 |
 |
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture Phyllis, Now would be a good time to start cramming to teach a class in Reformation History for the Fall. But, for this summer? WOW!!!! Get this book, ASAP!!!!!: _A History of the Christian Church_, by Williston Walker (Most recent editions edited by Robert T. Handy, Cyril C. Richardson, and Wilhelm Pauck.) Start with (my references are to the 3rd edition) Chapter 9 (p.216) and read through the end of Chapter 17 (p. 421). Then, read the following: Owen Chadwick. _The Reformation_, vol. 3 in _Penguin History of the Church_. Alister E. McGrath. _Reformation Thought: An Introduction_. Roland H. Bainton. _The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century_. J.R.H. Moorman. _A History of the Church of England_. You will want to bone-up on the Counter-Reformation, too, as it is part of the whole picture. See the Council of Trent. In England we find four major "strands" to consider: (1) The Anglicans of the Catholic but non-Papal "Church of England;" (2) The Lutheran influence; (3) The Calvinist (via John Knox, in Scotland) influence; (4) The Puritan influence (very Calvinisticly favored individuals, who tried to wrest control of the Church of England to "purify" it--and who did wrest control, and caused the Interregnum, under Cromwell (King Charles the Martyr), before the Restoration of the monarchy, and the Anglicans regaining control of their church). In England there is also the Recussant influence (and persecution of them). You will see how the "Elizabethan Compromise" was a _political_ settlement than allowed opposite parties to remain in the Church together. Some things, such as the so-called "Articles of Religion" were written in a vague enough manner, that those holding opposite views could each claim that the Articles sustained either view. On the continent, you need to see Martin Luther as the "spirit" behind the so-called Evangelical (Evangelishe) Reformation, but Phillip Malancton was the brains behind Luther. Look at the Leipsig Interim of 1548 as the means by which the Evangelical Reformation stayed together. Check out the concept of "adiaphora." The Reformed movement is Calvin's creation, in Switzerland. Calvin and Luther agreed on many things. However, Luther and Calvin could not agree on the Real Presence in the Eucharistic Species. Get back to us with questions, if you need to. This is all off the top of my head. I'll give it some more thought. In fact, I'll probably lose sleep over it, worring about you. I can't get to my files just now, or at least I could give you a syllabus on the Reformation. If you need to choose a textbook for the course, Bainton's would be a good choice. Maddy has a book out on the reformation, too, but I can't remember the title, and I have not seen it--it would be worth looking into. I think she is a member of this list, isn't she? Madeleine Grey? "Evangelical" churches are "Lutheran." "Reformed" chuches are "Calvinist." Oh, before I forget, you probably want to familiarize yourself with Wyclif in England and John Hus in Bohemia, as "precursors" to the Reformation. Remember that the English Reformation and the Continental Reformation are two different entities. Moorman covers that well. I will find and email the appropriate passages in the Magna Carta of 1215. The Pope, you recall, condemned the Magna Carta. So far as the "abominable heresy of the Mass," you will come to understand why the Calvinists/Puritans thought that way. Maybe more later, on that. Also, political history looms big, in Europe--see Ducal Saxony versus Electoral Saxony. Power struggles in the Holy Roman Empire figure in, as to which "side" local rulers took. The influence of the rise of Universities. At the close of the fifteenth century, the Christian status quo was ripe conflict. "Theology, as such, had largely lost its hold on popular thought, discredited by nominalism, despised by humanism, and supplanted by mysticism. ¶ It was no dead age to which Luther was to speak, but one seething with unrest, vexed with multitudinous unsolved problems and unfulfilled longings." (Walker, p. 297) This has all been a very quick "hip shoot," sorry! Good luck! Terrill ----------------- Phyllis Jestice wrote: > I'm frantically cramming Reformation history to teach a class on the > subject for the first time this summer (!) Much is illuminating, > some things are just downright confusing. This afternoon (for the > 30th time or so) I've come across sixteenth-century reformers > denouncing the medieval mass as heretical/blasphemous/sacrilegious or > words to that effect. And I don't understand why. I know that > something about the mass as "sacrifice" (a re-enactment of Christ's > sacrifice on the cross?) is involved in this denunciation. But I > don't really have any sense of how the late medieval mass was > different theologically or ecclesiologically from the Episcopalian > eucharist I go to on Sundays---and none of the standard books on the > Reformation are explaining this in terms that make sense to me. I'd > appreciate any help in understanding this, either on- or offlist. ********************************************************************** To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME to: [log in to unmask] To send a message to the list, address it to: [log in to unmask] To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion to: [log in to unmask] In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to: [log in to unmask] For further information, visit our web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html