to his godfather Gregory VI. The man who bought the Pope with money was an innovator; he was also a friend of Hildebrand (Gregory VII).However, the means by which he obtained the Pope was too ugly to be seen by the world.The young Emperor Henry III was a pious innovator who, while retaining the authority to appoint bishops, sacrificed a large income to put an end to priesthood sales.He came to Italy in 1046, when he was only twenty-two years old; and deposed Gregory VI on the charge of priesthood commerce. During the reign of Henry III, he always maintained the authority of appointing and dismissing popes, and used this authority appropriately to make it conducive to innovation.After deposing Gregory VI, he appointed a Germanic bishop, Suderger of Bamberg; the Romans gave up the suffrage which they had always demanded but almost never exercised.The new pope died the following year.The other one recommended by the emperor was said to have died shortly thereafter due to poisoning.So Henry III chose one of his relatives, Bruno from Turu, known as Leo IX (1049-1054).Leo was an ardent innovator who traveled extensively and presided over many synods; he tried unsuccessfully to repel the Normans in southern Italy.Hildebrand was his friend, and almost his pupil.After his death, the emperor appointed another pope in 1055 AD, Gebhard of Ehstadt, known as Victor II.But the emperor died the following year, and the pope a year later.From this period the relationship between the emperor and the Pope has become less harmonious than before.Having gained moral prestige through the support of Henry III, the pope claimed first independence from, and then superiority to, the emperor.Thus began a great dispute that lasted for more than two hundred years and ended with the defeat of the emperor.Therefore, from a long-term perspective, Henry III's policy of reforming the papacy may still lack predictability. The next emperor, Henry IV, ruled for fifty years (1056-1106).At first he was underage, and was regent by his mother, Agnes.After the death of Stephen IX, who had been pope for a year, the cardinals elected a pope; while the Romans, reaffirming their long-abandoned suffrage, elected another.The queen mother supported the cardinals, and they elected a pope called Nicholas II.Although his reign was only three years, this period was extremely important.He made peace with the Normans, thereby reducing the dependence of the papacy on the emperor. During his reign, the election of the pope was determined by a decree, according to which the election was first carried out by the six cardinal dioceses on the outskirts of Rome. The cardinals, then other bishops, and finally the monks and citizens of Rome.It is speculated that the participation of monks and citizens is just a formality.In fact, the pope's electors are only six cardinals in the suburbs of Rome.Elections must, if possible, be held in Rome; but in cases of difficulty or inappropriate circumstances, they may be held elsewhere. The emperor has no part in the entire election process.The decree was recognized after a struggle, and it was a necessary step in freeing the papacy from secular control. Nicholas II strictly enforced a decree to determine that all priesthoods obtained through priesthood sales will be invalid in the future.But the decree does not follow the past, because doing so will inevitably involve the appointment of most priests in office. An interesting struggle began in Milan during Nicholas II's tenure.The archbishop of the place, following the tradition of Ambrose, required a certain degree of independence from the Pope.He and his monks united the aristocracy against innovation.The merchants and lower classes, on the other hand, expected the piety of the monks; there were some riots in favor of the clerical celibacy movement and a powerful reform movement called the Patalin against the archbishop and his supporters.In order to support the reformation, the pope sent the well-known St. Peter Damian as his representative to Milan in 1059 AD. Damian is the author of On the Omnipotence of God, which asserts that God can do things contrary to the law of contradiction and undo the past (a view that was refuted by St. Thomas and has since fallen out of orthodoxy ).He opposed dialectics and represented philosophy as the handmaiden of theology.As we know, he is a follower of the hermit Romuald, and he has always been tired of dealing with administrative work. However, his holiness is a precious treasure of the Holy See, so that the Holy See spared no effort to win him to assist the reform movement, and he finally Heed the pope's persuasion.In 1059 AD he gave a speech against clergy buying and selling at a meeting of monks in Milan.At first the audience was enraged to the point of endangering his life, but at last his eloquence moved them, and one by one they wept and confessed.And also agreed to allegiance to Rome from then on.During the tenure of the next pope, a dispute arose between the emperor and the pope over the seat of Milan, in which the pope, thanks to the support of the Patalinists, won the final victory. Henry was of age when Nicholas II died in AD 1061.A dispute arose between him and the cardinal over the question of papal succession.The emperor never recognized the decrees concerning the election of popes, and was not prepared to relinquish his rights in the election of popes.The dispute lasted for three years, but in the end the choice of the cardinals became a foregone conclusion.There was no decisive contest of power between the emperor and the Holy See.The change of circumstances was chiefly due to the excellence of the character of the Pope whom the cardinals had elected.He was a man of virtue and experience, and besides having been taught by Longfland, later Archbishop of Canterbury).In 1073 AD, the pope, Alexander II, died, and Hildebrand (Gregory VII) was elected after him. Gregory VII (1073-85) is one of the most outstanding figures among the popes.He had already come to prominence and exerted great influence on the policy of the Holy See. It was because of him that Pope Alexander II blessed William the Conqueror's attempt to conquer England.He also favored the Normans in Italy and in the North.He was the pope who first bought the pope in order to stop the sale of the priesthood, and he was the protector of Gregory VI. After Pope Gregory VI was deposed, Hildebrand lived in exile for two years.He lived in Rome for most of the rest of his life.He was not a learned man, but he learned indirectly the teachings of St. Augustine from his hero, Gregory the Great, and was greatly encouraged by it.When he became Pope he believed himself to be the mouthpiece of St. Peter.This once gave him a certain degree of self-confidence, but if this self-confidence is measured by secular standards, it is impossible to approve.He believed that the emperor's authority was also divine: at first he compared the emperor and the pope to the eyes;The pope must be supreme in morals, so if the emperor is immoral, the pope has the right to abolish the emperor.There is nothing in the world so immoral as rebelling against the Pope.All this he believed in. Gregory VII did more than any previous pope to enforce celibacy for monks.In Germany the clergy revolted, and for this reason and others they fell on the side of the emperor.Yet the laity everywhere desired celibacy for their priests.Gregory instigated lay riots against married priests and their wives, while monk couples were often subjected to heinous abuse.He called on the lay people to refrain from attending Masses celebrated by disobedient priests.He decreed that the sacraments of married monks should be null and void, and prohibited such monks from entering the Church.All this aroused the revolt of the clergy and the support of the laity; even in Rome, where popes used to be perilous, he was popular with the masses. During Gregory's tenure began a great controversy over the "inauguration".When a bishop is ordained, he is given a ring and a staff as symbols of his authority.These were traditionally bestowed upon bishops by emperors or kings, as the case may be, in their feudal rulership.Gregory insisted that these things should be conferred by the Pope.This dispute was part of the effort to separate the hierarchy from the feudal system.The dispute lasted for a long time, but in the end the Holy See won a comprehensive victory. The dispute that led to the Canossa incident originated from the issue of the archdiocese of Milan. In 1075 AD, the emperor appointed an archbishop with the assistance of the vicars;The emperor retaliated by calling a synod of bishops at Worms, at which the bishops declared their allegiance to the Pope.They wrote to accuse him of adultery, perjury, and (more serious) mistreatment of bishops.The emperor also wrote him a letter advocating that the emperor should override all earthly judges.The emperor and his bishops declared Gregory deposed; Gregory gave the emperor and the bishops a break and declared them deposed.Thus began a farce. In the first act, victory goes to the pope.The Saxons had betrayed Henry IV before and made peace with him, but then rebelled; and the German bishops made peace with Gregory.The emperor's attitude towards the pope shocked the whole world.Therefore, the following year (AD 1077) Henry was determined to seek the Pope's forgiveness.In the severe winter season, he took his wife, young children and a few followers across the Seni Pass, and came to Canossa Castle where the Pope lived, begging bitterly.The Pope made him wait outside the fort three days barefoot in a penitential garment.He was finally introduced.After he expressed his repentance and vowed to deal with the Pope's opponents in Germany in accordance with the Pope's instructions, he was pardoned and restored to the Church. Yet the Pope's victory was in vain.He was bound by the precepts of his theology, one of which called for forgiveness of sins for the penitent.Strange to say, he was deceived by Henry into believing that Henry's confession was sincere.It wasn't long before he realized his mistake.He could no longer support Henry's German opponents, who felt that the Pope had betrayed them.From this period things began to turn against him. Henry's German opponents elected another emperor, Rudolph, in opposition.At the beginning, the pope insisted that the question of the ownership of the throne should be decided by him, but on the other hand he refused to make any decision.In 1080 AD, when he realized that Henry's repentance was not sincere, he finally declared Ludolph emperor.About this time, however, Henry had subdued most of his opponents in Germany.At the same time, he also relied on his monk supporters to elect an enemy pope.He entered Rome in AD 1084 with this antipope.His rival pope officially crowned him, but the two of them had to retreat before the Normans who came to rescue Gregory, who sacked Rome and took Gregory hostage.Until his death the following year, he was actually their captive. In this way, all his strategies seemed to have come to an unfortunate end.But in fact these strategies were still used by his successors in a more moderate way. While an agreement was reached in favor of the Holy See, the conflict was inherently irreconcilable.We will discuss the later development of this conflict in the following chapters. We are now in a position to describe the intellectual revival of the eleventh century AD.With the exception of Galbert (Pope Sylvester II, AD 999-1003) (and even he was more a mathematician than a philosopher), there were no philosophers at all in the tenth century AD.But as the eleventh century AD progressed the truly philosophical luminaries began to appear.Foremost among these are Anselham, Roscelyn, and others worthy of narrative.All these men were monks associated with the Reformation. The oldest of them all, Peter Damian, has been seen before.Belonga the Turian (d. 1088) is of interest as a sort of rationalist.He advocated the supremacy of reason over authority, and in support of this view he quoted John Scotus, for which John was posthumously condemned.Bei Longga denied the theory of incarnation, and was forced to withdraw his theory twice for this reason.Lanfran refuted his heresy in his book On the Blood and Flesh of Christ.Lanfran was born in Pavia, studied law at Brona, and later became a dialectician of the first rank.But he gave up dialectics for theology, and entered Baker Abbey in Normandy, where he presided over a school.William the Conqueror appointed him Archbishop of Canterbury in AD 1070. St. Anselham, like Lanfran, was not only Italian, and was a monk of Baker's Abbey, but also Archbishop of Canterbury (AD 1093-1109), as Archbishop, he followed the principles of Gregory VII and the king. There was a dispute.The main reason for his fame is that he invented the "ontological argument" about the existence of God.His argument goes as follows: We define "God" as the greatest possible object of thought.If an object of thought does not exist, another, just like it, which does exist, is greater than it.Therefore the greatest of all objects of thought must exist, for otherwise there might be a still greater object.Therefore, God exists. This argument has never been accepted by theologians.It was first refuted by contemporaries; then it was forgotten until the second half of the thirteenth century.Thomas Aquinas refuted it, and Aquinas' arguments have prevailed among theologians ever since. But it has had better luck among philosophers.Descartes revived it in a slightly modified form; Leibniz thought it would be made valid by an additional proof that God was possible.Kant thought he had destroyed it once and for all.In a sense, however, it forms the basis of the philosophical system of Hegel and his school, and reappears in the principle of Bradley's statement: "What can and must exist exists." Clearly, an argument with such an excellent history, whether sound or not in itself, should be given weight.The real question is: Is there anything that comes to mind for us that, by the mere fact that we can think of it, proves to exist outside of our minds, every philosopher would be willing to say: Yes, because a philosopher His job is not so much by observation as by thinking to discover things about the world.If "Yes" is the correct answer, there is a bridge from pure thought to things; if not, there is no bridge between the two.In this generalized form Plato applies an ontological argument to prove the objective reality of ideas.But no one before Anselm had ever formulated this argument in its naked logical purity.In gaining purity it loses plausibility; yet this too is to Anselm's merit. Furthermore, Anselm's philosophy was largely derived from St. Augustine, from whom it acquired many elements of Plato.He believed in the ideas of Plato, from which he deduced another proof of the existence of God.Through neo-Platonist arguments, he claimed to have proved not only God, but the Trinity as well. (We recall that in the philosophy of Plotinus there is a Trinity that cannot be considered orthodox by Christians.) Anselm held that reason was subordinate to faith.After Augustine he said "in order to understand I believe"; he held that one cannot understand without belief. He said "God is not just but just".We remember John Scott saying something similar.Their common source is Plato. St. Anselm is like the Christian philosophers before him.Rather than belonging to the tradition of Aristotle, it is better to say that it belongs to the tradition of Plato.He therefore lacks the so-called "scholastic" overt features that culminate in the system of Thomas Aquinas.This philosophy may be considered to have begun with Roscelyn, who was contemporary of Anselm, but seventeen years younger than Anselm.Roscelyn marks a new beginning, and I shall deal with him in the next chapter. When we say that medieval philosophy up to the thirteenth century was mainly Platonist, we should remember that, except for the philosophical fragments of the Timaeus, Plato was known only indirectly, or again indirectly.Without Plato, John Scotus could not have held the views he held, but most of his Platonic views come from Pseudo-Dionysius. The author's date is unknown, but he was probably a disciple of the Neoplatonist Proclus.It is also possible that John Scott never heard of Proclus or read a line of Plotinus.Besides Pseudo-Dionysius, another source of Platonism in the Middle Ages was Boethius.This Platonism differs in many respects from that which a modern scholar would have taken directly from Plato's writings.It cuts out almost everything that has no significant relation to religion, and in the philosophy of religion it expands and emphasizes certain aspects at the expense of others.Plotinus had already carried out this falsification of Plato's views.People's knowledge of Aristotle is also fragmentary, but in the opposite direction: until the twelfth century AD, all Aristotle was known to people was only Boiseus's translation of "Theory of Categories" and "Theory of Right and Fallacy". , so Aristotle is only considered a dialectician, while Plato is only regarded as a religious philosopher and advocate of the theory of ideas.At the end of the Middle Ages, the above two prejudices, especially the views on Aristotle, were gradually corrected.But this process concerning Plato was not completed until the Renaissance.