part 2 DD14 History Paper: Papal Schism

[regentrude]

here is part 2 of the paper.

The council of Constance, held intermittently from 1414 to 1418, finally resolved the issue, instating a single pope in Rome. After the pope was successfully installed in Rome, the Catholic Church clamped down on the councils, controlling what little power they had. This was not very difficult, as the councils were often disorganized, and split among clergymen representing different nations and different interests. The latter two councils, following the Council of Constance, never managed to instate lasting reform, and so never had any great troubling effect on the Church. Although the Church managed to stop outside control by councils fairly quickly, one lasting effect of the papal schism was that the Church was constantly controlled by outside monarchies. The new papacy was forced to make concessions in return for support and protection from monarchs, and would never again be the great power it had been in the 12th and 13th centuries.

The new pope and his successors settled back into Rome, and the line of Avignon Popes was eventually declared illegitimate. They are now commonly referred to as “anti-popes†by the Catholic Church. The popes spent the late 1400’s strengthening their control over the turbulent Italian Papal States, and engaging fully in the secular power struggles that tore through Italy. Though outwardly everything appeared to be restored to its former situation, the attitude of the common people toward the Church had changed drastically. The greatest, longest-lasting result of the Papal Schism was the shattering of the Church’s perfect moral authority. It destroyed the image of the Catholic Church as the one infallible organization, leading to its declining image. This led to the failing of monasticism, and the growing view that the entire clergy was corrupt, hypocritical, and immoral. This, in turn, led to a new revival of communal movements and mysticism, which would eventually lead the way into a new era of religion.

To conclude: The Papal Schism was an event in the history of the Catholic Church that took place from 1378 to 1414. It was a time period where the Catholic Church was temporarily headed by two popes, one residing in Rome, and one residing in Avignon. The most powerful states of Europe split their allegiances to stand behind either of the popes. The situation was resolved in 1414, when the Council of Constance instated one legitimate pope. Though this event stretched over a fairly short period of time and seemed to directly affect only the Catholic Church, it actually had far-reaching consequences. England and France emerged as dominant powers in Europe at the end of the Schism, due to their careful mutual exploitation of the situation. Because both popes constantly sought to undermine each other’s authority, and involved themselves deeply in non-religious matters, popular opinion of the Church declined severely. This would later lead to a new, humanistic view of the Church, a view that would pave the way into the Renaissance.

Edited December 7, 2011 by regentrude

[Jean in Newcastle]

Regentrude, I found the small type and the dense text very hard to read. I had to paste it into a Word document to read it. I put the text from both parts and then numbered the paragraphs. Here are some comments:

 

Paragraph 5 - the term "Babylonian captivity" is used. I understand how it could be a metaphor but was this a specific term used for this time in history?

 

Paragraph 6 - "catholic institution" - I'm assuming she means Catholic meaning the Catholic church, not catholic meaning "universal". If so, it needs to be capitalized.

 

Otherwise, I found the paper well written and straight forward.

[regentrude]

Regentrude, I found the small type and the dense text very hard to read. I had to paste it into a Word document to read it. I put the text from both parts and then numbered the paragraphs. Here are some comments:

 

Thanks for taking the time to read, Jean. Sorry about the font, I guess it did something strange when I copied it in - I have changed it to a bigger size.

Paragraph 5 - the term "Babylonian captivity" is used. I understand how it could be a metaphor but was this a specific term used for this time in history?

Yes, Babylonian captivity is a term used to describe the time of the Avignon papacy.

 

Paragraph 6 - "catholic institution" - I'm assuming she means Catholic meaning the Catholic church, not catholic meaning "universal". If so, it needs to be capitalized.

 

Thanks. It should be Catholic.

Otherwise, I found the paper well written and straight forward.

 

Thanks again. I appreciate your feedback.

[Ester Maria]

The early 1300’s of medieval Europe were fraught with turmoil, caused by the struggle between the established papacy and the secular monarchy of the most powerful European countries.

I would add concrete examples to illustrate the point.

An outraged Philip captured Boniface with relative ease, and the pope was killed in captivity.

The indeterminate article there sounds really weird (although I may be wrong, as the logic of the article use in my language and in English does not correspond perfectly - but it still stands out as something unusual to me and defies my logic LOL), and what does "relative ease" mean? I think she should elaborate on this point if she wants to include this.

Many Christians of the time were troubled by the fact that the authority of the Pope was traditionally rooted in his position as a bishop of Rome; the papal rein in Avignon undermined this authority and called the legitimacy of the papacy into question.

I think she would need some kind of a reference for the first part of the statement or reword it. Whenever you operate with general sentiments or words such as "many", it gets tricky although you are probably stating a factually correct thing. It would maybe be better to reword it and to simply speak about the definition of the pope as the bishop of Rome specifically, etc., without getting into the feelings of the "many".

they never intervened drastically enough to win back the favor of the European people.

There is no such thing as "the European people", strictly speaking. Either put it in plural ("the European peoples") or reword in a more neutral fashion ("the nations which were..."). The latter approach is probably better.

The moral infallibility of the Church was called into question as all of Europe struggled with the great problem: which pope was the right pope?

Why the emphasis on the moral infallibility? Is she referring to the Papal infallibility, which would then be called into question if there are two persons on that function, or is she attempting to connect the fact that there are two persons on the Papal function to some kind of an internal moral corruption inside the Church? She would need to be more clear on this point, I think.

They grasped at power and money greedily

Greedily, eh? :D

That is what is called "subtly inserting one's own moral judgment into the paper", when you present as factual statements something which you actually cannot write factually. It does not stand out enough to have to change it in this particular case, but just something to keep in mind in general when she writes. At some point, one cannot escape doing some of that - otherwise one would have to write with dozens of disclaimers in every sentence and renounce any symbolic characterizations of anything - but there are instances where it is more obvious, so just using this opportunity to bring it up. I would not nitpick it right now, but just begin to be more aware of such things, because academic writing must differ in some of that supposed moral neutrality from everyday speech and writing.

The people that the Church was meant to guide were disgusted

This is another one of these instances when one is perhaps not as careful as to how to word something and when there are some subtle moralistic undertones (or at least so it can be read).

This questioning of the ultimate papal authority led to several ideas that were meant to resolve the Schism. The growing mindset was that a council should be elected, one that could solve the dispute over the true papacy once and for all. This idea seemed revolutionary in the Late Middle Ages, since it threatened the holy concept of papal supremacy.

See, these are a few excellent sentences: with a good flow, clear, yet general enough.

This led to the failing of monasticism, and the growing view that the entire clergy was corrupt, hypocritical, and immoral. This, in turn, led to a new revival of communal movements and mysticism, which would eventually lead the way into a new era of religion.

Failing of monasticism? Why and how? In what aspects? Monastic life was very strong at those times still, especially amongst women (which is a whole 'nother topic of girls forced into convents, all into Renaissance / Baroque, and starting to decline only a few generations ago).

How exactly does the revival of mysticism - and what exactly is meant by that? which streams? where? - lead the way into a new epoch of religious history? Could she elaborate on that?

 

I think she would need a better conclusion, because from a nice factually-based overview of the issue she "sank" into the problematic generalties which she would either need to elaborate on, either change the conclusion.

To conclude: The Papal Schism was an event in the history of the Catholic Church that took place from 1378 to 1414. It was a time period where the Catholic Church was temporarily headed by two popes, one residing in Rome, and one residing in Avignon. The most powerful states of Europe split their allegiances to stand behind either of the popes. The situation was resolved in 1414, when the Council of Constance instated one legitimate pope. Though this event stretched over a fairly short period of time and seemed to directly affect only the Catholic Church, it actually had far-reaching consequences. England and France emerged as dominant powers in Europe at the end of the Schism, due to their careful mutual exploitation of the situation. Because both popes constantly sought to undermine each other’s authority, and involved themselves deeply in non-religious matters, popular opinion of the Church declined severely. This would later lead to a new, humanistic view of the Church, a view that would pave the way into the Renaissance.

Completely cut off this part. She is too strong of a writer to need these "tricks" of a summary presented as a conclusion. Work on the conclusion she had in the paragraph above, just reword it / elaborate. (Also, note the contradiction between the ending notes here and above.)

 

Overall, not bad - I selected some of what I viewed as potentially problematic points, but most of the essay has a good flow and factual background. However, where are the sources? I would agree that the topic is general enough to write it without elaborate bibliography, but was it supposed to be this type of a paper?

Hear weakness is a conclusion, basically. The paper otherwise reads well and there is sufficient clarity.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Ester Maria
misspelling

[regentrude]

Overall, not bad - I selected some of what I viewed as potentially problematic points, but most of the essay has a good flow and factual background. However, where are the sources? I would agree that the topic is general enough to write it without elaborate bibliography, but was it supposed to be this type of a paper?

Hear weakness is a conclusion, basically. The paper otherwise reads well and there is sufficient clarity.

 

Thanks for taking to time to her and critique the paper, EsterMaria. I will pass your comments on to her and have her incorporate your suggestions in the revision.

I had specifically assigned this as a summary and not as a research paper with cited sources; she was not supposed to have a bibliography. We are saving that for another topic.

[Ester Maria]

Thanks for taking to time to her and critique the paper, EsterMaria. I will pass your comments on to her and have her incorporate your suggestions in the revision.

I had specifically assigned this as a summary and not as a research paper with cited sources; she was not supposed to have a bibliography. We are saving that for another topic.

Ah, okay then. :)

 

Trust me on one thing, through - you do not need to worry about this child's writing in general. Having seen a few of her papers, she is very good. I feel like most of the suggestions I leave next to her writings are of "aesthetical" nature, i.e. nuances, more than anything that seriously needs fixing. You both seem to be doing an excellent job.

[regentrude]

Trust me on one thing, through - you do not need to worry about this child's writing in general. Having seen a few of her papers, she is very good. I feel like most of the suggestions I leave next to her writings are of "aesthetical" nature, i.e. nuances, more than anything that seriously needs fixing. You both seem to be doing an excellent job.

 

Thanks. She'll be thrilled to hear that (and I am, too). We value your suggestions because, as I just discussed with her, at this stage it is about nuances and details to make it really good. (And these are things I don't catch, although they make perfect sense as soon as you point them out.)

 

I can't take credit for anything though, because she does it all on her own. I just asked her to write a paper - and a few hours later she handed me four pages. I read it and found 2-3 small things for her to fix before handing it off to the hive. I feel really lucky that this comes easy to her.