Finals History Exam

It's hard to determine what Columbus found most interesting in his discoveries. I think his awe at the beauty of the foreign animals, fruits, forests, and landscape was his most interesting find. Either the environment or the people because Columbus and his crew describes the Native Americans as "well made, with fine shapes and faces". Now, what Columbus was most interested in finding (besides what he already saw as noted above) was gold. He had the Natives lead them to meet their 'king' whom they said had gold: "The gold, also, which they wear in their noses, is found here, but not to lose time, I am determined to proceed onward and ascertain whether I can reach Cipango." Columbus' encounters with the natives were respectful and peaceful. There were a couple of instances where the natives fled from the Spaniards, but overall, Columbus found the Natives to be agreeable and even "open to the possibility of accepting Christianity" Catholic Answers: Most accounts of Columbus's voyages mistake his motives by focusing narrowly on economic or political reasons. But in fact, his primary motive was to find enough gold to finance a crusade to retake Jerusalem from the Muslims, as evidenced by a letter he wrote in December 1492 to King Fernando and Queen Isabel, encouraging them to "spend all the profits of this my enterprise on the conquest of Jerusalem."[9] In this, he believed he was fulfilling conditions for the Second Coming of Christ. Near the end of his life, he even compiled a book about the connection between the liberation of Jerusalem and the Second Coming.[10] Catholic Answers: Bio- https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/christopher-columbus About Columbus: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/columbus-the-real-story

.Upon discovering the "West Indies," what is Columbus most interested in finding? Meanwhile, what does he think of the inhabitants they find on the islands?

According to Martin Luther's Address to the Christian nobility of the German Nation, the three complaints are: 1) The Church insists that it can not be pressed by temporal power and that the spiritual power, which they have, is over temporal. Romanists claim temporal power has no power over them because Spiritual power is over temporal. Luther argues that both powers are co-equal, or maybe temporal power is endowed to spiritual because temporal power can elect and establish ecclesiastical positions to administer spiritual power. 2) If it were proposed to admonish the Catholics with Scripture, they would argue that no one may interpret the Scriptures but the Pope. Luther argues that others should be able to interpret. Explain why only certain clerics and people have translations to read scripture: so commoners don't misinterpret scripture and start heresies! 3) The Catholics pretend that no one may call a council but the Pope. Luther argues that anyone can start a council->temporal and spiritual powers. Re-read his readings in Luther then proposes to 'tare down the paper walls' of this argument by using the following methods: dissolving Ecclesiastical authority, priestly estate, Papal authority, appointing temporal power. Martin Luther Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation (1520) J.H. Robinson, ed. Readings in European History (Boston: Ginn, 1906), 2: The Romanists have, with great adroitness, drawn three walls round themselves, with which they have hitherto protected themselves, so that no one could reform them, whereby all Christendom has fallen terribly. First, if pressed by the temporal power, they have affirmed and maintained that the temporal power has no jurisdiction over them, but, on the contrary, that the spiritual power is above the temporal. Secondly, if it were proposed to admonish them with the Scriptures, they objected that no one may interpret the Scriptures but the Pope. Thirdly, if they are threatened with a council, they pretend that no one may call a council but the Pope ... Now may God help us, and give us one of those trumpets that overthrew the walls of Jericho, so that we may blow down these walls of straw and paper, and that we may set free our Christian rods for the chastisement of sin, and expose the craft and deceit of the devil, so that we may amend ourselves by punishment and again obtain God's favour. Let us, in the first place, attack the first wall. It has been devised that the Pope, bishops, priests, and monks are called the spiritual estate; princes, lords, artificers, and peasants, are the temporal estate. This is an artful lie and hypocritical device, but let no one be made afraid by it, and that for this reason: that all Christians are truly of the spiritual estate, and there is no difference among them, save of office alone. As St. Paul says (i Cor. xii), we are all one body, though each member does its own work, to serve the others, This is because we have one baptism, one Gospel, one faith, and are all Christians alike; for baptism, Gospel, and faith, these alone make spiritual and Christian people. As for the unction by a pope or a bishop, tonsure, ordination, consecration, and clothes differing from those of laymen-all this may make a hypocrite or an anointed puppet, but never a Christian or a spiritual man. Thus we are all consecrated as, priests by baptism, as St. Peter says: 'Ye are a royal priesthood, a holy nation (i Pet. ii. 9); and in the book of Revelation: 'and hast made us unto our God (by Thy blood) kings and priests' (Rev. v. io). For, if we had not a higher consecration in us than pope or bishop can give, no priest could ever be made by the consecration of pope or bishop, nor could he say the mass or preach or absolve. Therefore the bishop's consecration is just as if in the name of the whole congregation he took one person out of the community; each member of which has equal power, and commanded him to exercise this power for the rest; in the same way as if ten brothers, co-heirs as king's sons, were to choose one from among them to rule over their'inheritance, they would all of them still remain- kings and have equal power, although one is ordered to govern. And to put the matter more plainly, if a little company of pious Christian laymen were taken prisoners and carried away to a desert, and had not among them a priest consecrated by a bishop, and were there to agree to elect one of them and were to order him to baptise, to celebrate the mass, to absolve and to preach, this man would as truly be a priest, as if all the bishops and all the popes had consecrated him. That is why, in cases of necessity, every man can baptise and absolve, which would not be possible if we were not all priests. This great grace and virtue of baptism and of the Christian estate they have quite destroyed and made us forget by their ecclesiastical law . . . Since then the temporal power is baptized as we are, and has the same faith and Gospel, we must allow it to be priest and bishop, and account its office an office that is proper and useful to the Christian community. For whatever issues from baptism may boast that it has been consecrated priest, bishop, and pope, although it does not beseem every one to exercise these offices. For, since we are all priests alike, no man may put himself forward or take upon himself without our consent and election, to do that which we have all alike power to do. For if a thing is common to all, no man may take it to himself without the wish and command of the community. And if it should happen that a man were appointed to one of these offices and deposed for abuses, he would be just what he was before. Therefore a priest should be nothing in Christendom but a functionary; as long as he holds his office, he has precedence of others; if he is deprived of it, he is a peasant or a citizen like the rest. Therefore a priest is verily no longer a priest after deposition. But now they have invented characteres indelibiles, and pretend that a priest after deprivation still differs from a simple layman. They even imagine that a priest can never be anything but a priest-that is, that he become a layman. All this is nothing but mere ordinance of human invention. It follows then, that between laymen and priests, princes and bishops, or, as they call it, between spiritual and temporal sons, the only real difference is one of office and function, and not of estate. . . . . . .Therefore I say, Forasmuch as the temporal power has been ordained by God for the punishment of the bad and the protection of the good, we must let it do its duty throughout the whole Christian body, without respect of persons, whether it strike popes, bishops, priests, monks, nuns, or whoever it may be.... Whatever the ecclesiastical law has said in opposition to this is merely the invention of Romanist arrogance. . . . Now, I imagine the first paper wall is overthrown, inasmuch the temporal power has become a member of the Christian body; although its work relates to the body, yet does it belong to the spritual estate. . . . The second wall is even more tottering and weak: that they end to be considered masters of the Scriptures. . . . If of our faith is right, 'I believe in the holy Christian church,' the.Pope cannot alone be right; else we must say, 'I believe in the Pope of Rome,' and reduce the Christian Church to one man, which is a devilish and damnable heresy. Besides that, we are all priests, as I have said, and have all one faith, one Gospel, one Sacrament ; how then should we not have the power of discerning and judging what is right or wrong in matters of faith ? ... The third wall falls of itself, as soon as the first two have fallen; for if the Pope acts contrary to the Scriptures, we are bound to stand by the Scriptures to punish and to constrain him, according to Christ's commandment . 'tell it unto the Church' (Matt. xviii. 15-17). . . . If then I am to accuse him before the Church, I must collect the Church together. . . .Therefore when need requires, and the Pope is a cause of offence to Christendom, in these cases whoever can best do so, as a faithful member of the whole body, must do what he can to procure a true free council. This no one can do so we as the temporal authorities, especially since they are fellow-Christians, fellow-priests. . . . Review his writing: http://articles.ochristian.com/article10368.shtml More information about Martin Luther: https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/world-history/renaissance-and-reformation/protestant-reformation/a/an-introduction-to-the-protestant-reformation Crash course: https://peralta.instructure.com/courses/25481/pages/1-dot-5-european-reformations-reading?module_item_id=672479

.What are the three complaints that Luther raises against the "Romanists"?

Ah! Pride plays a key role in the disputes between the kings not wishing to submit his authority to the other because both believe they have the right to the throne. Frankly, the primary reason for the Hundred Years War was a dispute between the French and English King concerning the rightful heir to the French throne. When Philip VI succeeded to the French throne he required Edward III, king of England, to do homage for the Duchy of Guienne or Aquitaine. Both were cousins (according to the text), but Edward refused to pay full homage to Philip before discovering who owned some of the French provinces and who was in greater authority. "The King of England refused on that occasion [to pay Philip homage] without first returning to England to see and story the earlier charters which would throw light on the matter and show how and in what respect the King of England should declare himself the man of the King of France. The King of France, seeing that his cousin the King of England was young understood this reasoning perfectly and did not try to press him then." 1337 and Edward the III just had his French lands confiscated. Normally such a conflict would be resolved by an English king acknowledging that he held these lands as a subject by French Authority. Edward tried vainly to negotiate with the French but after a delegation failed to arrive during a counsel, Edward declared war on the French. To further support his authority by declaring himself as the rightful king of France according to his mother's heritage: "Edward =, by the grace of God King of England and Ireland, write to Philip of Valois. Since it falls out that in succession to our beloved uncle, Lord Charles, the King of France, we are heir to the realm and crown of France by a much closer degree of kinship than yourself, who have entered into possession of our heritage and are holding and desire to hold it by force, although we have several times pointed this out to you and have had it again pointed out by such worthy and eminent advisers as those of the Church and the Holy College of Rome, in agreement with the noble Emperor, head of all adjudications to which matters and demands you have never been willing to listen, but have held and still hold to your unjustly founded opinion. Wherefore we give you notice that we shall claim and conquer our heritage of France by the armed force of us and ours, and from this day forward we and ours challenge you and yours, and we rescind the pledge and homage which we gave you without good grounds; and we now place our domain of Ponthieu together without our other heritage, under the protection of God not under yours, since we consider you our enemy and adversary. Given in our palace of Westminster, in the presence of our whole counsel, the nineteenth day of October." Naturally, this proposal brought about the war, that is, the beginning of the Hundred Years War. Videos/ additional info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0NXWfCLIfI https://www.ancient.eu/Hundred_Years'_War/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LagA3OzatBU Battle of Crecy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q05qzubql8Q

.What is the primary reason for the Hundred Years War? That is, what is the essential cause of this conflict?

Upon the death of the king of the Romans (which ever king), the archbishop of Mainz shall send notices of the king's death and of the approaching election to all the electoral princes. Should the archbishop neglect or refuse to send such notices, the electoral princes are commanded on their fidelity to assemble on their own motion and without summons at the city of Frankfort within three months from the death of the emperor, for the purpose of electing of electing a king of the Romans and future emperors. Britannica: Golden Bull of Emperor Charles IV, constitution for the Holy Roman Empire promulgated in 1356 by the emperor Charles IV. It was intended to eliminate papal interference in German political affairs and to recognize the importance of the princes, especially the electors, of the empire. Its name, like that of other "golden bulls," derived from its authentication with a golden seal (Latin bulla). Returning to Germany in July 1355 after his coronation as emperor in Rome, Charles IV summoned the princes to deliberations at Nürnberg, which resulted in the promulgation of the first 23 chapters of the Golden Bull on Jan. 10, 1356; the concluding 8 chapters were added after further negotiation with the princes in Metz on Dec. 25, 1356. The purpose was to place the election of the German ruler firmly in the hands of the seven electors and to ensure that the candidate elected by the majority should succeed without dispute. That the electoral college (see elector) consisted of three ecclesiastical and four lay princes had been established since 1273, but it was not always clear who these seven were. Therefore, the Saxon vote was now attached to the Wittenberg (not the Lauenburg) branch of the Saxon dynasty; the vote was given to the count Palatine (not to the duke of Bavaria); and the special position of Bohemia, of which Charles himself was king, was expressly recognized. In addition Charles established succession by primogeniture, attached the electoral vote to the possession of certain lands, and decreed that these territories should never be divided. The candidate elected by the majority was regarded as unanimously elected and entitled to exercise his royal rights immediately. Thus the pope's claim to examine rival candidates and to approve the election was ignored. Also, by instituting the duke of Saxony and the count Palatine as regents during the vacancy, the Golden Bull excluded the pope's claim to act as vicar. These results were achieved only by concessions to the electoral princes, who were given sovereign rights, including tallage and coinage, in their principalities. Appeals by their subjects were severely curtailed; conspiracies against them incurred the penalties of treason. Moreover, the efforts of cities to ensure autonomous development were repressed, with serious and long-lasting consequences for the future of the German middle classes. In theory, these privileges were confined to the seven electors; in practice, all the princes quickly adopted them.

According to the "Golden Bull," upon the death of the king of the Romans what was the archbishop (of what city) to do? What was to happen if the archbishop failed to do as was required?

Here are some differences and similarities between the two readings of St. Francis and St. Dominic: Differences: St. Francis states that he led a life of sin prior to his conversion, "When I was in sin the sight of lepers was too bitter for me". We know from other sources that St. Francis, up until his early years of manhood, was a play boy joyously roaming the Streets of Assisi with his companions. However, St. Dominic, at an early age was "often caught getting out of his bed as though he already hated the delights of the flesh". Also, St. Dominic's parents considered Dominic to be a holy son. In St. Francis' testament, he encourages the brothers to work at some honest job, not to receive wages, but to set an example and avoid idleness. It appears that Francis' order requires more physical labor where St. Dominic's rule is focused on teaching and education. Similarities: Aside from the similarities of the rule (benediction, divine office, etc), both leaders wish for the monks to imitate a life of poverty and obedience like Christ. They are not to take with them anything when they go abroad. Biography: Francis- https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=50 Dominic- https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=178

Briefly compare and contrast St. Francis and St. Dominic given what is said in the readings.

According to Byzantium, behind the scenes at the council of Florence was a division of the Greek clergy arguing about uniting with the Latins. Although the Byzantines need financial and military aid to defend themselves against the Turks, the majority of Bishops affirm that the Latins are not only schismatics but heretics because in the Latin creed it states "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son". Although it appears the Orthodox bishops are being weary with an alliance with the Latins (more specifically with the Roman Church), I think the 'back-room views' are greatly upheld by the pride and stubbornness of the Byzantines, i.e. holding grudges when the Latins sacked Constantinople from 1204-1261, not wanting to be considered 'Latin': "I would rather die than ever to Latinize!" The conclusion of the Byzantine party as accounted in #163 of Byzantium, the council of Florence failed because of the opposition of the bulk of the Byzantine populace. Thus, the Greek clergy declared the Romans to be anathema because they have rejected the hope of God and trusted the strength of the Franks. (read Byzantium)

Discuss the "back-room" views on the part of the Byzantines at the Council of Florence? What is the conclusion of the Byzantine party?

The Act of Supremacy was established by King Henry VIII after he split from the Catholic church to divorce his wife. The Act decrees that the king is the supreme head of the Church of England, contrary to the Pope (head of the whole Church) or Bishops. This is interesting because Henry merely changed these rules to suit his whims. Ironically, the king is to secure the "increase of virtue in Christ's religion within the realm of England, and to repress and extirpate all errors, heresies, and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same" when he introduced corruption with his own vice. The Supremacy was merely an edict of dominion, thus reflecting the title "Act of Supremacy", over the authority of the Church which is called Anglicanism. Similar to Henry II with Thomas Becket, the King tried to enforce his authority on the church (mainly by controlling Becket), but Becket refused to submit his authority, saying that it was God's duty first, then the King's. The Church of England Henry was a keen scholar of theology and he had no intention of leaving such an important institution as the Church to its own devices. The king wrote a treatise which attacked Lutheranism and was rewarded by the Pope honouring him in 1521 CE with the title 'Defender of the Faith' (fidei defensor - the F.D. still appears on U.K. coins today). Relations turned sour, though, when Henry wanted his marriage to his first wife Catherine of Aragon annulled and the king blamed both the Pope and Wolsey for the lack of progress in the matter. Wolsey was eventually accused of treason but he died on his way to trial in 1530 CE. When Thomas Cromwell took over the case, Henry's will was pushed to its logical conclusion: England would run its own Church free from the obligations of Rome. Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury formally annulled Henry's first marriage in May 1533 CE (although Henry and Anne Boleyn had married in secret a few months earlier). This annulment and Parliament's passing of the Act of Succession (30 April 1534 CE) meant that Catherine's daughter Mary was declared illegitimate. Anne Boleyn was crowned queen in June and her daughter Elizabeth, born in September 1533 CE, was thus recognised as the king's official heir. Henry was excommunicated by the Pope for his actions but by now the whole affair had taken on a significance far beyond royal marriages. Cardinal Wolsey by Unknown Artist (Public Domain) In order to replace the Pope as head of the Catholic Church in England, Henry made himself head of the Church of England. This was achieved by the Act of Supremacy of 28 November 1534 CE and meant that Henry, and all subsequent English monarchs, only had one higher authority: God himself. The next scene in this momentous drama came in 1536 CE when Henry presented Parliament with a bill to abolish all monasteries in his kingdom, the Dissolution of the Monasteries. The bill was passed and the estates of the monasteries were redistributed to the Crown and Henry's supporters. The abbots of Glastonbury, Colchester, Reading, and Woburn were all hanged and the last monastery to close was Waltham Abbey in Essex in March 1540 CE. A good many subjects were keen to see reform in the Church and so continue the Protestant Reformation movement that was sweeping across Europe. Many regarded the Church as too rich and too full of priests abusing their position. Certainly not everyone, however, was in agreement with Henry's break from the Pope. Consequently, there were both executions and uprisings. Chief obstacle at court was Sir Thomas More (1478-1535 CE), Henry's former chancellor who disagreed with the divorce with Catherine and Henry's presumption to put himself above the Pope. More was executed for his beliefs in July 1535 CE. History: https://www.ancient.eu/Henry_VIII_of_England/ https://study.com/academy/lesson/henry-viii-and-the-anglican-church.html St. John Fisher: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08462b.htm

Explain the Act of Supremacy; that is, what authority does this act give to the king? When was this enacted?

The King of England waited a whole year outside Calais to starve the citizens within the city because he knew the city was fortified with much wealth and stocks processions. When the military commander saw that the English were preparing a long siege, he told the poor citizens to depart for they had neither stocks nor provisions. They left, but when they were stopped and questioned by the English the reason for their departure, they replied that they had nothing to live on. Ironically, the King of English provided a hearty meal and two pence for each poor man showing more clemency to the poor than their own French leaders. In the meanwhile, the King of France attempted to approach the English but was prevented because he found no means to reach the English. Therefore, Philip sent two envoys imploring that Edward move to a different location so the two armies could fight properly. Edward replied saying that he had ever right to be stationed where he was because of his lawful heritage which infuriated Philip. Finally, the citizens of Calais, seeing that the French support had failed them and they were so weakened by hunger that they held a council. They decided it would be better to throw themselves on the mercy of the King of England (for his mercy was well known) if they could not obtain better terms than to die one by one of starvation; for hunger might drive many of them frantic and cost them their souls with their bodies. Thus, they sent the Governor, Sir Jean de Vienne, to negotiate with the English. He went and walked with Sir Walter Manny and Lord Basset (whom the king sent), asking the English to release the townspeople and take the town. This is not what Edward had in mind. He wanted to avenge the people of Calais for the much suffering and vexation the people cause him. Thus, Walter, wanting to have peace and not shed innocent blood, returned to Edward relating Jean's message. The King was unmoved but finally gave into the French's requests after seeing the barons support to release the citizens. Edward consented to the proposal under condition that the French provide 6 principal citizens to come out, with their heads and their feet bare, halters around their necks and keys of the town and castle in their hands. Only then will he spare the rest of the people. Though dismayed at the thought of losing their lords, 6 principal citizens bravely agreed to obey what Edward had commanded for the sake of the people. Though humiliated at their appearance, the French approached the King as commanded and threw themselves at his mercy. Unmoved by their pleas, the kind ordered that they be decapitated at once. Despite the barons' protests, the king remained firm until his wife, the Queen of England, threw himself at her husbands feet weeping that Edward spare the lives of the Frenchmen. Not wanting to distress his wife in her currently pregnant state, Edward's heart was moved and he allowed his wife to do whatever she please with the prisoners. She provided clothes, food, and sent them on their way to return to their people. The siege's outcome: https://www.britannica.com/event/Siege-of-Calais-1346-47 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOzXBss5gD0

Explain the Siege of Calais, what precipitated it, and its outcome. Be thorough.

Examine how the people reacted: Physiologically, the impact affected the people in various ways. 1) The people were paranoid about catching the plague so they avoided others at all costs. This paranoia separated the unity of the people. 2) God-fearing: Many people thought the plague was a punishment from God. You can probably imagine the extremes of the people's reaction: great mortification or losing the faith completely because you're already doomed to die. 3) Disregard for the dead. When people died before the plague struck, the funeral ceremony was rather significant. There were women mourning, neighbors gathering to pay their respects, a procession to the Church, and a funeral mass. Now, with people dropping like flies, death was a common occurrence and the death of a relative, friend, or neighbor was disregarded. There was one example used to express the common occurrence of death: they were regarded as mere livestock dying. Thus for many, the impact mostly affected their regard towards people in general. To read about the people's reaction, read this paper: Description of the culture: (Read Paper from Week of March 16-20)

How does Boccaccio describe the psychological impact on people as a result of the plague?

During the struggle Pope Boniface VIII faced during the struggle with the King of France (Philip IV), Cardinal Peter of Spain remained with the Pope all through the struggle although the rest of his retinue had slipped away. Sciarra and his forces paraded into the City of Angna (they had an alliance with some of the Cardinals and Lords of Cercono and Supino)and broke into the papal palace before making their way to the Pope. In the Viking reader it states "Pope Boniface, hearing the uproar and seeing himself forsaken by all his cardinals [except Peter of Spain], which were fled and in hiding, and by most part of his servants, and seeing that his enemies had taken the city and the palace where he was-gave himself up for lost, but like the high-spirited and valorous man he was, he said "Since, like Jesus Christ, I am willing to take to be taken and needs must die by treachery, at the least I desire to die as Pope" and he caused himself to be robed in the mantle of St. Peter and with the crown of Constantine on his heads and with the keys and the cross in his hand, he seated himself upon his papal chair". When the forces found the Pope they pressed him as to whether he would resign the Papacy, but he refused saying in his vernacular: "E le col, e le cape!" which means "Here is my neck and here is my head". He was willing to offer his life and die as Pope than resign the Papacy. After this, no one dared touch the Pope but instead pillaged the chambers and treasurer of utensils and clothing, fixtures, gold and silver and everything they found. The Pope was held prisoner for 3 days, but on the Third day he was released. In Pope Boniface VIII's "The Superiority of the Spiritual Authority", Pope Boniface states that because there is only, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, so too is there one who represents the mystic body of Christ. He gives an analogy on Noah's ark: "There was one ark of Noah, indeed, at the time of the flood, symbolizing the one Church; and this being finished in one cubit had, namely, one Noah as helmsman and commander (the Pope). His second analogy is given with the sword: " For when the apostles said, "behold here are two swords" they speak of the Church..... Both swords, the spiritual and the material, are in the power of the Church; the one, indeed, to be wielded for the Church, the other by the Church. The one by the hand of the priest, the other by the hand of kings and knights, but at the will and sufferance of the priest. One sword, moreover, ought to be under the other, and the temporal authority to be subjected to the spiritual. .For when the apostle says, "there is no power but of God, and the powers that are of God are ordained," they would not be ordained unless the sword were under sword and the lesser one, as it were, were led by the other to great deeds. Here's a description: Villani's view of Pope Boniface was rather confusing (to me at least). His passage seemed to contradict the intentions of the Pope. For example, he says that the idea of killing the Pope was wronged and presents the dire situation as a lesson for the soldiers to understand the divine authority of the Pope over their secular rule. However, after portraying Boniface as a saint, he turns around and says "The judgment of God is not to be marveled at for Pope Boniface was more worldly than was fitting to his dignity, and had dome many things displeasing to God, God caused him to be punished after the fashion that we have said, and afterward he punished the offender against him, not so much for the injury against the person of Pope Boniface, but for the sin committed against the Divine Majesty, whose countenance he represented on earth". I suppose this passage would portray an argument for either side, that is, they justified neither action between Pope and king Philip. Villani describes the Pope as: -very wise in both learning and natural wit -a man very cautious and experienced -great knowledge and memory -very haughty and proud -cruel towards his enemies and adversaries -was great of heart but was feared by all people

How does Pope Boniface VIII defend the position and the institution of the papacy? That is, what does he argue in defense of papal supremacy?

Aquinas' definition of science: When he says "sacred doctrine is a science" it will be clear that it's not a science in the modern sense of the word. What he means is that science is something that begins from certain principles and reasons based on those principles to further truths. For example: In the case of geometry, two parallel lines will never cross making that statement self-evident. No one can explain why that's the case but it's true. Reason sees it and accepts it. The claim that "geometry is a science" is built on these self-evident principles and it develops those principles to the reason which eventually concludes to rational conclusions based on these first principles. Therefore, without the basic principles of any 'science' (i.e. "parallel lines will cross". you can't reason with someone on the basis of Geometry if that person doesn't even believe basic principles. So if someone doesn't believe in God, you can't argue for the evidence of sacred doctrine because they don't have those basic principles). The 1st objector says "it can't be a sceience because it doesn't have self-evident principles" Aquinas argues that there are two types of sciences: 1) begins from self-evident principles 2) first principles are established by the light of another science. For instance, music has numerical values (the notes) so the truths in music are established by arithmetic. So this superior science still uses reason from the beginning from certain to reach further conclusions and so-on. Not all sciences have self-evident principles. In some cases, the 1st principles of a science are established by another science. That's the way that Sacred Doctrine works because they were not established by reason but they were revealed by God. According to St. Augustine, "to this science alone belongs that whereby saving faith is begotten, nourished, protected and strengthened". This can be said of no science except sacred doctrine St. Thomas argues. Bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences: Some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence (math and geometry and the like) Others proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science, thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is, says St. Thomas, that sacred doctrine is not only a science but a higher science because it is the science of God and the blessed.

How is it that sacred doctrine is a science according to St. Thomas?

According to Knighton's report, the Black Death originated from Indea, then Tharsis, then it infected the Saracense, and finally the Christians and the Jews. How the plague arrived in Europe was most likely spread through the trading market or tradesmen from the Eeast. According to Kahn Academy, "the plague was likely spread through Erasia via trade routes and were carried by parasites on the backs of rodents. The bacterium Yersinia pestis likely traveled from China to the northwestern shores to the Caspian Sea, then part of the Mongol Empire by the spring of 1346, Italian merchants in the Crimea, brought the disease west".

In Knighton's report on the Black Death, where does he say the plague originates and how does it arrive in Europe?

St. Ignatius of Loyola's mission was to re-convert the fallen away Catholics by distributing pamphlets to people's houses, writing books, etc. In a sense, he was the true reformer. Ignatius responds to various charges made by Luther and others against the Catholic Church with various arguments, but three specific responses directly address the heresies: 1) All judgement laid aside, we ought to have our mind ready and prompt to obey, in all, the true Spouse of Christ our Lord, which is our Holy Mother the Church Hierarchical: "Unto you, Peter, upon this rock, I will build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it". When Luther wrote concerning one God, one faith, and one baptism, he forgot to include that Christ only instituted One Church. This blends with another rule: To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it, believing that between Christ our Lord, the Bridegroom, and the Church, His Bride, there is the same Spirit which governs and directs us for the salvation of our souls. Because the same Spirit and Our Lord who gave the 10 commandments, our Holy Mother the Church is directed and governed with the same spirit. Although two separate rules, they enforce the same response. 2) We ought not, by way of custom, to speak much of predestination; but if in someway and at some times one speaks, let him so speak that the common people may not come into any error, as sometimes happens, saying: Whether I have to be saved or condemned is already determined, and no other thing can now be, through my doing well or ill; and with this,growing lazy, they become negligent in the works which lead to the salvation and the spiritual profit of their souls. 3). In the same way, we must be on our guard that by talking much and with much insistence of faith, without any distinction and explanation, occasion be not given to the people to be lazy and slothful in works, whether before faith is formed in charity or after. (Thus, be wary of misinterpretation because it leads to error!) Counter-reformation: https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/world-history/renaissance-and-reformation/protestant-reformation/v/introduction-to-the-protestant-reformation-the-counter-reformation-4-of-4 Theological seminary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHjVsNFE60U Crash course: https://nerdfighteria.info/v/xy_M4pDjafo/

St. Ignatius of Loyola responds to various charges made by Luther and others against the Catholic Church. List three specific responses that St. Ignatius offers to these various charges.

According to the objections in Thomas Aquinas' article, the four senses of meanings that words can have in scripture are: -Historical or literal -Allegorical -Tropological or moral -Anagogical Thomas summarises the four senses as thus: "History, etiology, analogy, and parabolical are all grouped under literal. Of these four, allegory alone stands for the three spiritual senses. Thus, Hugh of St. Victor includes the anagogical under the allegorical sense, laying down three senses only- the historical, allegorical, and topological". Lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLbXOWniaCY FOUR SENSES OF SCRIPTURE The most important part of reading the Bible is making sure you understand the literal sense of the text. This can mean knowing the vocabulary, understanding the literary form of the text, investigating the original language used, or unpacking the symbolism of a parable. For example, when Jesus says "I am the vine, you are the branches" (John 15:5), you have to know he is referring to himself being the main shoot of a grapevine and his disciples being the offshoots, and not to himself being a vine clinging to the branches of a tree. When God appears to Abram as "a smoking brazier and a flaming torch" (Genesis 15:17, NAB), you need to know that a brazier is a small, portable metal pot for holding smoking coals, and not a bra (brassiere)! Once the literal sense of the text is understood, there are three spiritual senses that can be discovered. The first spiritual sense is the allegorical sense, by which we understand the events recorded in the Bible by recognizing how they point to Christ. The story of the Israelites and their exodus from Egypt can be interpreted allegorically as the salvation of a sinner from sin, with the crossing of the Red Sea symbolizing baptism. The second spiritual sense is the moral sense, which teaches us how Christ desires his disciples to act. Some parts of Scripture are very clearly moral teachings, such as when Jesus tells his disciples to turn the other cheek to one who strikes them (Matthew 5:39). In other places the moral meaning must be uncovered. In the parable of Jesus where a widow begs a judge day after day to hear her case, the moral teaching is that Christians should persevere in prayer. The third spiritual sense is the anagogical sense, which reveals the eternal significance of events and realities recorded in the Bible; that is, it relates the events to death, the final judgment, hell, and heaven. This sense is very apparent in the parables of Jesus that involve the judgment at the end of time, like the separation of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46). Cite: http://www.catholiccrossreference.com/biblestudy/four-senses-of-scripture/

What are the four senses or meanings that words can have in Holy Scripture?

The two canons/laws that were issued by the Council of Constance in 1415 were: 1) the council has it's power immediately from Christ, and everyone, whatever his state or position, even if it be the Papal dignity itself, is bound to obey the council in all those things which pertain to the faith and the healing of the schism for the general reformation of the Church of God, in bead, and members (We need this reformation today). Since the council derived authority from Christ, not the Pope, they can override any corrupt pope. It's interesting; Perhaps this is where Luther's ideas originate. The council can not decree something without the pope's final approval where the Pope cannot decree anything without the council's approval (at least in modern-day). 2) Everyone is subject to what the council decrees from the Pope and Emperor down to the servant. Whosoever disobeys these laws, shall, unless he repudiates his conduct, be subject to condign penance and be suitably punished, having recourse, if necessary to the other resources of law. There was a later claim (during Peter Waldo's life) that anyone who did not believe in Transubstantiation would be executed. Again, this is a struggle between powers: Ecclesiastical and political. To inflict punishment over a people for a people was a threat and many of the reformers were turned against the pope because of such claims.

What are the two canons/laws that were issued by the Council of Constance in 1415? Explain in detail.

Aquinas says that all action and movement is for some perfection. If the action itself be the end, it is clearly a second perfection to the agent. If the action intends to induce some perfection into the thing moved: towards which perfection the movable tends, if the movement is to be natural. Now when we say a thing is perfect, we mean that it is good (even if it isn't really good, humans perceive 'goodness and perfection' according to their spiritual state and intelligence) Aquinas begins his idea with the fact that all men seek goodness. We saw a similar parallel in Boethius' "Consolation of Philosophy". Where Boethius states "the highest good is God", Thomas expands this idea. The significance of man's search of goodness eventually leads him to God and even more so, to be with God, because that is where a man can be perfectly happy. In short, Aquinas explains that all of man's desires, actions, and ends point to God. Those who act by intelligence act for an end since they act with an intellectual preconception of what they attain by their action, and to act through such preconception, for this is to act by intelligence. -> For that every agent acts for an end clearly follows from the fact that every agent tends to something definite, therefore every agent acts for a good ->The End is that wherein the appetite of the agent of mover is at rest, as also the appetite of that which is moved. Now it is the notion of good to be the term of appetite since good is the object of every appetite. Therefore, all action and movement is for a good -> When we say a thing is perfect, we say a thing is good. Therefore, all action and movement is for some perfection-> That which is the supreme good is supremely the end of all. There is but one supreme good, namely God. Desires of man (and all of his decisions lead to a desire of something) -> Man has a natural desire to know the causes of whatever he sees, therefore, man naturally desires, as his last end, to know the first cause -> man's last end it so know God Happiness-> The last end of man and of any intelligent substance is called happiness or beatitude, for it is this that every intelligent substance desires as its last end for it's own sake alone ->Ultimate happiness cannot consist chiefly in the act of will -> Therefore, man's final happiness does not consist in knowledge-> it is impossible to be happy in this life if man's happiness cannot consist in knowledge -> When a man acquires happiness, he acquires stability and rest which man cannot find on earth -> Happiness is a perfect good (which would then reflect the arguments above) -> man is able to reach perfect happiness after this life since man has an immortal soul; and that in that state of his soul will understand in the same way as separate substances understand -> Therefore, man's ultimate happiness will consist in that knowledge of God which he possesses after this life. Overall, everything points to God which is the significance of Aquinas' idea about the good and its relation to the end of things.

What is significant about Aquinas' idea of the good and its relation to the end of things?

After the Roman See took Avignon as their sold official seat for nearly 70 years, Pope Gregory XI decided to return to Rome after attempting to settle the disputes between the English and French. Having formed a devout intention of revisiting Rome and the Holy See that St. Peter and St. Paul established, Gregory recalled a promise that he had made to God as a young man that, if in later life he ever rose to so high an office as the pontificate, he would do his utmost to have his seat in the place where St. Peter had it and nowhere else, for it was where the foundations of the Church began and ever will be. Aside from his devout ambitions, Gregory was a man of poor health, so the affairs between France and England had so harried him that he hardly had a moment to attend to his health, and thought that he would get away from the dispute in order to regain peace. As a result, the French were greatly distressed and warned the holy father against his plans: "Holy Father, you are going to a country and among people where they have little love for you and leaving a source of the faith and the kingdom in which the Church has more influence and excellence than anywhere else in the world. This act of yours may well bring great disaster upon the Church, for id you die out there, which by what your doctors tell me is very probable, the Romans, who are strange and a treacherous people, will become lords and masters of all the cardinals and will force a pope of their own choosing to be elected." This is exactly what happened as predicted. The Great Schism began after the death of Gregory XI. The cardinals in Rome sat in council concerning the election of a new pontiff. Outside the Vatican, the Roman people began to gather and threaten the Cardinals saying: "Listen, our lord cardinals, hurry up and elect a pope, you are talking to long about it. And see that he's a Roman, we want no other king. If he was from anywhere else, the Roman people and the Council would not recognize him as pope and you will be in danger of your lives". Seeing themselves in great danger, the cardinals hastily elected a man to satisfy the Romans. Nevertheless, it was a proper election, and they chose a saintly man who was a native of Rome and had been made cardinal by Urban V. However.... the new pope did not last long after (Froissart slightly exaggerates here. He says the pope only lived 3 days after his election, but it was more like 5 months) and soon died shortly after (how he died is on page 203; rather unexpected). The Cardinals were forced to elect again with the threats of the Romans in their ears: "Make quite sure, our lord cardinals, you give us a Roman pope, and one that lasts this time (which is Ironic because they basically killed the last pope). If not, we'll come and make your heads redder than your hats!" The terrified cardinals, who preferred to die as confessors rather than martyrs (shows how much faith they really had) elected another man, Archbishop of Bari, Bartholomew of the Eagles, who took the name Urban VI. It was all well and good until the cardinals decided to come together at a favorable opportunity and elect another pope because they thought Urban VI was too arbitrary and capricious (spontaneous and fickle). Thus, during the cardinals' and pope's vacation time (Urban was in Tivoli) the cardinals gathered together to institute another pope. The act was not spontaneous for the clergymen had plotted in advance and spent much time on the matter. The new elective was Robert of Geneva, who took the name Clement. This greatly affected the political situation in Europe. Ironically, the two nations that were opposed to each other sided and supported Clement, the newly elected Pope. In a way, the French and English were united under these odd circumstances to defend the new pope. As for the rest of Europe, well, confusion and turmoil began. Froissart best describes the disunity: "In this way the Christian kingdoms were at variance over the two popes and the churches were also divided" (pg 208). As for the citizens of Rome, Froissart says: "so great calamities occurred round Rome because of the quarrel of the popes, and people who were not to blame for it paid the penalty every day". This was not merely a matter of state or national election, this was the Pope, head of the universal Church. Whether men were involved physically or politically, everyone was effected because the Church was effected. (Ask Dr. Hasler about the French and the English: were they together at first then separated?) (Read Paper from Week of April 27-May 1)

What is the cause of the Great Schism? How does this effect the political situation in Europe?

The following reasons, though they may not be entirely true, for deposing Richard II are: Perjuries sacrileges unnatural crimes oppression of his subjects reduction of his people to slavery cowardice and weakness of rule The end of the passages states: "with all of which crimes King Richard was known to be tainted". We may not know if these accusations are entirely true because they could have been used merely to find any excuse to imprison Richard. The significance of Richard's successor was that 1) Henry was the same age as Richard 2) they were companions growing up 3) Henry, duke of Lancaster, pushes Richard II out of office and raises himself as king. Britannica: Richard- https://www.britannica.com/biography/Richard-II-king-of-England/Tyranny-and-fall https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvg9kBsESK8 Henry- https://www.britannica.com/biography/Henry-IV-king-of-England https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_4fTitgSws Documentary of Richerd II: https://www.ancient.eu/Richard_II_of_England/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-wCTP741bI

What reasons are given for deposing Richard II? Who succeeded Richard II and what is significant about this?

Because they were unlettered, they infatuated the readings of the Saints and scriptures with their own interpretation and usurped the office of the apostles, preaching the Gospel in the streets and public places. Because of their uneducation, they spread error about them but converted many: "The blind leading the blind". When the archbishop of Lyons forbade such great presumption of the scriptures they disobeyed him saying that it was necessary to obey God rather than man. They also scorned the prelates and the clergy for abounding in wealth and living in pleasantness. After being excommunicated and condemned as heretics, they mingled with other heretics and imbibing their errors, they mixed the errors and heresies of earlier heretics with their own inventions. The Waldenslans taught that all oaths, whether injust or otherwise is forbidden by God and illicit and sinful, interpreting thus in an excessive and unreasonable sense the words of the Holy Gospel and of St. James the Apostle against swearing. Nevertheless, the swearing of oaths is lawful and obligatory for the purpose of declaring the truth in justice. The Waldensians themselves give a matter of oaths for they have the right to swear an oath to avoid death for themselves or for another, and also not to betray their fellows. Concerning the sacrament of penance, they say and teach that they have the power from God alone and from no other (just as the apostles of Christ) of hearing the confessions of the men and women who wish to confess to them and be absolved and have penances imposed on them... although they are not priests or clerics ordained by any Bishop of the Roman Church rather, they are laymen! Concerning the Eucharist, they say that in the sacrament of the alter the bread and wine do not become the body and blood of Christ if the priest who celebrates or consecrates is a sinner. They consider any man a sinner who does not belong to their sect and say that any just person (man or woman) is a holy priest capable of consecrating the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood. Also, they say and teach and recognize no other prayer besides the "Our Father". They have no regard for the salutation of the Virgin Mary, "Hail Mary", or the Apostles' Creed, because they say that these have been arranged or composed by the Roman Church and not by Christ. They believe that true penitence and the purgatory of sins are only in this life and not in the other. Because of this, they believe that the soul either goes to heaven or hell, not purgatory. Therefore, they need not pray for souls for the dead. (Oh sorry, I didn't realize that I wrote more than three criticisms.... but I just want to say: this are the foundations of Protestantism!)

What were the criticisms of each group given by Bernard Gui?

Gui's criticizes the Albigensians for their persecution towards Church officials , the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, Catholic Customs, and the Sacraments. Concerning the Sacraments: Even though Christ himself told his disciples "Whosoever does not eat my flesh and drink my blood shall not have life within you (John 6:54), the Albigensians claim that the Eucharist does not contain the true presence of Christ because God wouldn't want to be disposed as waste after being digested. The Holy Cross: The heretics assert that the cross of Christ should not be venerated because no one would venerate the gallows on which a father, relative, or friend had hung. The key point the Albigensians are missing here, is that the Christ's death on the cross was for man's salvation. So, it is venerated because of the remembrance of that sacred sacrifice from which Christ scarified himself for our sake and it is worthy of adorance. Holy Scriptures: The Albigensians interpret the scriptures in the vulgar tongue, applying and expounding them nin their favor against the condition of the Roman Catholic Church. This is dangerous because the scriptures can be easily misinterpreted. An overview of their beliefs according to Bernard Gui: They deem themselves good Christians because they do not lie, swear, or speak evil, nor do they kill man nor animal. However, they assert that they occupy the place of the apostles and accuse the clerics, monks, clerks, and prelates as heretics because of their pride, cupidity, avarice, and uncleanliness of life (which is probably true for the majority. This remark reflects the corruption of the Church at the time). They invoke their own interpretation of the gospels and Epistles against the prelates, churchmen, and monks, whom they call false prophets. They also attack the sacraments of the Catholic Church. The Eucharist, according to these heretics, does not contain the body of Christ because God would not allowed his divinity to be digested and transformed into waste. Of the sacrament of Baptism, they assert that water is material and corruptible, and evil. If it is evil, then it cannot sanctify the soul. There is more to be said, but here are some examples of the beliefs by Bernard Gui. https://www.britannica.com/event/Albigensian-Crusade

Who were the Albigensians? What is significant about this group?

Peter Waldo: According to Kolbe Reader, Peter Waldo's situation prior to his conversion was that of a greedy, selfish, and money-loving man. When he was questioned by the towns-people for his charitable deeds, he responded: "My fellow-citizen and friends, I am not insane, as you think, but I am avenging myself on my enemies, who made me a slave, so that I way always more careful of money than of God, and served the creature rather than the Creator. I know that many will blame me that I act thus openly. But I do it both on my own account and on yours; on my own, so that those who see me henceforth possessing any money may say that I am mad, and on yours, that you may learn to place hope in God and not in riches". When Waldo says "avenging myself on my enemies" he is probably avenging himself against the wiles of the flesh that controlled his desires for things of the world and not of God. He also states that he "served the creature rather than the creator". This probably refers to his own satisfactions; the creature being his body. Cause of Peter's conversion: According to Kolbe Reader, the cause for Peter Waldo's conversion were the words of the Gospel. One Sunday, he joined a crowd that he saw gathered around a troubadour (a poet who writes verse to music). The passage the poet was reciting was about the holy Alexis, who died a blessed death in his father's house. This sparked zeal into Peter's heart, and the next morning, he hurried to the schools of theology to seek counsel for his soul, and when he was taught many ways of going to God, he asked the master what way was more certain and more perfect than all others. The master answered him with this text "if thou wilt be perfect go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me". Thus Peter obeyed the teacher's rules and gave away all that he had in order to fulfill this promise. (Ask. Dr. Hasler about comparison with lecture and this. Translated the Bible into french and interpreted himself?) As for the significance of the troubadour, it reminded me of a soul Dante and Virgil met in Purgatory. If I recall, this soul, Statius was his name, tells Dante and Virgil about his conversion of the great poet. He said that, having read Virgil's poems about Ceaser Augustus (along with other works), he hear the Christians speaking of a similar prophecy. Curiosity drew him to inspect their claims and it drew him to convert. Another example would have been given by St. Augustine. Augustine did not become a Christian after discovering that the Catholic faith was the true faith, because he thought he could never live a pure life.One day, however, he heard about two men who had suddenly been converted on reading the life of St.Antony, and he felt terribly ashamed of himself. "What are we doing?" he cried to his friend Alipius."Unlearned people are taking Heaven by force, while we, with all our knowledge, are so cowardly that wekeep rolling around in the mud of our sins!" (Augustine). Today in Honors Literature, we talked about the mimetic theory. This is an example of the mimetic theory because they wanted what other people had. However, Christians deviate from the norm of society because they seek a greater good: God. Established order: According to Viking Reader, Peter Waldo founded the religious order of Waldenses. Many of its followers were devoted to following Christ in poverty and simplicity. "This movement is sometimes viewed as an early forerunner of the Reformation for its various rejection of Catholic tenets". Errors: Because they were unlettered, they infatuated the readings of the Saints and scriptures with their own interpretation and usurped the office of the apostles, preaching the Gospel in the streets and public places. Because of their uneducation, they spread error about them but converted many: "The blind leading the blind". When the archbishop of Lyons forbade such great presumption of the scriptures they disobeyed him saying that it was necessary to obey God rather than man. They also scorned the prelates and the clergy for abounding in wealth and living in pleasantness. After being excommunicated and condemned as heretics, they mingled with other heretics and imbibing their errors, they mixed the errors and heresies of earlier heretics with their own inventions. The Waldenslans taught that all oaths, whether injust or otherwise is forbidden by God and illicit and sinful, interpreting thus in an excessive and unreasonable sense the words of the Holy Gospel and of St. James the Apostle against swearing. Nevertheless, the swearing of oaths is lawful and obligatory for the purpose of declaring the truth in justice. The Waldensians themselves give a matter of oaths for they have the right to swear an oath to avoid death for themselves or for another, and also not to betray their fellows. Concerning the sacrament of penance, they say and teach that they have the power from God alone and from no other (just as the apostles of Christ) of hearing the confessions of the men and women who wish to confess to them and be absolved and have penances imposed on them... although they are not priests or clerics ordained by any Bishop of the Roman Church rather, they are laymen! Concerning the Eucharist, they say that in the sacrament of the alter the bread and wine do not become the body and blood of Christ if the priest who celebrates or consecrates is a sinner. They consider any man a sinner who does not belong to their sect and say that any just person (man or woman) is a holy priest capable of consecrating the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood. Also, they say and teach and recognize no other prayer besides the "Our Father". They have no regard for the salutation of the Virgin Mary, "Hail Mary", or the Apostles' Creed, because they say that these have been arranged or composed by the Roman Church and not by Christ. They believe that true penitence and the purgatory of sins are only in this life and not in the other. Because of this, they believe that the soul either goes to heaven or hell, not purgatory. Therefore, they need not pray for souls for the dead. (Oh sorry, I didn't realize that I wrote more than three criticisms.... but I just want to say: this are the foundations of Protestantism!) Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Waldenses https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km1SbHzG03s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFpotynuYt4

Who were the Waldensians and what did they believe? Who was their founder? What do we know about him?

Sacred doctrine is useful because unlike philosophical science, it is/was inspired by God whereas Philosophical science was built up by human reason. Aquinas argues that It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides Philosophical science built up by human reason because man is directed to God as an end that surpasses the grasp of reason. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation because the truth about God such as reason could discover would only be known by few, and after a long time, would be mixed with many errors. It is therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason should, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation. Summa Theologae: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm Lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOuJUwH6QxI

Why is sacred doctrine besides philosophical science useful according to Aquinas even though he argues that philosophical science can lead one to truths about God?

Despite the French army's numbers, the English were so successful at the battle of Crecy because of the unity and organization of the men. King Philip sent knights to inspect the English army and they returned telling him to allow his men to rest (for they had been walking 18 miles that day with full armor) and strategize a plan. Well, the pride of the French soldiers overtook their sense and they heeded not the King's commands. Wanting to further the troops in the front ranks, the back troops advanced in no order of formation until they came within in the sight of the enemy. As soon as they saw the English, they reined back like one man in such disorder that those behind were taken by surprise and imagined they had already been engaging and were retreating. It was chaos from there. Many of the French nobles killed the French bowmen who were retreating. No one from the French army heeded their officer's warnings. Depite their numbers and the men's willingness to fight the English, the disunity and the lack of comradery was the cause of their destruction. During the Campaign of Crecy, the initial strategy of the English was the organization, structure, and comradery among the soldiers. The army was divided into three groups 1 the) prince and knights with archers 2) barons with utility and archers 3) king and his Marshals. The English obtained a good view of their position and they acquired enough rest to fight. The archers were a key role in the success of the English but it was later discovered that many were carrying long knives and assisted with the hand-to-hand fighting. Also, the longbow played a prominent role in the English's success. Finally, the comradery between the men strengthened them and they remained stationary and unmoving. I assume that the strategy changes according to the circumstance, but the idea to win victory is to remain as a whole, unified, body. The most prominent reason for English success was due to the English Longbow.

Why were the English so successful at the battle of Crecy even though the French forces were much larger in number?