Podcasts about pope innocent iii

Popes have shaped the history of the world. The Catholic Church has had a Pope for two thousand years, the first- tradition dictates- was St Peter, the fisherman turned disciple of Jesus. Pope 'Leo the Great' stared down Atilla the Hun at the gates of Rome while Pope Innocent III made it his mission to convert the Anglo-Saxons and spread Christianity across Europe.In this episode, Dan is joined by Jessica Wärnberg, author of City of Echoes: A New History of Rome, Its Popes and People, to examine the origins of the Pope's role, how the Pope became such a powerful and influential figure outside of the Catholic Church, and which popes, for better or worse, have shaped the course of history.This episode was first released in August 2023Produced by James Hickmann & edited by Dougal PatmoreSign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week and ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe.We'd love to hear your feedback - you can take part in our podcast survey here: https://insights.historyhit.com/history-hit-podcast-always-on.You can also email the podcast directly at ds.hh@historyhit.com.

Remember the late '80s when thrash metal was roaring through the underground, just waiting to explode? Those were the days when Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer, and Anthrax were solidifying their places as the big four of thrash. But amidst these giants, bands like Paradox were carving their unique paths with blistering riffs and complex compositions that sometimes flew under the radar. If you're the type of metalhead who loves to dig through the crates at your local record store, hoping to stumble upon something you might have missed, then Paradox's 1989 release “Heresy” is the treasure you've been looking for.Paradox formed in Würzburg, Germany, in 1986, led by the dynamic duo of Charlie Steinhauer and Alex Blaha. Initially part of a cover band paying homage to acts like Overkill and Venom, they quickly transitioned to creating their original sound. By 1987, they had inked a deal with Roadrunner Records, a label synonymous with underground metal. Their debut, “Product of Imagination,” set the stage, but it was their sophomore effort, “Heresy,” that really made waves in the metal community.Imagine discovering an album purely by accident on a metal blog, where a quick 30-second sample convinces you that you've struck gold. That's precisely what happened when Tim stumbled upon “Heresy.” This album is a masterclass in thrash, delivering the speed, technical prowess, and raw energy defining the genre while infusing progressive elements that set it apart.From the opening acoustic strains that segue into ferocious thrash anthems, “Heresy” grabs you by the throat and doesn't let go. Tracks like “Kill Time” showcase the band's insane technical skills, with 30-second note melodies played at breakneck speeds. It's not just about speed and aggression; Paradox brings a level of musicianship and melody often lost in thrash's chaos.A standout track, “Search for Perfection,” features harmonized leads that are as captivating as they are complex. These guys aren't just about playing fast; they're about playing smart, weaving intricate guitar lines that demand repeat listens to appreciate fully. The tracks “Heresy” and “700 Years On” blend the historical narrative with relentless riffs, creating a listening experience that's both intellectually and sonically stimulating.What makes “Heresy” particularly fascinating is its concept. The album delves into the Albigensian Crusade of the 13th century, a campaign initiated by Pope Innocent III to eradicate Catharism in southern France. This historical depth adds a layer of intrigue, making the lyrics worth diving into despite their rapid-fire delivery.The production, handled by Harris Johns (known for his work with Celtic Frost, Kreator, and Sodom), ensures that every note and beat hits with precision and power. No wonder this album still sounds fresh today, able to stand toe-to-toe with modern thrash releases.The band's journey didn't end with “Heresy.” After a hiatus, they returned in 2000 with “Collision Course” and have since released several albums, including “Heresy II: End of a Legend” in 2021. While line-up changes have been frequent, Charlie Steinhauer remains the driving force, keeping the spirit of Paradox alive and thrashing.So next time you're flipping through vinyl, keep an eye out for “Heresy.” Whether a $32 import or a hidden gem in the bargain bin, it's a worthy addition to any thrash aficionado's collection. And if you're still on the fence, take a listen on your preferred streaming platform. This is thrash metal at its finest, and it might just become your new favorite discovery.Songs In This EpisodeIntro - Heresy 15:29 - Killtime 16:55 - Search for Perfection 21:01 - Castle in the Wind 24:47 - Massacre of the Cathars 27:26 - 700 Years On Outro - Crusaders RevengeMake Your Metal Voice Heard!In our quest to explore the depths of 80s metal, we rely on you, our listeners. Your suggestions drive our show – be it an underrated classic or a forgotten gem. By joining our DMO Union on Patreon, you help us stay independent and ad-free and gain the power to vote on and choose the albums we dive into each year. Let's unearth the treasures of 80s Metal, one listener-powered episode at a time.Suggest an Album → | Support the Mission → This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit digmeout.substack.com/subscribe

Hey, Hi, Hello, this is the History Wizard and welcome back for Day 9 of Have a Day w/ The History Wizard. Thank you to everyone who tuned in for Day 8 last week, and especially thank you to everyone who rated and/or reviewed the podcast. I hope you all learned something last week and I hope the same for this week. This week we're going to be looking at infighting within Christianity. There are many differing opinions within the faith on the whos and whats and whys and hows, and very oft en they decide to kill each other over these, ultimately minor, differences. The Cathar Genocide, often known as the  Albegensian Crusade, was just such an event. It was a time when the Pope felt threatened by those who he deemed to be heretics and so decided to kill them. But, first it's time to craft our potions. Todays libations, gods I love that word, is called Melting Snow. Take two ounces of sake, 1 ounce of triple sec, 3-4 dashes of black lemon bitters, shake and pour into a rocks glass before gently pouring 1 tsp of grenadine syrup into it. The resulting drink should have the grenadine settle at the bottom initially making a lovely presentation. Though I'd mix it before actually imbibing. With that out of the way let's talk about who the Cathar were. The name Cathar comes from the Greek word katharoi, meaning “the pure ones”. Their other name, the Albegensians, comes from the fact that many adherents during the Crusade lived in or around the city of Albi. Catharism is described as a somewhat dualist, somewhat Gnostic heretical branch of Christianity. Though, it bears mentioning that both are likely exonyms and the followers of this particular faith often self identifies as Good Men, Good Women, or Good Christians. So what is dualism and what is gnosticism? Well in the case of the Cathars they were pretty much the same thing. Dualism is the moral or spiritual belief that two fundamental concepts exist, which often oppose each other. Gnosticism draws a distinction between a supreme, and hidden God above all, and a lesser deity (sometimes called the demiurge) who created the material world. Consequently, Gnostics considered material existence flawed or evil, and held the principal element of salvation to be direct knowledge of the hidden divinity, attained via mystical or esoteric insight. Many Gnostic texts deal not in concepts of sin and repentance, but with illusion and enlightenment. Gnosticism preferred people to have personal knowledge and experience with the divine, something that threatened the power of the early Church. Cathar cosmology identified two Gods. One who created the perfect spiritual world and the other, the demiurge who created the imperfect and sinful physical world. The demiurge is often identified as Yahweh and is referred to as Rex Mundi, King of the World. All visible matter, including the human body, was created or crafted by this Rex Mundi; matter was therefore tainted with sin. Under this view, humans were actually angels seduced by Satan before a war in heaven against the army of Michael, after which they would have been forced to spend an eternity trapped in the evil God's material realm. The Cathars taught that to regain angelic status one had to renounce the material self completely. Until one was prepared to do so, they would be stuck in a cycle of reincarnation, condemned to suffer endless human lives on the corrupt Earth. Also, while they revered Jesus Christ, they also denied that he was ever a mortal man, instead believing that both he and Mary were Angels taking the semblance of a human form in order to teach our sin tainted flesh to grow closer to the purity of divinity. Other Cathar beliefs included the pescetarian diet, their view that women were pretty purely to tempt men away from divine purity and some Cathars believed that Eve had sex with Satan and gave birth to a race of giants who were all wiped out in the Great Flood. Cathars also rejected the Catholic priesthood, labeling its members, including the pope, unworthy and corrupted. Disagreeing on the Catholic concept of the unique role of the priesthood, they taught that anyone, not just the priest, could consecrate the Eucharistic host or hear a confession. There were, however, men selected amongst the Cathars to serve as bishops and deacons. Now, while the Cathar Crusade took place over a 20 year period between 1209 and 1229, the persecution against them began almost as soon as they were founded. The Cathars were denounced as heretics by 8 separate church councils between 1022 and 1163. However the true troubles wouldn't begin until 1208 when Pope Innocent III sent a legate named Pierre du Castelnau to chastise Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse for his lack of action against these heretical Cathars who lived on his land. Castelnau withdrew from Toulouse after 6 months of Raymond basically ignoring him. On January 15, 1208 Pierre was assassinated. Innocent suspected, and acted on the suspicion that the assassination was carried out by an agent of Reymond, although this was never proven.  Still, when has lack of evidence ever stopped the Church from killing people? The assassination of Pierre du Castelnau was causus belli for the Albigensian Crusade. The Albigensian Crusade, the Cathar Genocide, took place all around the area known as Languedoc, also known as Occitania. Today the province is a part of southern France, but for a while it was its own region with distinct culture and its own language. Occitan wasn't very similar to French, it was not mutually understandable. In fact it was closer to Catalan than it was to French. Now, because Catharism rejected both the authority of the French King and the Pope in favor of a far more egalitarian relationship with their nation and their God many nobles from France embraced Catharism, at least at a surface level due to their desire to also reject the authority of the King of France. This made Catharism not just a threat to the spiritual and material authority of the Pope, but also a threat to the material authority of the King. After the assassination of Castelnau Raymond VI Count of Toulouse was excommunicated from the Church. Although there was a very brief period when Raymond sent embassies to Rome and exchanged gifts. They reconciled and the excommunication was lifted, only for him to be excommunicated AGAIN on the grounds that he didn't properly meet the terms of reconciliation.  And so it was that in 1209, after assembling an army of about 10,000 men near the city of Lyons that Pope Innocent III declared his crusade against the Albigensians, stating that a Europe free of heresy could better defend its borders against Muslim armies. This crusade against the Albigensians also coincided with the Fifth and Sixth Crusades in the Holy Land. Most of the troops for the crusade came from Northern France, although there would also be volunteers from England and Austria. After some initial dispute over who would lead the quote righteous armies of the Lord unquote Papal Legate Arnaud Amalric was chosen as the commander.  As the Crusaders assembled, Raymond attempted to reach an agreement with his nephew and vassal, Raymond Roger Trencavel, viscount of Béziers and Carcassonne, for a united defense, but Raymond Roger refused him. Raymond decided to make an accommodation with the Crusaders. He was fiercely opposed by Amalric, but at Raymond's request, Innocent appointed a new legate, Milo, whom he secretly ordered to obey Amalric. On 18 June 1209, Raymond pronounced himself repentant. He was scourged by Milo and declared restored to full Communion with the Church. The following day, he took the Cross, affirming his loyalty to the crusade and promising to aid it. With Raymond restored to unity with the Church, his lands could not be attacked. The Crusaders therefore turned their attention to the lands of Raymond Roger, aiming for the Cathar communities around Albi and Carcassonne. Béziers would be the first major engagement of the Cathar Genocide, although at around the same time, another Crusader army commanded by the Archbishop of Bordeaux took Casseneuil and burned several accused heretics at the stake. The crusading armies arrived at Béziers on 21 July, 1209 and demanded that the Catholics of the city leave and that the Cathars surrender. Both groups ignored them and the city settled in for a long siege.  The siege lasted for exactly one day. The troops within Béziers attempted to sortie beyond the gates of their city and after being routed they were pursued through the open gates of the city and it fell within 24 hours. Amalric then proceeded to order the slaughter of every single person, adult or child, within the walls of the city. What follows is possibly apocryphal, a phrase which hears means made up, but allegedly when asked by his troops how they should distinguish between Catholic and Cathar Amalric said “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius” The literal translation of which is “Kill them. The Lord knows those that are his own” There's some dispute over whether or now Amalric actually said this, but it is agreed that it captures the vibe rather well as the entire city of Béziers was killed. There were no survivors. The death toll is placed at around 20,000 people, though this is thought to be an exaggeration. Raymond Roger was not at Béziers when it fell. He had fled with most of his troops to the city of Carcassonne (yes, like the board game) intending to hold there. After the surrounding towns and villages heard about the slaughter at Béziers they all surrendered without a fight. This made Carcassonne the next major target of Amalric and his band of brigands. The 45 mile march to Carcassonne took the crusaders 6 days to complete. Once arrayed around Carcassonne they settled in for a siege that lasted slightly longer than the one at Béziers. But, after 6 days and after cutting the cities water supply Raymond Roger sought to negotiate. Amalric agreed to parley, but took Roger prisoner while speaking under truce. Carcassonne would not be the site of another slaughter though. All the people of the city were marched out of the city at sword point. They were naked according to Peter of Vaux-de-Cernay, a monk and eyewitness to many events of the crusade, but "in their shifts and breeches", according to Guillaume de Puylaurens, a contemporary. Rogers died several months later, either of dysentery or from being assassinated. In each city the armies approached, they reacted differently and treated the people differently. The fall of Lastours and castle Cabaret took much longer than the others, although this was largely because of the onset of winter. The area around Cabaret was full of communes like Lastours, Minerve, and Bram. After Minerve fell to bombardment from siege weapons, destroying the main well of the commune, it surrendered. The crusaders, now under the command of Simon de Montfort wished to be more lenient to the people of Minerve. He allowed to defending soldiers, the Catholics, and the non-perfecti Cathars. Perfecti was the title of those Cathars who were considered adept in the teachings of their faith. They were roughly analogous to deacons. The Perfecti were given the option to recant their beliefs and return to the Catholic faith. Of the 143 perfecti in Minerve, only 3 elected to do this. The rest were burned at the stake, many walking directly into the flames of their own volition, not even waiting for their executioners to force them. There were some successes for the Cathars though. The siege of Termes almost ended with the Cathar being slaughtered, but in the end them managed to abandon the city and escape before the walls could be breached, owning in part to a massive rain storm.  In May of 1211 the castle of Aimery de Montréal was retaken; he and his senior knights were hanged, and several hundred Cathars were burned. The crusade was turning towards its end. Montfort began to position his troops around the city of Toulouse meaning to crush one of the last major Cathar bastions in France. The Cathars, in their fear, turned to Peter II of Aragon for aid and support. Peter's sister Eleanor was married to Raymond VI. Peter, named a valiant hero for his actions against the Moors was able to use his influence to get Innocent to call a halt of the crusade and used that time to try and negotiate peace. When those peace negotiations failed Peter decided to come to their aid of Toulouse against Simon de Montfort, fearing that Montfort was becoming too powerful and gaining too much influence within the Catholic Church. This alarmed Innocent III who immediately declared the Crusade begun again. Meanwhile Raymond VI had had his excommunication lifted and then reinstated AGAIN during this time. Unfortunately for the Cathars and for Peter II, he would die in his first major engagement with Simon's forces. The Battle of Muret saw a devastating loss for Peter's forces. Despite outnumbering Simon's armies Simon had better tactics and carried the day. The next few years was a flurry of activity and victory fo Simon, who was eventually named the new count over all of Raymond VI's lands that had already been captured. Any land that had not yet been captured  would fall under the control of the Catholic Church who would hold onto them until Raymond VII, who was currently in England with his father, having fled a few years ago, was old enough to govern them himself. The crusade would continue for a few years more, though there were periods of confusion and relative peace. One such period was when Pope Innocent III died suddenly and unexpectedly and the crusade was taken over by the much more cautious King Philip II of France. The crusade was resumed with greater vigor in 1217 on orders from Pope Honorius III and for the remainder of it would center around Toulouse and maintaining control of it. By 1222 Raymond VII, who had returned from exile with his father had reclaimed all the lands that he had lost and the crusaders were firmly on the backfoot. Come 1225 Raymond VII was excommunicated, like his father (now deceased) and King Louis VII of France, son of Philip II (now deceased) renewed the Crusade. The Cathar heresy was going to be dealt with one way or another. The exact number of troops that Louis brought with him to renew the Crusade is unknown, but it is known that it was the largest force to be brought against the Cathars throughout the entirety of the genocide. Louis began his campaign in earnest in June of 1226 and quickly recaptured the towns of Béziers, Carcassonne, Beaucaire, and Marseille, this time with no resistance. Eventually the armies surrounded Toulouse and Raymond, not having the manpower to resist surrendered and signed the Treaty of Paris at Meaux on April 12, 1229. Now, something important to be aware of is that Historian Daniel Power notes that the fact that Peter of Vaux-de-Cernay's Historia Albigensis, which many historians of the crusade rely heavily upon, was published only in 1218 and this leaves a shortage of primary source material for events after that year. As such, there is more difficulty in discerning the nature of various events during the subsequent time period. With the war over we would transition into the next phase of the genocide, that of destroying Catharism as a cultural element and forcing surviving Cathars to repent and convert. With the military phase of the campaign against the Cathars now primarily at an end, the Inquisition was established under Pope Gregory IX in 1234 to uproot heretical movements, including the remaining Cathars. Operating in the south at Toulouse, Albi, Carcassonne and other towns during the whole of the 13th century, and a great part of the 14th, it succeeded in crushing Catharism as a popular movement and driving its remaining adherents underground. Punishments for Cathars varied greatly. Most frequently, they were made to wear yellow crosses atop their garments as a sign of outward penance. Others made obligatory pilgrimages, which often included fighting against Muslims. Visiting a local church naked once each month to be scourged was also a common punishment, including for returned pilgrims. Cathars who were slow to repent or who relapsed suffered imprisonment and, often, the loss of property. Others who altogether refused to repent were burned. The vast majority of those accused escaped death and were sentenced to a lighter penalty. Still, Catharism as a distinct religion was all but destroyed. Raphael Lemkin, who coined the word "genocide" in the 20th century, referred to the Albigensian Crusade as "one of the most conclusive cases of genocide in religious history". And, at the risk of making an appeal to authority fallacy, if the guy who invented the term and died fighting for its recognition in national and international law calls it a genocide, it is one. That's it for this week folks. No new reviews, so let's get right into the outro. Have a Day! w/ The History Wizard is brought to you by me, The History Wizard. If you want to see/hear more of me you can find me on Tiktok @thehistorywizard or on Instagram @the_history_wizard. Please remember to rate, review, and subscribe to Have a Day! On your pod catcher of choice. The more you do, the more people will be able to listen and learn along with you. Thank you  for sticking around until the end and, as always, Have a Day.  

A new MP3 sermon from Applegate Community Church is now available on SermonAudio with the following details: Title: Church History: Pope Innocent III, part 2 Subtitle: Church History Speaker: Darren Goheen Broadcaster: Applegate Community Church Event: Sunday School Date: 3/17/2024 Length: 35 min.

2/25/2024 - The History of the Church with Jon Huggins. This week, we cover from Pope Innocent III to the Fall of Constantinople

This week Beau and Luca Johnson chat all about the Fourth Crusade. From the failure of the Third Crusade, to the renewed calls by Pope Innocent III, to the intervention by the ancient Doge of Venice, Enrico Dandolo, to the subversion of the entire project, and finally the sacking and burning of Constantinople.

(Christine and Josh) One of the most powerful popes of the Middle Ages, Innocent III made sure to have his hand in everything from religious wars like the Crusades to political squabbles with kings. Here, Josh and Christine take a look at some of the most interesting points in the life of the controversial pontiff. 

King John makes a brand new enemy: Pope Innocent III, after they fall out over an archbishop. The Pope takes extreme measures and puts England under an interdict. This means the church is closed for business to everyone in England. He expects John to beg for mercy, but instead, the diabolical king has eyed a golden opportunity. This is History is a Sony Music Entertainment production. Find more great podcasts from Sony Music Entertainment at sonymusic.com/podcasts To bring your brand to life in this podcast, email podcastadsales@sonymusic.com Written and presented by Dan Jones Producer and Story Editor - Georgia Mills Executive  Producers - Dave Anderson and Louisa Field Production Manager - Poppy Thompson Composer -  Matt Acheson Engineer - Matias Torres Sole Sound Design and Mixing - Chris O'Shaughnessy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The grand finale of our series on the rise of the papacy.

On this day, June 15th, in legal history, King John sealed the Magna Carta, which established fundamental rights as law in England. On June 15, 1215, King John reluctantly sealed the Magna Carta in response to the demands of rebellious barons, aiming to avoid a civil war. Despite being invalidated by Pope Innocent III just 10 weeks later, the Magna Carta was reissued multiple times after King John's death.The Magna Carta was initially crafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the interest of land barons as a means to protect their rights and properties against an oppressive monarch. It primarily addressed practical matters and specific grievances relevant to the feudal system of the time, with little regard for the interests of common people. Nevertheless, two enduring principles emerged from the document that continue to resonate today.The first principle affirms that no free individual should be unjustly imprisoned, deprived of property, banished, or harmed without a fair trial by their peers or the law of the land. This principle emphasizes the importance of due process and safeguards against arbitrary exercise of power.The second principle asserts that justice and rights should be accessible to all, without discrimination or delay. It emphasizes that rights and justice cannot be bought or denied to anyone, ensuring equal treatment and fairness for all individuals within the legal system.While the Magna Carta did not immediately resolve the tensions between King John and the barons, it laid the foundation for the development of constitutional law and the protection of individual liberties. Its enduring principles continue to shape modern legal systems and stand as an aspirational symbol of the pursuit of justice and the limitations on the power of rulers.Magna Carta - WikipediaThe US Justice Department is wrapping up its investigation into the Minneapolis Police Department following the murder of George Floyd. The probe, which began after Floyd's killing by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin in 2020, aimed to determine whether the police engaged in a pattern or practice of excessive force. Senior officials from the DOJ's Civil Rights Division are expected to visit Minneapolis to present the findings of the investigation. The DOJ's actions complement a separate investigation conducted by the Minnesota Human Rights Department, which reached a consent decree in March to address race discrimination findings. The federal investigation may also address issues outside the state's jurisdiction, such as compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the First Amendment. The DOJ's approach under Attorney General Garland and Division Head Kristen Clarke involves conducting comprehensive probes into systemic police misconduct. The results of the investigation will be documented in a report, potentially leading to the negotiation of a consent decree and the appointment of an independent monitor. However, the efficacy of consent decrees as a means to improve police-community relations has been debated. The Minneapolis community, which has long organized around the issue of policing, hopes that the DOJ will take their concerns seriously and involve them in the remedial efforts. The investigation's timeline is considered protracted compared to previous pattern-or-practice matters, taking more than two years to conclude. If a consent decree is deemed necessary, it could take months to reach an agreement. The Minnesota state agency's consent decree has already been filed in state court, and the parties are reviewing potential monitor candidates. The decree includes provisions to avoid conflicts with a potential settlement with the DOJ, ensuring a single monitor will oversee the city's compliance.US Wraps Up Minneapolis Police Probe After George Floyd MurderReed Smith, the Big Law firm based in Pittsburgh, is cutting approximately 50 lawyers and staff members as part of a downsizing trend among law firms due to decreased demand. The layoffs represent less than 2% of the firm's workforce, with about 20 staff members and 30 lawyers affected. The layoffs also serve to send the message that law firms now hold the power rather than associates–get ready for more back-to-office demands. The ongoing reduction in force is a result of firms either overhiring or experiencing a slowdown in demand. The current market conditions have led to a surplus of junior associates seeking employment opportunities. Law firms are now focusing on optimizing their economic efficiency by trimming senior lawyers without a significant client base or those not on track for partnership. The move is ostensibly aimed at ensuring that associates have sufficient work opportunities when joining the firm, but it also serves to cut the most expensive lawyers and plop work in the laps of those with the lowest salaries.Reed Smith Cuts 50 Lawyers, Staff as Firms See Lower Demand (1)The last year of news coming out of Twitter should bring solace to anyone suffering from imposter syndrome. We are all standing on the shore, watching a tiny man with, ostensibly, extensive seafaring experience attempt to operate a small sailboat. So far we have watched him do all manner of damage to himself and the boat, attempting to shoot his own toes off and missing for the deck.In the latest, the National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA) has filed a lawsuit against Twitter, accusing the social media platform of copyright infringement for using songs without permission from songwriters. Unlike other major social media platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Snap, and TikTok, Twitter does not have agreements in place to pay music rights holders for the use of their work. The NMPA, representing 17 music publishers including Sony Music and Universal Music Publishing Group, is seeking a court declaration that Twitter willfully infringed on the musical work of approximately 1,700 songs. The association is seeking damages of over $250 million, with potential claims of up to $150,000 per infringed work. The NMPA claims that Twitter's unlawful conduct enriches the company at the expense of publishers and songwriters. Other social media platforms have reached licensing deals with music rights holders, resulting in significant payments to the music industry. While Twitter had been in discussions about licensing deals before Elon Musk's acquisition of the company, unsurprisingly, little progress has been made since his takeover. Musk has been preoccupied with other matters, including firing everyone that knows how to run a social media company, banning reporters, unbanning Nazis and consulting catturd on matters of user experience. Twitter Sued by Music Firms Seeking $250 Million for Songs (2)U.S. prosecutors have requested a separate trial for Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder of bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange FTX, who is facing new charges of foreign bribery, bank fraud, and conspiracy. These charges were added after Bankman-Fried's extradition from the Bahamas in December 2022. The initial indictment accused him of stealing billions of dollars from FTX customers and deceiving investors and lenders. Bankman-Fried, who has pleaded not guilty to all 13 counts, had asked the judge to dismiss or separate the new charges from his October trial. A court in the Bahamas temporarily barred the government from allowing U.S. prosecutors to pursue the new charges. Prosecutors have requested a trial in the first quarter of 2024 for the new charges and indicated they would drop them if the Bahamas does not consent. Arguments on the matter are expected to be heard by the judge soon. Bankman-Fried's lawyers have also requested the dismissal of some of the charges, no surprise there.US prosecutors ask to remove new Bankman-Fried charges from Oct trial | ReutersThe National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has stated that a Massachusetts law requiring car manufacturers to enhance access to telematic vehicle data is in conflict with and preempted by federal law. The NHTSA has effectively advised manufacturers not to comply with the Massachusetts law, which has faced legal challenges since being enacted through a ballot question in 2020. Supporters of the law believe it would provide consumers with more options for vehicle repairs by expanding access to vehicle information. However, the NHTSA argues that the law raises significant safety concerns as granting access to telematic data could potentially allow for manipulation of critical vehicle functions, posing risks of accidents, injuries, and even malicious attacks. The letter from the NHTSA has drawn criticism from independent auto repair shops and other groups that had supported the law's passage.Federal government tells carmakers not to comply with Massachusetts' 'right to repair' law | WBUR Newshttps://media.wbur.org/wp/2023/06/06-14_NHTSA_Telematic_Letter.pdf Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

After a short comment on current events and prayer, we do a deep dive into Pope Innocent III.

Sean brings a church history lesson on a not so innocent pope. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/the-particular-baptist/support

Fr. Darryl, Adam, and Josh talk about the medieval Pope's power (Pope Innocent III) labeled the Plenitudo potestatis, "fullness of power." This episode rounds out the discussion about councils and is connected to the challenges at work right now in the Anglican Communion.

In Part I of our Saint Francis Mystics episode, Francis turned his back on youthful pursuits of status and glory. In Part II, his movement and message gain momentum. Their success, however, heralds the end of a golden age. As the number of Francis' followers swell, conflict with the Papacy in Rome seems inevitable. Join Francis as he meets Pope Innocent III. Then journey with him to the East to meet a powerful sultan fighting against a crusader army. Explore Francis' relationships with women and his unusual approach to gender. We'll examine Francis' well-known love of nature and his famously anti-materialist messages that are perhaps more relevant today than ever.

No one knows when Emperor Constantine installed the gilded Triumphal Quadriga sculpture in his new capital city, Constantinople, near the triumphal arch which led to the Hippodrome. How it got to Constantinople has been lost to the ages, and, so is its origin story. What we do know is these four horses have traveled from Chios to Constantinople; to Venice, Paris, and back to Venice again, with some interesting stops along the way. This sculpture is best known as The Horses of St. Mark's, and what we do know about it begins after it was stolen during the Sack of Constantinople, in April of 1204.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

RtT's official Sponsor: https://praylatin.com https://www.charitymobile.com/rtt.php https://www.devoutdecals.com/ https://www.blessedbegodboutique.com https://www.fidei.email https://www.thesaintmaker.com/returntotradition. Use the promo code RETURNTOTRADITION at checkout to get 10% off Sources: https://www.returntotradition.org Contact Me: Email: return2catholictradition@gmail.com Support My Work: Patreon https://www.patreon.com/AnthonyStine SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.net/return-to-tradition Buy Me A Coffee https://www.buymeacoffee.com/AnthonyStine Physical Mail: Anthony Stine PO Box 3048 Shawnee, OK 74802 Follow me on the following social media: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbgdypwXSo0GzWSVTaiMPJg https://www.facebook.com/ReturnToCatholicTradition/ https://twitter.com/pontificatormax https://www.minds.com/PiusXIII https://gloria.tv/Return%20To%20Tradition mewe.com/i/anthonystine Back Up https://www.bitchute.com/channel/9wK5iFcen7Wt/ anchonr.fm/anthony-stine +JMJ+ --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/anthony-stine/support

RtT's official Sponsor: https://praylatin.com https://www.charitymobile.com/rtt.php https://www.devoutdecals.com/ https://www.blessedbegodboutique.com https://www.thesaintmaker.com/returntotradition. Use the promo code RETURNTOTRADITION at checkout to get 10% off Sources: https://www.returntotradition.org Contact Me: Email: return2catholictradition@gmail.com Support My Work: Patreon https://www.patreon.com/AnthonyStine SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.net/return-to-tradition Buy Me A Coffee https://www.buymeacoffee.com/AnthonyStine Physical Mail: Anthony Stine PO Box 3048 Shawnee, OK 74802 Follow me on the following social media: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbgdypwXSo0GzWSVTaiMPJg https://www.facebook.com/ReturnToCatholicTradition/ https://twitter.com/pontificatormax https://www.minds.com/PiusXIII https://gloria.tv/Return%20To%20Tradition mewe.com/i/anthonystine Back Up https://www.bitchute.com/channel/9wK5iFcen7Wt/ anchonr.fm/anthony-stine +JMJ+ --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/anthony-stine/support

HAHA Part 17 The Papacy at its Height Today we look at the papacy at the height of its power… After Charlemagne, the church declined rapidly into its lowest point - immorality, corruption, simony (buying positions in the Church). However that was soon to change! Throughout Europe, civil authorities sought power over the church and endeavoured to limit the power of the Pope. However, reform was coming and the church started to get its own house in order. The Cluniac Monastic Movement -  This as a reform movement started by Duke William 1 in the year 910, in a monastery in Cluny, France to purify the monastic movement. Most of the needed reforms were undertaken by Odo and quickly spread throughout France, England, Spain and Italy. The catalyst for this reform was the large scale corruption with the church. Simony and concubinage were rife and resulted from secular interference and the Church's strict integration with the ruling systems. The reforms set in place, quickly spread quickly, to over 350 houses in the 10th century. This produced many prominent leaders who set out to reform the Church. We will see more of those leaders in coming episodes of this series. In 1059, the papacy was removed from interference from secular powers. The creation of the College of Cardinals was formed to elect new Popes. Hildebrand – He is also known as Pope Gregory VII. Before he came to power, he was an archdeacon. He strongly advocated the celibacy of the clergy and attacked simony and corruption. Hildebrand fought for freedom of the church from the state. He claimed everyone was to be subject primarily to the Pope, before they were subject to the civil authorities. He had a long battle with the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV, and was eventually placed in exile. He did perpetuate the thought that pope was the visible head of the church and the presence of Peter in all bishops of Rome, the Pope. The church attained a state of power and authority over the lives of all people and sought to influence every aspect of their lives. The Crusades (1095 - 1270) - These were religious wars fought by the Western empire to recover Holy Land from Islam and to protect Constantinople. There were 7-8 major crusades, although this was a continual flow of people. People were offered incentives to join - miraculous provision; no tax; free from purgatory etc. Thousands died on the long journeys. Only the 1st crusade was successful in regaining Jerusalem. They arrived in 1099, and subsequently lost it in 1150, and it was never regained. The remaining crusades achieved very little despite the great efforts. Chief behind these crusades was Pope Innocent III. Innocent III (1198 - 1216) - Pope Innocent III humiliated the kings of England and France, and forced them to be obedient to himself and his whims. This shows that he had great power and control over nearly all Christian kings in Europe. Innocent III had the same policies as Hildebrande, but carried them out to a greater success rate He presided over the 4th Lateran Council - one of the Roman Catholic churches greatest councils. 4th Lateran Council - This Council called by Pope Innocent III and began November 11, 1215 in Rome's Lateran Palace. It is also sometimes called the General Council of Lateran with over 1400 participants from the breadth of the church clergy, as well as representatives of several monarchies. Innocent III presented 71 decrees over the course of the Council. This included the decree to free the holy Land from Islam rule, which was part of the Crusades. Those decrees were ratified with little discussion and enacted upon. Some of the things ratified at the Council included: Procedures to penalise heretics and their protectors Great encouragement to the Orthodox church to reunite with the Roman Church and accept its decrees, that there may visibly be only one church. The decree Omnis Utriusque Sexus, whereby all Christians were to confess their sins at least once a year to their own priest. This was ratification of earlier decrees, therefore making confession before a priest a sacramental obligation. Jews and Muslim peoples were to wear special clothing in order to distinguish them from Christians. Christian authorities were to take action against blasphemous behaviour. That's it for this time! Next time in our series we will start to look at the Church in the Middle Ages. Thanks for listening! Come back to Partakers, where every day there is something new to encourage your walk as a Christian in the 21st century. Tap or click here to save this as an audio mp3 file

In this episode Ellen and I talk about a dualist heresy that was widespread in twelfth- and thirteenth-century southern France and northern Italy.  This heresy is generally known as Catharism.  Its central tenet was that there are two gods, a good god who created the spiritual world and an evil god who created the visible world. The soul of man is good, but the flesh in which it is imprisoned is evil.  Pope Innocent III regarded the heresy as a sufficient threat to Christendom to warrant a crusade. This was the so-called Albigensian Crusade that began in 1209 and did not end until 1229.  A Dominican friar writing around 1250 observed that “if the heresy had not been cut back by the swords of the faithful … it would have corrupted the whole of Christendom.”  The Albigensian Crusade was exceptionally brutal even by medieval standards. It began with a massacre that gave birth to the saying, "kill them all. God will know his own." The failure of this crusade to eradicate the heresy was the impetus for the creation of the medieval inquisition.     This subject is also a stroll down memory lane for Ellen and me, as we reflect upon our collaboration many, many years ago on an article about women's participation in Catharism.  When we wrote that article no one questioned whether there really was a Cathar heresy. That is no longer the case.      Please join us as we examine the historiography and history of the Cathars.

What effect do evil priests have on the Church? RtT's official Sponsor: https://gloryandshine.com/ https://praylatin.com https://www.charitymobile.com/rtt.php https://www.devoutdecals.com/ https://www.blessedbegodboutique.com Sources: https://www.returntotradition.org Contact Me: Email: return2catholictradition@gmail.com Support My Work: Patreon https://www.patreon.com/AnthonyStine SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.net/return-to-tradition Buy Me A Coffee https://www.buymeacoffee.com/AnthonyStine Physical Mail: Anthony Stine PO Box 3048 Shawnee, OK 74802 Follow me on the following social media: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbgdypwXSo0GzWSVTaiMPJg https://www.facebook.com/ReturnToCatholicTradition/ https://twitter.com/pontificatormax https://www.minds.com/PiusXIII https://gloria.tv/Return%20To%20Tradition mewe.com/i/anthonystine Back Up https://www.bitchute.com/channel/9wK5iFcen7Wt/ anchonr.fm/anthony-stine +JMJ+ --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/anthony-stine/support

The Fourth Crusade was a Latin Christian armed expedition called by Pope Innocent III. The stated intent of the expedition was to recapture the Muslim-controlled city of Jerusalem, by first defeating the powerful Egyptian Ayyubid Sultanate, the strongest Muslim state of the time. Bonus episodes as well as ad-free episodes on Patreon. Find us on Instagram. Join us on Discord.

Is the published account of a couple from the middle ages reincarnating in the 20th century accurate? Were the couple's beliefs as persecuted Cathars in divine alignment? Was the wife who was burned at the stake largely spared from pain by divine intervention? Were her physical symptoms and PTSD-like emotional suffering a replay of her prior trauma? Did his persecution of the Cathars cause the spirit of Pope Innocent III to remain in limbo after his death? Creator explains how prayer and divine healing can help us heal our long history of woundings from multiple lifetimes. Join us!

Is the published account of a couple from the middle ages reincarnating in the 20th century accurate? Were the couple's beliefs as persecuted Cathars in divine alignment? Was the wife who was burned at the stake largely spared from pain by divine intervention? Were her physical symptoms and PTSD-like emotional suffering a replay of her prior trauma? Did his persecution of the Cathars cause the spirit of Pope Innocent III to remain in limbo after his death? Creator explains how prayer and divine healing can help us heal our long history of woundings from multiple lifetimes. Join us!

Shocking as it may be a medieval bestseller was misery. That text, On the Misery of the Human Condition, is the subject of our podcast today. It was written by a soon-to-be Pope and remained wildly popular for five hundred years before mysteriously dropping out of favor. This text is filled with insights into the Medieval perspective through the meditations of Pope Innocent III, and our manuscript, TM557, is a classic example of the popularity of the Misery throughout time. It is an important historical record and a must-read text for anyone interested in medieval history and life.   Resources:  TM 557, On the Misery of the Human Condition  On the success of Latin texts in the Middle Ages Robert E. Lewis, ed. and tr., Lotario dei Segni (Pope Innocent III), De miseria condicionis humane, Athens, Georgia, 1978  John C. Moore, Pope Innocent III (1160/61-1216). To Root up and Plant, Leiden, 2003  John C. Moore, “Innocent III's De miseria humanae conditionis: A Speculum curiae,” Catholic Historical Review 67 (1981), pp. 553-564. 

Is there a hidden agenda behind the rapid push toward sustainable development? Could the events of the Middle Ages still be affecting us today? What information about church and state relationships is hiding in titles such as “esquire” and “liege”? What was the concession Britain's King John made to Pope Innocent III? Is it binding today? Professor Walter J. Veith explores the issue of sustainable development and the fascinating history of England's crown and its forfeiture to a religious power. Learn how it came about that England and its former colonies are all vassals which belong to Rome and how an agenda of worldwide control is being foisted on Earth's inhabitants. History has startling answers to why we are seeing certain players on the world stage. Find out more in this significant and eye-opening presentation.

This is the one where Sarah gets unreasonably infuriated about the Magna Carta and Anglo-American exceptionalism - but also gets the chance to talk about King John's troubles with Pope Innocent III. Elizabeth Bonnemann is back to talk Doctor Who serial “The King's Demons,” where two Time Lords battle it out over (allegedly) the future of democracy in England, 1215. Social Media: Find Elizabeth on Twitter: @lizziestrider Twitter @mediaevalpod E-mail: media.evalpod@gmail.com Rate, review, and subscribe!

Today in The English and British Monarchy Series we are looking at the reign of King John. In this series we will look English and British Monarchs from Edward the Confessor to Elizabeth II whilst also stopping to examine major events in English and British History. We will examine who these Monarchs were, what their early life was like, what happened in their reign, their death and if they were a good Monarch. To learn about Pope Innocent III head to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAPvNv-Iu1w&t=1s To buy Gwynne's Kings and Queens: The Indispensable History of England and Her Monarchs by Nevile Gwynne head to: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gwynnes-King... To buy 'The Plantagenets: The Kings who made England' by Dan Jones head to: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Plantagenets... To Buy A History of Britain - Volume 1: At the Edge of the World? 3000 BC-AD 1603 by Simon Schama head to: https://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Brit... To catch up on everything to do with History with Jackson head to www.HistorywithJackson.co.uk If you wish to support us and our work please head to our 'Buy me a Coffee' profile: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/Historyw... Follow us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/HistorywithJ...... Follow us on Instagram at: @HistorywithJackson Follow us on Twitter at: @HistorywJackson --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/history-with-jackson/message

Welcome to the new series on Popes across History, starting with us looking at Pope Innocent III. In this series we will look at the lives of these Popes, where they came from, what they did, and of they were good Popes. To catch up and learn about the Albigensian Crusade: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCEefp11yIo&t=1s To buy 'The Popes A History' by John Jules Norwich: https://amzn.to/2OKyCJL To Buy 'A History of Christianity' by Diarmaid MacCulloch: https://amzn.to/3gaVCgi To catch up on everything to do with History with Jackson head to www.HistorywithJackson.co.uk If you wish to support us and our work please head to our 'Buy me a Coffee' profile: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/HistorywJackson Follow us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/HistorywithJ...... Follow us on Instagram at: @HistorywithJackson Follow us on Twitter at: @HistorywJackson --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/history-with-jackson/message

In this reflection, Father John Strickland turns from secular humanism to reformational Christianity to see how Christendom's paradisiacal culture was subverted by both the Protestant "Counter-Reformation" and the Roman Catholic "Neo-Reformation." Ironically, Protestant fathers like Luther and Calvin did much to perpetuate the anthropological pessimism and cosmological contempt of their rivals like the earlier Pope Innocent III, opening the door even wider to the wholesale secularization of the West.

On June 15, 1215, in the meadows of Runnymede just west of London, English nobles and clergy gathered to witness – and to compel – King John to place his seal on a document that enshrined the rights of the Church and of free men, and declared the sovereign to be subject to the rule of law. The name of this document was Magna Carta, the Great Charter of liberty.In his passionate and entertaining style, Dr. John Robson tells the story of this seminal moment in the history of democracy, the protection of human freedom, and the independence of the Church.Dr. Robson is a historian, journalist, and documentary filmmaker. Chief among his documentary titles is “Magna Carta: Our Shared Legacy of Liberty”, which is accompanied by a companion book of the same name.0:00 - Introduction3:00 - Magna Carta - a launchpad for 800 years of liberty7:40 - Genesis of the Magna Carta10:40 - Missionaries, stories of a dead Jewish carpenter and the conversion of Britain12:45 - Resisting One-Man Rule16:00 - The drama: Bad King John, Pope Innocent III and Archbishop Stephen Langton19:35 - The shadow of St. Thomas Becket's assassination22:20 - How can a prince be under the law?25:20 - The commoners have their say28:15 - The miracle of Magna Carta30:15 - Freedom for the Church32:20 - Freedom for all38:40 - Magna Carta and the New World45:20 - Carrying forward the legacy of Magna Carta49:15 - ConclusionIf you enjoyed this episode, please consider supporting Crown and Crozier with a tax-deductible donation here:  DONATE  Documents/Websites referenced Magna Carta (English translation)Dr. John Robson“Magna Carta: Our Shared Legacy of Liberty” (Dr. John Robson documentary)Archbishop Stephen LangtonThe (remarkably unusual) tomb of Archbishop Stephen LangtonMagna Carta Day Act (Ontario)Please note that this podcast has been edited for length and clarity.Support the show (http://missionoftheredeemer.com/crownandcrozier/)

Essentials: The End Times May 30, 2021 If you google “end times news,” your search will come back with an astonishing and overwhelming 1 billion 850 million results. It seems that people everywhere, of every faith or no faith at all, are, at some level, intrigued with the unknown and interested in what “the end” will look like. Countless people have dedicated their careers, if not their lives, to predicting the return of Jesus and the ensuing chaos and calamity that will result in the end of life on earth as we know it. Author and journalist Dina Niyeri writes, “For believers, “the end” has always been imminent. In the Christian world, every century seems to bring a new wave of calculations. On January 1, in the year 1000, Pope Sylvester II predicted a millennial apocalypse. Two centuries later, Pope Innocent III predicted that the end would arrive 666 years after the birth of Islam. The Black Death brought rapture fever, as did every comet. Cotton Mather, the influential American preacher, had three guesses between 1697 and 1736. As for this century, a 2010 Pew Research Center study found that nearly half of American Christians – not just evangelicals – believe Christ will return in their lifetime.” What is this fascination with the end times all about? What is it that drives our desire to know what's coming? And what do we as followers of Jesus really believe about the end times? We're wrapping up our sermon series Essentials: Live Like You Believe this weekend. And we'll be taking a look at what God's Word has to teach us about the end times. There is much that we can know for sure; truths that give us firm ground to stand on, even as we navigate increasingly challenging and uncertain times. 

In this episode, Father John relates a case in which the early humanist Petrarch confronted one of the new Christendom's chief architects, Pope Innocent III. Applying his newly developed secular thinking, he rejected the pope's notorious treatise entitled On the Misery of the Human Condition.

The Apostles' Creed is one of the most well-known creeds of western Christianity and was developed from a second century baptismal creed. It became the official statement of Catholic faith during the reign of Pope Innocent III between 1198-1216. Today, the Apostles' Creed is prayed at the beginning of the Rosary and is recited in a question-and-answer format at Baptisms. In the time of the early Church, when many people were illiterate, orally reciting creeds helped them learn and remember the core tenets of the Faith. Creeds set out by the Church also helped Christians distinguish between truth and heresy before there was a defined canon of Scripture or a Catechism. I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; he descended into hell; on the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty; from there he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.

Full Text of ReadingsFeast of the Conversion of Saint Paul, Apostle Lectionary: 519All podcast readings are produced by the USCCB and are from the Catholic Lectionary, based on the New American Bible and approved for use in the United States _______________________________________The Saint of the day is Conversion of St. PaulThe great apostle was a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin. He surpassed all hispeers in zeal for the Jewish law and their traditions, which he thought to be the cause of God, became one of the most fierce enemies and persecutors of Christians. He was one of the conspirators in the martyrdom of St. Stephan.After the martyrdom of the holy deacon, the priests and magistrates of the Jews raised a violent persecution against the church at Jerusalem, in which Saulplaced himself above the others.In the fury of his zeal, he appealed to the high priest and Sanhedrim for a commission to take up all Jews at Damascus who confessed Jesus Christ, and bring them bound to Jerusalem, that they might serve as public examples to incite terror into others.But God was pleased to show forth inSaul his patience and mercy:Saul was almost at the end of his journey to Damascus, when, around noon, he and his company were surrounded by a great light from heaven and,fell to the ground. Then Saul heard a voice, which to him was articulate and distinct, but not understood by the rest :"Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute me? Christ said not: Why dost thou persecute my disciples, but me: for it is he, their head, who is chiefly persecuted in his servants." Saul answered: "Who art thou, Lord?" Christ said: "Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecute. It is hard for thee to kick against the goad: - to contend with one so much mightier than thyself."There was a Christian of distinction in Damascus,Ananius, greatly respectedby the Jews for his irreproachable life and great virtue. Christ appeared to this holy disciple, and commanded him to go to Saul, who wasat that momentin the house of Judas at prayer. Ananias trembled at the name of Saul, being familiar with the misdeeds he had done in Jerusalemand the errandfor which he set out to Damascus. But our Redeemer overruled his fears, and charged him a second time to go, saying: "Go, for he is a vessel of election to carry my name before Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel: and I will show him how much he has to suffer for my name. For tribulation is the test and portion of all the true servants of Christ."Thus a blasphemer and a persecutor was made an apostle, and chosen to be one of the principal instruments of God in the conversion of the world.St. Paul never recalled his wonderful conversion, from which have poured forth may blessings,without raptures of gratitude and praise to theDivine and His mercy. The Church, in thanksgiving to God for such a miracle of his grace, to commemorate so miraculous an instance of his almighty power and to propose to penitents a perfect model of a true conversion, has instituted this feast, which we find mentioned in several calendars and missals of the eighth and ninth centuries, and which Pope Innocent III commanded to be observed with great solemnity. Saint of the Day Copyright CNA, Catholic News Agency

Our pope this week had the fun job of wrangling a bunch of Alphas and convincing them to work as a team for the sake of Christendom, and in the meantime tried not to lose everything the papacy had accumulated up to that point in history. Oh, and his nephew would later end up being one of the most powerful popes in history.

In 1206, Pope Innocent III commissioned Saint Dominic and bishop, Diego, to the work of preaching against the Albigensian heretics in the South of France. After much hardship, with six companions in 1215, he organized the Friars Preachers, also called the Dominicans.

Magna Carta, a unique document that is one of England's many great gifts to the world. Magna Carta is, or is a marker for, one of the greatest innovations in world history. It, like Modus Tennedi Parliamentum, rests upon a common delusion. It's great success was based on failure. Is this a Doctor Who episode or is it history? Magna Carta provided a constitutional peace that lasted 400 years. The aphorism "few read it, everyone quoted it" is examined and exalted. And the shameful little episode where the future Louis the 8th of France is proclaimed king of England and Pope Innocent III becomes the lord of the King of England is taken out and considered.Conversation with Camie goes into the notion of an Interdict and its consequences, but from a more modern perspective unfortunately (hey, it's live and immediate feedback).

My favorite Image of Blessed Mother as a child. Every Tuesday night we had devotions to Our Lady of Perpetual HelpAccording to tradition, Our Lady of Perpetual Help is considered the oldest Icon in the Church. It is believed that the first Icon of the Virgin of the Passion (or Our Lady of Perpetual Help) was in fact painted by St. Luke. And who better than he to paint this sorrowful image of Mother and Son; for St. Luke, of all the Gospel writers, wrote most personally of the Lord in His infancy up to His death on the Cross. So much so, with details that only the Mother of Jesus could know, the likelihood is that Our Lady, Herself, must have shared them with him.It is further believed that St. Luke painted the Icon of Our Blessed Mother and Her Son Jesus, while She was still in Jerusalem. When he showed the finished painting to Her, it is said, She blessed him and the Icon, saying, Her grace would accompany the Icon. And so it has, with countless miracles accompanying the Icon wherever it has been venerated, asking the intercession of Our Lady of Perpetual Help. There were so many miracles, so many petitions answered, in the year 1207, Pope Innocent III declared that the Virgin Mary's soul had to have entered the Icon, as She was so radiantly beautiful and the Icon had been such a powerful instrument in bringing about so many miracles through Our Lady's intervention.The Icon begins its travels.Become a Patron of Journeys of Faith Our Lady of Perpetual Help Media Support the show (https://www.journeysoffaith.com/donate)

One of the seven greatest Latin hymns of all time, Stabat Mater Dolorsa is based upon the prophecy of Simeon that a sword was to pierce the heart of his Mother, Mary. The hymn originated in the 13th century during the peak of Franciscan devotion to the crucified Jesus and has been attributed to Pope Innocent III, St. Bonaventure, or Jacopone da Todi (1230-1306) --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

The Main Questions: •How did secular rulers challenge papal authority in the 14th and 15th centuries? •Why did Pope Boniface VIII quarrel with King Philip the Fair? Why was Boniface so impotent in the conflict? How had political conditions changed since the reign of Pope Innocent III in the late twelfth century, and what did that mean for the papacy? •How did the Church change from 1200 to 1450? What was its response to the growing power of monarchs? How great an influence did the church have on secular events? •What was the Avignon papacy and why did it occur? How did it affect the papacy? What relationship did it have to the Great Schism? How did the church become divided, and how was it reunited? Why was the conciliar movement a setback for the papacy? •Why were the kings in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries able to control the church more than the church could control the kings? How did kings attack the church during this period? --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Stabat Mater Dolorosa is considered one of the seven greatest Latin hymns of all time. It is based upon the prophecy of Simeon that a sword was to pierce the heart of His mother, Mary (Lk 2:35). The hymn originated in the 13th century during the peak of Franciscan devotion to the crucified Jesus and has been attributed to Pope Innocent III (d. 1216), St. Bonaventure, or more commonly, Jacopone da Todi (1230-1306), who is considered by most to be the real author. STABAT Mater dolorosa iuxta Crucem lacrimosa, dum pendebat Filius. AT, the Cross her station keeping, stood the mournful Mother weeping, close to Jesus to the last. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

This lecture was given at Harvard University on February 13, 2020. For more events and info please visit https://thomisticinstitute.org/events-1. Andrew Willard Jones is the Director of the St. Paul Center and a Faculty Fellow at Franciscan University of Steubenville. Jones holds a PhD in Medieval History from Saint Louis University with a focus on the Church of the High Middle Ages. Jones’s work is primarily concerned with historical political theology and with the reconciliation of the post-modern with the pre-modern. Methodologically, his work treats history as a theological discipline and not as a secular archaeology. Watch for two forthcoming books: The Liturgical Cosmos: Explorations in the Sacramental and Biblical Vision of Pope Innocent III and a one-volume history of the Catholic Church.

Corrections: 1. The Amalekites are not Canaanites. Canaanites lived in the land of Cana, the modern day Holy Land. Amalekites were citizens under the king, Amalek, who attacked the Israelites when they were traveling to the Holy Land. Hence, the battle of Joshua was a defensive war to prevent the army of Amalek from plundering the Israelites. Please forgive me of this error. 2. Pope Innocent III is not a canonized Saint.

Magna Carta Libertatum (Medieval Latin for "the Great Charter of the Liberties"), commonly called Magna Carta (also Magna Charta; "Great Charter"), is a charter of rights agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215. First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. Neither side stood behind their commitments, and the charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III, leading to the First Barons' War. After John's death, the regency government of his young son, Henry III, reissued the document in 1216, stripped of some of its more radical content, in an unsuccessful bid to build political support for their cause. At the end of the war in 1217, it formed part of the peace treaty agreed at Lambeth, where the document acquired the name Magna Carta, to distinguish it from the smaller Charter of the Forest which was issued at the same time. Short of funds, Henry reissued the charter again in 1225 in exchange for a grant of new taxes. His son, Edward I, repeated the exercise in 1297, this time confirming it as part of England's statute law. The charter became part of English political life and was typically renewed by each monarch in turn, although as time went by and the fledgling Parliament of England passed new laws, it lost some of its practical significance. At the end of the 16th century there was an upsurge in interest in Magna Carta. Lawyers and historians at the time believed that there was an ancient English constitution, going back to the days of the Anglo-Saxons, that protected individual English freedoms. They argued that the Norman invasion of 1066 had overthrown these rights, and that Magna Carta had been a popular attempt to restore them, making the charter an essential foundation for the contemporary powers of Parliament and legal principles such as habeas corpus. Although this historical account was badly flawed, jurists such as Sir Edward Coke used Magna Carta extensively in the early 17th century, arguing against the divine right of kings propounded by the Stuart monarchs. Both James I and his son Charles I attempted to suppress the discussion of Magna Carta, until the issue was curtailed by the English Civil War of the 1640s and the execution of Charles. The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century. It influenced the early American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies and the formation of the American Constitution in 1787, which became the supreme law of the land in the new republic of the United States. Research by Victorian historians showed that the original 1215 charter had concerned the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people, but the charter remained a powerful, iconic document, even after almost all of its content was repealed from the statute books in the 19th and 20th centuries. Magna Carta still forms an important symbol of liberty today, often cited by politicians and campaigners, and is held in great respect by the British and American legal communities, Lord Denning describing it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot". In the 21st century, four exemplifications of the original 1215 charter remain in existence, two at the British Library, one at Lincoln Cathedral and one at Salisbury Cathedral. There are also a handful of the subsequent charters in public and private ownership, including copies of the 1297 charter in both the United States and Australia. The original charters were written on parchment sheet --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/allthingsplantagenet/support

Magna Carta Libertatum (Medieval Latin for "the Great Charter of the Liberties"), commonly called Magna Carta (also Magna Charta; "Great Charter"), is a charter of rights agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215. First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. Neither side stood behind their commitments, and the charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III, leading to the First Barons' War. After John's death, the regency government of his young son, Henry III, reissued the document in 1216, stripped of some of its more radical content, in an unsuccessful bid to build political support for their cause. At the end of the war in 1217, it formed part of the peace treaty agreed at Lambeth, where the document acquired the name Magna Carta, to distinguish it from the smaller Charter of the Forest which was issued at the same time. Short of funds, Henry reissued the charter again in 1225 in exchange for a grant of new taxes. His son, Edward I, repeated the exercise in 1297, this time confirming it as part of England's statute law. The charter became part of English political life and was typically renewed by each monarch in turn, although as time went by and the fledgling Parliament of England passed new laws, it lost some of its practical significance. At the end of the 16th century there was an upsurge in interest in Magna Carta. Lawyers and historians at the time believed that there was an ancient English constitution, going back to the days of the Anglo-Saxons, that protected individual English freedoms. They argued that the Norman invasion of 1066 had overthrown these rights, and that Magna Carta had been a popular attempt to restore them, making the charter an essential foundation for the contemporary powers of Parliament and legal principles such as habeas corpus. Although this historical account was badly flawed, jurists such as Sir Edward Coke used Magna Carta extensively in the early 17th century, arguing against the divine right of kings propounded by the Stuart monarchs. Both James I and his son Charles I attempted to suppress the discussion of Magna Carta, until the issue was curtailed by the English Civil War of the 1640s and the execution of Charles. The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century. It influenced the early American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies and the formation of the American Constitution in 1787, which became the supreme law of the land in the new republic of the United States. Research by Victorian historians showed that the original 1215 charter had concerned the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people, but the charter remained a powerful, iconic document, even after almost all of its content was repealed from the statute books in the 19th and 20th centuries. Magna Carta still forms an important symbol of liberty today, often cited by politicians and campaigners, and is held in great respect by the British and American legal communities, Lord Denning describing it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot". In the 21st century, four exemplifications of the original 1215 charter remain in existence, two at the British Library, one at Lincoln Cathedral and one at Salisbury Cathedral. There are also a handful of the subsequent charters in public and private ownership, including copies of the 1297 charter in both the United States and Australia. The original charters were written on parchment sheet --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/allthingsplantagenet/support

Magna Carta Libertatum (Medieval Latin for "the Great Charter of the Liberties"), commonly called Magna Carta (also Magna Charta; "Great Charter"), is a charter of rights agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215. First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. Neither side stood behind their commitments, and the charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III, leading to the First Barons' War. After John's death, the regency government of his young son, Henry III, reissued the document in 1216, stripped of some of its more radical content, in an unsuccessful bid to build political support for their cause. At the end of the war in 1217, it formed part of the peace treaty agreed at Lambeth, where the document acquired the name Magna Carta, to distinguish it from the smaller Charter of the Forest which was issued at the same time. Short of funds, Henry reissued the charter again in 1225 in exchange for a grant of new taxes. His son, Edward I, repeated the exercise in 1297, this time confirming it as part of England's statute law. The charter became part of English political life and was typically renewed by each monarch in turn, although as time went by and the fledgling Parliament of England passed new laws, it lost some of its practical significance. At the end of the 16th century there was an upsurge in interest in Magna Carta. Lawyers and historians at the time believed that there was an ancient English constitution, going back to the days of the Anglo-Saxons, that protected individual English freedoms. They argued that the Norman invasion of 1066 had overthrown these rights, and that Magna Carta had been a popular attempt to restore them, making the charter an essential foundation for the contemporary powers of Parliament and legal principles such as habeas corpus. Although this historical account was badly flawed, jurists such as Sir Edward Coke used Magna Carta extensively in the early 17th century, arguing against the divine right of kings propounded by the Stuart monarchs. Both James I and his son Charles I attempted to suppress the discussion of Magna Carta, until the issue was curtailed by the English Civil War of the 1640s and the execution of Charles. The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century. It influenced the early American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies and the formation of the American Constitution in 1787, which became the supreme law of the land in the new republic of the United States. Research by Victorian historians showed that the original 1215 charter had concerned the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people, but the charter remained a powerful, iconic document, even after almost all of its content was repealed from the statute books in the 19th and 20th centuries. Magna Carta still forms an important symbol of liberty today, often cited by politicians and campaigners, and is held in great respect by the British and American legal communities, Lord Denning describing it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot". In the 21st century, four exemplifications of the original 1215 charter remain in existence, two at the British Library, one at Lincoln Cathedral and one at Salisbury Cathedral. There are also a handful of the subsequent charters in public and private ownership, including copies of the 1297 charter in both the United States and Australia. The original charters were written on parchment sheet --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/allthingsplantagenet/support

Magna Carta Libertatum (Medieval Latin for "the Great Charter of the Liberties"), commonly called Magna Carta (also Magna Charta; "Great Charter"), is a charter of rights agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215. First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. Neither side stood behind their commitments, and the charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III, leading to the First Barons' War. After John's death, the regency government of his young son, Henry III, reissued the document in 1216, stripped of some of its more radical content, in an unsuccessful bid to build political support for their cause. At the end of the war in 1217, it formed part of the peace treaty agreed at Lambeth, where the document acquired the name Magna Carta, to distinguish it from the smaller Charter of the Forest which was issued at the same time. Short of funds, Henry reissued the charter again in 1225 in exchange for a grant of new taxes. His son, Edward I, repeated the exercise in 1297, this time confirming it as part of England's statute law. The charter became part of English political life and was typically renewed by each monarch in turn, although as time went by and the fledgling Parliament of England passed new laws, it lost some of its practical significance. At the end of the 16th century there was an upsurge in interest in Magna Carta. Lawyers and historians at the time believed that there was an ancient English constitution, going back to the days of the Anglo-Saxons, that protected individual English freedoms. They argued that the Norman invasion of 1066 had overthrown these rights, and that Magna Carta had been a popular attempt to restore them, making the charter an essential foundation for the contemporary powers of Parliament and legal principles such as habeas corpus. Although this historical account was badly flawed, jurists such as Sir Edward Coke used Magna Carta extensively in the early 17th century, arguing against the divine right of kings propounded by the Stuart monarchs. Both James I and his son Charles I attempted to suppress the discussion of Magna Carta, until the issue was curtailed by the English Civil War of the 1640s and the execution of Charles. The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century. It influenced the early American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies and the formation of the American Constitution in 1787, which became the supreme law of the land in the new republic of the United States. Research by Victorian historians showed that the original 1215 charter had concerned the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people, but the charter remained a powerful, iconic document, even after almost all of its content was repealed from the statute books in the 19th and 20th centuries. Magna Carta still forms an important symbol of liberty today, often cited by politicians and campaigners, and is held in great respect by the British and American legal communities, Lord Denning describing it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot". In the 21st century, four exemplifications of the original 1215 charter remain in existence, two at the British Library, one at Lincoln Cathedral and one at Salisbury Cathedral. There are also a handful of the subsequent charters in public and private ownership, including copies of the 1297 charter in both the United States and Australia. The original charters were written on parchment sheet --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/allthingsplantagenet/support

This episode covers the disaster that was the Fourth Crusade. Pope Innocent III will try and reinvigorate crusading and wind up sacking one of the most Christian cities in the world. Then we will take a quick look at life in the Near East between the Third and Fifth Crusades. 

In the first hour, hosts Fr. Richard Kunst and Fr. Ryan Moravitz began by visiting with Celeste Lewis, a naturalist at Chester Woods Park in Minnesota, about the beauty of the fall colors and how we can get out to enjoy them this time of year. We then had our next Into the Deep call-in/Facebook Live segment, featuring Fr. Rich and Fr. Ryan. Listeners asked questions on topics including: Why Jesus had to learn things growing up if He supposedly knew everything already; why we talk about exile in the Hail Holy Queen prayer; how we engage in respectful dialogue when it comes to the election; what Pentecost means to us as Catholics; who Pope Innocent III was; and how we can go on the offensive in spiritual warfare.

Using the the chronicles of two participants in the Fourth Crusade - the one a common knight, the other a leader involved in decision making and the important work of an envoy - we follow the growth of the Fourth Crusade through the elevation of Pope Innocent III, the negotiation with the Venetians, the ruinous agreement that was the result, and all the way up to the gates of Zara. Website Patreon Buy me a Ko-fi Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

sermon transcript Introduction We are nearing the end of our study of the book of Revelation. Ordinarily, I preach through the text, and at the end draw out applications. But this sermon will be different, one filled with application of the entire book of Revelation, though not comprehensive. We do not know everything that God wants us to do. There are many times in the Bible in which individuals were cut to the heart and came to the one proclaiming the Word, saying, “What must we do?” Many came to John the Baptist asking that question. He would answer appropriately for their office or station in life. People asked Peter the same question when he preached the Gospel to those who were in Jerusalem for the Feast of Pentecost. At that point, Christ had died and risen and ascended to Heaven, and the Holy Spirit had been poured out. Peter preached the Gospel boldly and clearly, that the ones listening were cut to the heart. The Philippian jailer asked the same question. As he drew Paul and Silas out of the Philippian jail, he fell down before them and asked, “What must I do to be saved?” I want you to think about that as we come to the text today. In a few weeks, I will go over the entire book of Revelation, as I always do when I finish a book. Keep that question in mind. We are at the end of the book, the final chapter, the final verses. What shall we do? How shall we put into practice the things that we have learned? The Book of Revelation Comes to a Close (vs. 6) Our Response to the Vision of Heaven Revelation 22:1-5, the verses immediately prior to our text today, provides a revelation, an unveiling, of the New Heaven, the New Earth, and the New Jerusalem: “Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign forever and ever.” John has just received the most sublime vision any human being has ever had, a vision of the New Heaven and the New Earth and the radiant perfect city of God, the New Jerusalem. Now, John must return to planet Earth. The vision has ended and it is time for him to return in his mind to the rocky island of exile, the island of Patmos. The sublime words that he has had poured into his soul by his angelic guide, through the Holy Spirit, must be lived out by faith. The final verses, Revelation 22:6-21, make up the epilogue, the final section of the final chapter of the final book of the Bible. As John returned to Patmos, so we return to our daily lives — jobs, families, challenges, medical issues, financial issues, wrestling with sin, commitment to evangelize, to reach out with the Gospel. We must return, and we must be changed. These words must burn in our hearts. The Bible must make an impact on us, and through us must make an impact on the world. We have traveled overwhelming ground, 21-plus chapters. John has given us a vision of things that are already presently going on in the heavenly realms, as well as a vision of the future. Many of the events outlined in Revelation are still in the future for us as they were in the future for John, but closer now. With this final section, we have come full circle in Revelation. There are clear parallels between the verbiage in today’s passage and the beginning of the book. That is completely intentional. Compare Revelation 1:1: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. God made it known by sending his angel”; and Revelation 22:6: “God sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place.” They are almost exactly the same. Revelation 1:3 says, “Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.” Revelation 22:7, 10 says, “Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book. …for the time is near.” Revelation 1:8, 17 says, “‘I am the Alpha, and the Omega,’ says the Lord God. …the First and the Last.” Revelation 22:13 says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” In Revelation 1:9, 17, John writes, “I John… When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead.” Revelation 22:8 says, “I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down." We have come full circle, back to where we started. God wants to press in on our hearts now the application of the things that we have learned. The question is: how, then, shall we live? Now that we have taken in all of this truth, how should it affect our lives? This closing section sums up how we should respond. We are not merely to be astounded, amazed, overwhelmed, befuddled, and then return to life as it was before. Still less are we supposed to shrug and act as though the words of Revelation are not significant. John did not make all of this up in his mind or have some weird dreams or hallucinations. We must take this book as a revelation, an unveiling from Almighty God of something he wants us to see and know. Despite the powerfully symbolic nature of the words in this apocalyptic genre — writing that is so very difficult to understand and interpret — He wants us to take these words and draw them in. We are to take them as much as we can grammatically, historically, literally, to try to understand them and apply them. We are to apply what they say about what God is like right now and what His plans are for the future of the human race. The application comes down to these questions: What should we understand? What should we believe? Who should we be? What should we do? Understand, believe, be and do. Trustworthy and True The fundamental issue here is the words that we are reading. Revelation 22:6 says, “The angel said to me, ‘These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place.’” This is a book of predictions of the future. Only the God of the Bible can do this. No other religion makes these kinds of predictions. Only God can tell us the future. As we learned in Isaiah 46:9-10, “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please." The angel told John that the words of this book are trustworthy, and they are true. Trustworthy means if you base your life on these words, you will not be disappointed. They will not fail you. True means that in the end when we get to Heaven we will look back and see that all of the prophecies came true. God will let none of them fall to the ground, but will do everything that He has predicted that he would do. When I think about the word trustworthy — as the word of God is trustworthy — I think about something I can put my weight on. Some time ago, I was reading the book, Kidnapped by Robert Louis Stevenson to Daphne. We tried to read the primary source, but could not get the Scottish burr down enough to be able to understand much. We were looking up Scottish words all the time. There is a critical scene early in the story, in which David Balfour, the main character, goes to ask his wicked uncle, who lives in a creepy old castle, to take him in because his parents have died. His uncle does not want to give him any of his fortune, so he has David ascend a spiral staircase in the tower of his castle. The uncle knows very well that one of the steps has been viciously altered so that it will give way when he puts his weight on it, which is exactly what happens. The step completely gives way and David starts to fall, but he saves himself by grabbing another stair at the last minute, hanging between heaven and earth, his life hanging in the balance, before managing to escape. That is the opposite illustration of what I am talking about. The Word of God will not give way when we step out on it. These words are trustworthy. Jesus likened it to building a house on a rock. When the storms of life attack, it will be solid and secure. Everything built on this book of Revelation will be solid and secure. He mentions the words of Revelation again and again. Revelation 21:5: “He who was seated on the throne said, ‘I am making everything new!’ Then he said, ‘Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.’” He wanted John to write down these words. Revelation 22:6: “The angel said to me, ‘These words are trustworthy and true.’” Revelation 22:7: “Behold, I am coming soon! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book.” Revelation 22:9-10: “But [the angel] said to me, ‘…I am a fellow servant with you and with your fellow prophets and with all who keep the words of this scroll. Worship God!’ Then he told me, ‘Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this scroll, because the time is near.’” Revelation 22:18-19. “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.” He is almost belaboring the point: The words in this book should be the focus of our attention. We should study them. Not to be Disparaged or Ignored This book must not be disparaged or ignored. Many scholars disparage it. They make light of it. Right up the road, there is a false teacher at UNC named Bart Ehrman. His express purpose, especially with evangelicals, is to destroy his students’ faith in the Bible. He does special work on the book of Revelation. He says the book of Revelation belongs to an apocalyptic genre that was well known in first-century Judaism, in which the Jews were yearning for deliverance from the Roman oppression. They wrote these visionary books hoping that God would come down and intervene and throw off the yoke of the oppressor, which never happened. That is absolutely not true. Bart Ehrman actually said Jesus was an apocalypticist himself, one who indulges in this genre and makes predictions that do not come true. Jesus said this generation would not pass away before all of these things had taken place. Ehrman zeroes in saying even Jesus was wrong when he predicted the imminent destruction of Rome. Another unbelieving scholar said that the book of Revelation is a mess, disorganized. This is the kind of disparaging that we must not do. Christ gave these words to tell us, his servants, the things that must soon take place. There is no other book like it in the Bible. Christ Is Coming Soon to End History (vs. 7, 13) The Alpha and Omega Returns Soon Revelation 22:7 says he coming soon to end history. “Look, I am coming soon! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this scroll.” Right before he left, at the end of his first advent, his mission on earth, in Acts 1:7-11, they were curious and pressed Jesus, “‘Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?’ He said to them: ‘It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.’ [That is the Great Commission. Our job is to take the Gospel to unbelievers.] After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. ‘Men of Galilee,’ they said, ‘why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.’” In Revelation, Jesus predicts that he will return soon. Revelation 22:13 says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” History will come to an end. Sense of Urgency — How, Then, Shall We Live? The early church had a sense of urgency about the imminent return of Christ. We see this repeatedly in the Epistles. In Philippians 3:20-21, Paul says, “… our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.” We eagerly await the Second Coming of Christ. 1 Corinthians 1:7 says, “Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed.” Paul told Thessalonican believers that they are a model to believers everywhere. 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10 says, “…They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead — Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.” We serve while we wait for Christ to return. Jesus says he is coming soon. The word “soon” gives us a sense of urgency and expectancy. He does not look at time the way we do. With the Lord, a day is like a thousand years, a thousand years is like a day. He told a series of parables in Matthew 24 and 25 about our demeanor while we wait. Matthew 24:45-51 says, “Who then is the faithful and wise servant whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, ‘My master is staying away a long time,’ and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Another parable with almost the same lesson is the five wise and five foolish virgins. The foolish virgins were only partially prepared for the coming of the bridegroom, so they were excluded from the wedding. Jesus says at the end of that one, “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.” How do we live out this sense of urgency, knowing that Jesus is coming soon? In Revelation, God has given details of events that will occur before the Second Coming. None of those things has happened yet — the seven trumpet judgments, the seven bowl judgments, the Antichrist rising up to rule over the whole earth, the man of sin setting up the abomination of desolation. Putting all that together, we do not expect the imminent return of Christ yet. We must hold all of those things in tension, keeping in mind that we also do not know about our own future, what day we will die, when we will be called to give an account, like the wicked fool who greedily built bigger barns and died before he could use them. If we do not know the length of our own days, we certainly cannot know the timing of the Second Coming of Christ. We must harmonize all the signs, but Jesus is saying, “I am coming soon. You do not know the day or the hour. You need to be vigilant, watchful and energetically, actively serving me.” How then shall we live? How do we apply this in practical terms? John McArthur organized these ideas with the words “urgent, immediate.” I am borrowing his word to give you an immediate application. Even if the Lord does not return for a long period of time, still there is a sense of immediacy. If you hear God speaking to you today and you do not put it into practice, your heart will become hard. If today you hear His voice, do not harden your heart. Instead, put into practice what God wants you to do. Immediate Obedience to His Word (vs.7) Keep His Word Revelation 22:7 speaks of immediate obedience to His word: “Behold, I am coming soon! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book.” The word “keep” in a simple way means to guard, protect, keep sacred. “Keep this command” is commonly translated “obey”. We have a sense of protecting Revelation against attacks, but even more protecting our own souls against attacks coming from the world, the flesh, and the devil. We must protect it so that we obey it. Within our own hearts, we must cherish these commands and take them in with a noble and good heart that bears 100, 60 or 30 times what was sown. That is what we want to do — obey. Jesus said, John 14:15, “If you love me, you will obey what I command.” Jesus, our Lord, measures love by obedience. Whoever has his commands and obeys them is the one who loves him. Revelation is not filled with many commands. There are far more in an average epistle — Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians. We must take the Bible as a whole. This is the last chapter of the last book. It sums up all of God’s commands that are binding on the hearts of Christians. Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book, which we should take to mean the whole Bible. Revelation has few commands, but the general teaching carries with it a moral imperative found in Mark 1:15: “‘The time has come,’ he said. “The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!’” That is how to keep the words of this book. Are you ready to meet your maker? Are you ready to stand before God on Judgement Day to give an account? Do you have a savior, an atoning sacrifice for your sins? The saints are described in Revelation 12:17 and 14:12 as “those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.” Two Basic Commands: Holiness and Gospel Advance 2 Peter 3:11-12 sums up the Lord’s two central commands: “Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.” We find the two journeys in that. The internal, infinite journey of holiness — live a holy and godly life, put sin to death by the power of the Spirit, be pure as you wait for the day when the Lord will return. And the external journey of evangelism and missions — we look forward to the day of God and speed its coming by preaching the Gospel, because the kingdom will not come until every tribe and language and people and nation has had this Gospel preached to it. The overarching commands are to be holy and be a witness. Lesser Commands There are many lesser commands as well that fit into what it means to be holy and to be a witness. We could, with good profit, go back to Revelation 2 and 3, to pull out all the commands that were given to the seven churches at the end of each of the seven letters. Revelation 2:7 says, “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” Take all seven messages to heart and keep the commands. To the church at Ephesus: “Do not become progressively hard in your heart toward Jesus; do not forsake your first love.” To the church at Smyrna: “Be faithful to the point of death; be willing to pay a price to be witnesses.” To the church at Pergamum: “Do not tolerate sin, especially sexual sin.” To the church at Thyatira: “Do not tolerate false teaching, but expose false teachers.” To the church at Sardis: “Do not have a reputation of being alive, but we are actually dead.” That could happen to a church like ours. If the Lord does not return within a generation, this church could have a reputation of the days when it was alive, but has become dead, coasting. To the church at Philadelphia: “Walk through the door of opportunity that Christ has set before us that no one can shut. Be faithful with those open doors.” To the church at Laodicea: “Do not be lukewarm, but be on fire for Jesus. We do not want him to spew us out of his mouth.” We want to take to heart, to keep, the commandments in those seven letters. The Rightness of Unattainable Perfect Obedience to God Let Revelation give you a sense of how right it is to continue seeking perfect obedience. We want to obey all of the commands God has given to us, to be faithful to them knowing we are not justified by our obedience to them. Seek to live the best possible life as we wait for the Second Coming of Christ. Immediate Worship to Him Alone (vs. 8-9) False vs. True Worship Revelation 22:8-9 “I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. But he said to me, ‘Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and of all who keep the words of this book. Worship God!’” Isn’t it amazing how honest the Bible is about its heroes? It is a proof that this is the book of truth. We are all sinners. For the second time, John falls down to worship an angel. He did it in Revelation 19:10: “At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, ‘Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God!’” And now he does it here. This brings us to the fundamental issue of worship — false versus true worship. The central problem of the human race, of us in our sin, is idolatry. Paul gives a clear definition of idolatry in Romans 1:25: “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator — who is forever praised. Amen.” The essence of idolatry is, in your heart, with your body, with your life, to fall down and give homage and total dedication to a creature, a created thing. Satan’s basic temptation is to call us away from worship of the true God into worship an idol. He tempted Jesus with that. He showed him all the kingdoms of the world, all the beauty of the creature. Matthew 4:8-10 says, “…the devil [a creature] took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. ‘All this I will give you,' he said, ‘if you will bow down and worship me.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Away from me, Satan! For it is written: “Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.”'" Revelation 13 and following details the worst organized idolatry of the human race, which is yet to come. The Antichrist — the Beast from the Sea — will do signs and wonders, seeming to be assassinated and then come back to life. He is backed by the hidden power of the dragon — the devil. He will demand worship from all people on planet Earth. The Beast from the Earth — the false prophet — will set up an idol and give it life supernaturally. He will compel people under pain of death to worship the idol and to receive a mark of the beast. Those who do not receive it cannot buy or sell, and probably will be executed. Those who do receive it will spend eternity in hell. Proper Response: Genuine Worship Conversely, there is also no book of the Bible that depicts true holy righteous worship more clearly. Revelation 1 details the image of the resurrected glorified Christ, moving through seven golden lamp stands. In Revelation 4, we see the image of the throne of Almighty God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. All in Heaven are worshiping God, the Creator of all things. In Revelation 5, the Lamb appears on the throne, looking as if it had been slain. All in Heaven continue to celebrate God the Creator and Christ the Redeemer. They are organized in concentric circles around the throne of God, giving Him glory. There is no book of the Bible that gives you a better picture of healthy worship of the true, triune God. The practical application is to worship God. Attack any idols in your heart. Is there any created thing that has a hold on you, that you are living for, that has become too important, that you are pursuing blindly, that is dominating your life? It could be success, money, power, sex, sensual pleasures, entertainment. Go after it, as 1 John 5:21 says: “Dear children, keep yourselves from idols.” On the other hand, whenever you see remnants of God’s beauty in nature — ocean, mountains, rivers, lakes, anything that causes you to wonder at this marvelous creation — imitate the actions of the people in Revelation 4:11, giving God praise and glory and honor: “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.” Whenever you feel yourself to be a sinner but you know that you have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, join in the celebration of Revelation 5:9: “You, O Christ, are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.” Worship God the Creator, Christ the Redeemer. Immediate Proclamation of His Warnings and Promises (vs. 10- 11) Understand and Proclaim These Words His warnings and promises are immediately proclaimed. Revelation 22:10-11 says, “Then he told me, ‘Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, because the time is near. Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile; let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue to be holy.’” God said, “Do not seal up the words” in direct contrast to the end of Daniel 12, where Daniel is told twice to seal up the scroll because it concerned a distant time. You would not understand it, and it was not for him. Here John is told, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, because the time is near.” Sealing the words gave the sense that they could not be entrusted to the common people, who would not be able to understand them. They would read them and be confused by them. But Jesus tells John, “Do not seal them up.” That implies that these words are clear enough to be understood by all. Therefore, preachers would do well to preach sermons on Revelation and drink in the blessing of Revelation 1:3: “Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.” Casting far and wide for all the help I could get over the last year preaching through this book, I have been amazed how few preachers try to do this, to go line by line, verse by verse, chapter by chapter through Revelation. It is a difficult book to interpret, but they are missing a blessing. Those who do preach from this book generally do so in ways that are not helpful, serving an eccentric eschatology that zeroes in on details and makes specific predictions that at best do not build up the body of Christ, and at worst are openly toxic. We do not need to do that; we need only read the book consistently, drink it in, steep in its themes — the holiness of God, the power of God, the coming wrath of God, the beauty of the New Heaven and New Earth and New Jerusalem. Drink in these themes all the time, proclaim it, do not seal it up, but get the word out. These words are clear enough to be understood. I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church. I was a baby when Vatican II happened, when they converted the Mass from Latin to the vernacular, the local language that can be understood. The majority of the Roman Catholic world did not understand a word that was spoken in Mass when it was in Latin. I learned that over the centuries, it was a consistent pattern that people who translated the Bible into the vernacular would be hunted down like criminals and executed, like William Tyndale and others who translated the Bible into English. His translations were collected and burned by the Roman Catholic authorities. Why? In 1199, Pope Innocent III wrote to a bishop of Metz, saying, “The mysteries of the sacraments of faith should not be explained everywhere to everyone, since they cannot be understood everywhere by everyone, but only to those who can conceive of them by their faithful intellect. Because of this the Apostle [St Paul] said to the simpler people: ‘As unto little ones in Christ I gave you milk to drink, not meat.’ For ‘strong meat is for the perfect’, as he said to others: ‘we speak wisdom among the perfect;’ ... Such is the profundity of divine Scripture, that not only simple and illiterate men, but even prudent and learned men do not fully suffice to investigate its wisdom. ... For it is written: ‘seek not the things that are too high for thee.’” He is saying, “This book is too hard for you to understand, do not read it. As a matter of fact, it is best not to translate it into your language because you will never understand it.” But the angel told John, “Do not seal up the words of this prophecy, publish them broadly and widely, drink them in and read them.” I am not saying you will understand everything; there are difficulties, there are mysteries, but we need to take it in. Two Outcomes of God’s Word: Harden the Wicked, Confirm the Righteous God’s Word does not return void. Isaiah 55:10-11 says, “As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.” Everywhere the Word of God goes out, it achieves what God sent it out to do. If that is the case, why are there so many unbelievers? Why do so many people hear the Gospel and not repent and believe? We need to understand as theological grown-ups that God is not sending out the word to do the same thing in every case. He is hardening some by the Word and saving others by that same Word. Revelation 22:11 says, “Let him who is wrong continue to do wrong, and let him who is vile continue to be vile. [And conversely] Let him who does right continue to do right, and let him who is holy continue to be holy.” The parallelism is interesting, that he who does wrong will continue to do wrong, and he who does right will continue to do right. It is a bifurcation of the wicked and the righteous. They will be confirmed in this by the Word of God. Ultimately in Heaven and Hell, these words in verse 11 will finally be true for the righteous and the wicked. Those who are confirmed in their righteousness by the ministry of the Word of God will spend eternity being righteous. There will be no future fall from Heaven, but forever they will continue to be righteous and do righteously. But for the wicked, at some point, this will be spoken as a decree of judgment over them. It is a final verdict. In the meantime, we have the hope of the Gospel. One can cross over from death to life. A wicked Saul of Tarsus in the morning can become a transformed Saul in the evening. That radical transformation can happen to the thief on the cross in an instant. He can suddenly see who Jesus is and believe in Him. We yearn for the wicked to cease to be wicked, and for the unrighteous to repent of their sins and cross over. Revelation 22:14 gives us hope: “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.” That means all of us have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. All have violated God’s commandments and laws. None have kept His Ten Commandments or His Two Commandments to love God and to love our neighbor. Our robes are soiled. God sent His Son, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, who lived a sinless life and died in the place of sinners. He shed His cleansing atoning blood for sinners like you and me. By faith in Him, you can wash your robes and make them white in the blood of the Lamb. I would urge you while there is time to do it. Revelation 22:17 says, “The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come!’ And let him who hears say, ‘Come!' Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.” That is the message that I am proclaiming to you right now: If you came in here thirsty and dead and soiled, Jesus can cleanse you. He can pour the living water of life down your parched throat and you will live forever. You must only turn from your sins, repent of your wickedness and turn to Christ, and he will forgive you. We get to preach that message every day this week, to share that with somebody at our workplace or in the neighborhood or at a convenience store. That is what we are called on to do. Immediate Service to His Kingdom (vs. 12) Persevere in Sacrificial Service to Christ (1 Cor. 15:58) Jesus said in Revelation 22:12, “Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done.” Get busy immediately serving His kingdom. Be faithful to serve Him, whatever your calling, whatever your spiritual gifts, whatever good works he has prepared for you to do. You will never lose your reward. Next week, we will look at rewards, how the things you do here in life will enrich you in heaven forever. Closing Prayer Father, thank you for the time we have had to study. Thank you for the specific applications you give us that we have walked through today. Help us to worship you with all of our hearts by the power of the Spirit. Help us to be faithful to obey the commands you have given us, to keep the words that you have given us and to fight for the purity of the Word of God against all satanic attacks. Help us, O Lord, to be faithful to obey by the Spirit. Help us to put into practice the many lessons we have had in the book of Revelation, so that you may be glorified and that we might be blameless and unafraid and ready at any moment for the Second Coming of Christ. We pray in Jesus’ name. Amen.

In the 20 years between 1209 and 1229 Pope Innocent III and the Catholic church waged an all-out war against the Christian Gnostics in the Languedoc area of France. Their belief in the salvation of inner knowledge, their hatred of materialism and their punk-rock like attitude earned the heretics a bloody genocide as the Crusaders stay home and turn their swords on fellow peaceful Europeans.Featured Books:The Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics – Chas S. Cliftonhttps://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Heresies-Heretics-Charles-Clifton/dp/0874366003/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1524449559&sr=8-1&keywords=encyclopedia+of+heresies+and+heretics The Cathars The Most Successful Heresy of the Middle Ages – Sean Martinhttps://www.amazon.com/Cathars-Most-Successful-Heresy-Middle-ebook/dp/B00JZB8Z4S/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1524449490&sr=8-2&keywords=cathars+sean+martin Featured Song:Fuck and Fight – Soda JerkTheme Song “Red Horse Rising” by X-Proph3t: http://www.reverbnation.com/xproph3tStigmata Studios Comic Books and Graphic Novels: www.stigmatastudios.comSign up for the newsletter for exclusive content! http://eepurl.com/YIbLf Additional Production by Daniel Foytik and Nelson Pyles· Incidental Music by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/· Incidental Music (royalty free) by Ross BugdenEmail Jon: Towers113@gmail.com Visit: www.stigmatastudios.comFind Jon on Twitter: @jonnyaxx https://twitter.com/JonnyAxx Find Jon on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/#!/stigmatastudiosFind Jon On Instagram: http://instagram.com/stigmatastudios

The only way to properly prepare world domination and Captain Jack Sparrow is with a dash of paprika. Join us for minute 36 of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest as we explore East India Company symbolism including themes of domination and a shrinking world, progress through the G, PG, and PG-13 ratings of Captain Jack Sparrow’s “Oh, bugger” comment and the medieval, bloody, and religious origin of the word spanning Bulgarian heretics, a French king and the not so innocent Pope Innocent III, talk a dash about paprika, and share our thoughts on the Hans Zimmer score by discussing “The Waltz” – also known as dirty dancing in the 18th century. Thank you for listening to this episode of The Black Pearl Show (Pirates of the Caribbean Minute)! If you enjoyed it, please like and share on Twitter and Facebook. We’d also be VERY grateful if you could rate, review, and subscribe to Pirates of the Caribbean Minute (Black Pearl Show) on iTunes. You can also listen and review via Stitcher, Tune In, and Google Play. For questions or comments, you can call the show at 86-37-PIRATE or send an email to podcast@blackpearlminute.com. We just might feature your questions on future episodes. Your support helps a lot in ranking this show and would be greatly appreciated. If you’re looking for a podcast that discusses Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean film franchise (in a movies by minutes format), integrates historical pirate and the golden age of piracy facts, analyzes and entertains, then Pirates of the Caribbean Minute is for you. Website: http://blackpearlminute.com Facebook: https://facebook.com/PiratesoftheCaribbeanMinute Twitter: https://twitter.com/blackpearlmin Instagram: https://instagram.com/blackpearlshow Cursed Listeners’ Crew (A Pirates of the Caribbean Minute Facebook Group): https://www.facebook.com/groups/272990339778981/

*LINKS BELOW* In a recent episode of Truth Warrior I gave some brief thoughts on the subject of conspiracy theory. I want to hear from you on this, get your thoughts and questions, and also talk about some of the great warnings from the past about what is happening today in America and the west, as well as how to identify and defeat your inner demons in the midst of the chaos. Dictionary def http://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy Legal def http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/conspiracy Collectivism http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/collectivism.html AS quotes https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/aleksandr_solzhenitsyn Irish Origins http://www.irishoriginsofcivilization.com THE NAKED COMMUNIST: 45 COMMUNIST GOALShttp://www.restoring-america.com/Documents/THE%20NAKED%20COMMUNIST%20GOALS%20WITH%20NOTES.pdf Gulag Archipelagohttps://archive.org/details/TheGulagArchipelago-Threevolumes "To play those millions of minds, to watch them slowly respond to an unseen stimulus, to guide their aspirations without their knowledge – all this whether in high capacities or in humble, is a big and endless game of chess, of ever extraordinary excitement."- Sidney Webb, founder of the Fabian Society "There exists in our world today a powerful and dangerous secret cult." So wrote Victor Marchetti, a former high-ranking CIA official, in his book The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence. This is the first book the U.S. Government ever went to court to censor before publication. In this book, Marchetti tells us that there IS a "Cabal" that rules the world and that its holy men are the clandestine professionals of the Central Intelligence Agency. He goes on to say: "This cult is patronized and protected by the highest level government officials in the world. It's membership is composed of those in the power centers of government, industry, commerce, finance, and labor. It manipulates individuals in areas of important public influence - including the academic world and the mass media. The Secret Cult is a global fraternity of a political aristocracy whose purpose is to further the political policies of persons or agencies unknown. It acts covertly and illegally." "It is my opinion that if the liberties of this country—the United States of America—are destroyed, it will be by the subtlety of the Roman Catholic Jesuit priests, for they are the most crafty, dangerous enemies to civil and religious liberty. They have instigated most of the wars of Europe." General Lafayette, 1799 Aide to General Washington Romanism: A Menace to the Nation "For the Pope holdeth place on earth,not simply of a man but of the one true God."Pope Innocent III, 1215 "...if you trace up Masonry, through all its Orders, till you come to the grand tip-top, head Mason of the World, you will discover that the dread individual and the Chief of the Society of Jesus [i.e., the Black Pope, the Superior General of the Jesuits] are one and the same person." –James Parton (American historian) "Between 1555 and 1931 the Society of Jesus [i.e., the Jesuit Order] was expelled from at least 83 countries, city states and cities, for engaging in political intrigue and subversion plots against the welfare of the State, according to the records of a Jesuit priest of repute [i.e., Thomas J. Campbell]. Practically every instance of expulsion was for political intrigue, political infiltration, political subversion, and inciting to political insurrection." (1987) J.E.C. Shepherd (Canadian historian) "The Jesuits…are a secret society – a sort of Masonic order – with superadded features of revolting odiousness, and a thousand times more dangerous."– Samuel Morse (1791-1872; American inventor of the telegraph; author of the book Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of the United States) "I have learnt most of all from the Jesuit Order. So far, there has been nothing more imposing on earth than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic Church. A good part of that organization I have transported direct to my own party. The Catholic Church must be held up as an example. I will tell you a secret. I am founding an order. In Himmler (who would become head of the Nazi party) I see our Ignatius de Loyola (Jesuit founder)." – Adolph Hitler RED PAPACYhttp://www.michaeltsarion.com/the-red-papacy.html "We form an association of brothers in all points of the globe ... yet there is one unseen that can hardly be felt, yet it weighs on us. Whence comes it? Where is it? No one knows ... or at least no one tells. This association is secret even to us the veterans of the Secret Societies."- Guiseppe Mazzini (1805-1872) 33rd Degree Freemason - Appointed head of the Illuminati in 1834 Power of the Templars http://www.femaleilluminati.com/article-2.html  

  This was a really fun conversation. https://thecatholicmanshow.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/IMG_5292.jpg () https://thecatholicmanshow.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/IMG_5294.jpg () About 5 years ago, Thomas Lackey studied his way into the Catholic Church. One of the topics he studied extensively was the death penalty. In this interview, we ask some questions both for and against the death penalty. Here’s a couple of resources we mention in the discussion: https://www.amazon.com/Man-Shall-His-Blood-Shed/dp/1621641260 (By Man )Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment – by Edward Feser It is lawful to put a man to death by public authority: it is even a duty of princes and of judges to condemn to death criminals who deserve it; and it is the duty of the officers of justice to execute the sentence ; God himself wishes malefactors to be punished. – St. Alphonsus de Liguori, https://archive.org/details/alphonsusworks15liguuoft (Instructions on the Commandments and the Sacraments) Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment- is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord. – http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html (Catechism from the Council of Trent, The Fifth Commandment) The death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime; and, if he be not converted, it profits so as to put an end to the sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin anymore. – St. Thomas Aquinas, http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/SS/SS025.html#SSQ25A6THEP1 (Summa Theologiae, Secunda Secundae, Q.25 A.6) If the judge were to remit punishment inordinately, he would inflict an injury on the community, for whose good it behooves ill-deeds to be punished, in order that. men may avoid sin. Hence the text, after appointing the punishment of the seducer, adds (Deuteronomy [13:11]): “That all Israel hearing may fear, and may do no more anything like this.” He would also inflict harm on the injured person; who is compensated by having his honor restored in the punishment of the man who has injured him.  – St. Thomas Aquinas, http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3067.htm (Summa Theologiae, Secunda Secundae, Q.67 A.4) It is in no way contrary to the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” … for the representatives of the State’s authority to put criminals to death, according to law or the rule of rational justice. – St. Augustine, The City of God, Book 1, chapter 21 Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood as long as one proceeds to bring punishment not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly. – Pope Innocent III, http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/dlx.htm (Profession of Faith Prescribed for Durand of Osca and His Waldensian Companions) Some have held that the killing of man is prohibited altogether. They believe that judges in the civil courts are murderers, who condemn men to death according to the laws. Against this St. Augustine says that God by this Commandment does not take away from Himself the right to kill. Thus, we read: “I will kill and I will make to live.” It is, therefore, lawful for a judge to kill... Support this podcast

Yeah Pope Francis is extremely popular and well loved.  Have you ever thought of who was the most powerful Pope in history?  Tune in.  Find out.  Pope Innocent III ruled nations! This show will blow your mind!

The decision of Pope Innocent III

Okay. I'm about to ask you a question. Be honest...Raise your hand if you've ever heard of the Fourth Lateran Council. Okay...How about Pope Innocent III? For those of you with your hands still up, how many of you can give me any details on either?...Anyone? Bueller? (That never gets old.) Believe it or not, not knowing is a giant hole in our education. Everyone should know something about both because they played a pivotal role in the history of the Church. Lateran Four is every bit as big as Nicea, Trent, and Vatican II. In fact, it continues to heavily influence how we live today. (Full disclosure...I didn't know "jack" about it until this interview. So don't feel bad if you didn't either.) To plug the information hole in my head and yours, I've brought in Dr. Andrew Jones, an expert on the High Middle Ages (which doesn't refer to people in their late 50s.) He knows all about the Church in the 11th to 13th centuries. Andrew has spent years researching this incredibly rich and fascinating time period and is going to share with us why it was so important. What I think you're going to find is that much of what took place back then is incredibly applicable to our present circumstances. So go put on your suit of armor, grab an ale, and enjoy. Matthew   “All who have been lost were lost because they did not pray.” St. Alphonsus Liguori. Don't be lost! Grab your FREE copy of my quick guide to deeper prayer 8 Ways To Jumpstart Your Prayer Life!  It's an easy step-by-step summary of the spiritual giants of the Church designed to help you rocket to God! P.S.Click here to help more people experience solid Catholic material by leaving The Art of Catholic a rating and review.  

Pope Innocent III

Guest: Leslie Eastman and Barry Jacobsen.  Military History Expert Barry Jacobsen will review the sack of Constantinople at the hands of Crusaders, the various excursions into Egypt, and how Genghis Khan's fierce Mongol army impacted these events. Our sponsors:  AVALON PROFESSIONAL TRANSLATIONS & AARON CLAREY ("WORTHLESS") 

Today is the 796th anniversary of the "signing" of the Magna Carta by King John. King John's reign can be summed up thus: high taxes, unsuccessful wars, and conflicts with the Pope, making him an unpopular King with the Barons. The barons forced King John to agree to a document later known as the 'Articles of the Barons', his Great Seal was attached in the meadow at Runnymede. It would only take King John a few months to invalidate the charter, with the help of Pope Innocent III and incite the First Baron's War. This eBook contains the original 1215 version of the Magna Carta and the 1225 version that was issued by King Henry III, both include the original Latin and are translated in English. Also included are images of the 1215, 1225 and 1297 version of the Magna Carta. The 1297 version issued by King Edward I is still a statue in English law today. If you need to download a PDF reader click on the 'Get Reader' Button Use the icons below to download the .pdf file, subscribe directly to the podcast via iTunes or subscribe to the podcast RSS feed.

Introduction In one of his most profound and triumphant statements in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus said to Simon Peter, in Chapter 16:18, “I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” It really is an astounding statement because it combines two images that don't ordinarily go together —that of an astonishing rescue and a magnificent building project. Now for myself, I love to read stories of heroism. I was reading recently about one of the most incredible rescues that occurred toward the end of World War II January 30th, 1945. 150 rangers specially trained commandos from the United States Army went 30 miles behind the lines enemy lines, in the Philippines, where the Japanese were still fighting for every square inch of territory. The US High Command was concerned that the Japanese might murder over 500 POWs held at the Cabanatuan POW camp, so they sent 150 rangers, 30 miles behind enemy lines to rescue 511 POWs. It was an incredible achievement. Then to lead them back over those 30 miles of enemy-held territory back to safety, which they did successfully — it was an incredible rescue. But even this daring rescue, I tell you in all of the daring rescues that there have ever been in history, does not compare with what Jesus Christ is doing every single day in rescuing sinners and bringing them to eternal life, through faith in Christ and using us to do it sending us into enemy territory to bring them back. He says the gates of Hades will not prove stronger than it, more about that later. He sends us into enemy territory, and yet here is this other image, the image of a building on this rock, “I will build my church.” There is erected inside our mind an elaborate glorious structure for worship. Like the Cathedral at Notre Dame, which took 185 years to build from the 12th century to the 14th century. All of those stones were quarried from gypsum right around Paris and built up. And for 185 years, expert craftsman, stone masons and craftsmen, and stain glass carpenters and architects erected this incredible structure which you've seen perhaps in photos, if not in person. The Cathedral of Notre Dame is a center of French culture, of French literature, of French history. It's even the zero-kilometer point of the entire nation, all the miles to Paris, are marked from a stone right in front of the cathedral of Notre Dame. Certainly, the Cathedral of Notre Dame took exquisite skill to build, a lot of courage, a lot of money, some people died while building it. But I tell you again as glorious and majestic as it is, it doesn't compare with the Church of Jesus Christ, which is taken far greater courage, far greater skill, far greater investment of all resources that are valuable in the human race. Over 2000 years Jesus has been building his church. Now I have begun my sermon in a strange way. With two very different images and with a Mother's Day debut. You have these images coming together in this text of an astonishing military rescue and that of a building rising up to the glory of God. How do they fit together? Imagine, just in your mind's eye, the most incredible building project in history going on during the midst of the fiercest battle in history. The building materials for the church are over the walls and in enemy territory, and the skilled craftsmen that are going to be building that cathedral to the glory of God have to be commandos with military courage to go into enemy territory, quarry out the living stones, and safely get them to the building site where they are erected to the glory of God. You have a picture then of what Jesus is doing in Matthew 16:18 when He says, "I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not prove stronger than it." Let's get our bearings here, in some context. Last week we looked for the first time at this section of Scripture. In Mathew 16:13-20, we saw the most important question you'll ever answer. Remember that Jesus had gone somewhat on retreat with his disciples to Caesarea Philipp. He wanted to spend some time with them, build into them pour into their lives, and so when He came there, he asked them the most important question. He began by getting a sense of a survey of opinions of popular opinions. “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” That's Jesus, the son of man, and they replied, "Some say John the Baptist, some say Elijah or Jeremiah and some, one of the prophets.” “But what about you,” he asked. “Who do you say that I am?” In a world full of opinions and a world full of questions, this one remains the most important question you will ever face as we mentioned last week. Who do you say that Jesus of Nazareth is? As we mentioned last week, the destiny of your soul depends on your heart-filled answer to that question. Simon Peter gave the correct answer. He said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him, “This wasn't revealed to you by man but by my Father in Heaven.” The correct answer must be revealed to you by almighty God by the power of a spirit through the ministry of his word. That's how we discover who Jesus is. That was last week. But Jesus goes on from Peter's saving confession to make an incredible statement about the church. Look at verses 18 and 19, again, “… and I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” The Foundation of the Church Through the Apostles and the Prophets So, we come to the question of the foundation of the church, on what is it build, and it's interesting that He begins by changing Peter's name. Now this had already happened, but he's reiterating the change that has occurred in Peter's name. A change of name, I think, gives a sense of ownership and a sense of the transforming power of Christ in the life of an individual. Jesus owns Peter, He rules over him, He has the right to change his name. It's just like what happened with Abram going over to Abraham, Sarai becoming Sarah, Jacob becoming Israel. The book of Revelation 2: 17 says, "To him who'll overcomes, I will give a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to him who receives it." If we overcome by faith in Christ, we're going to get a new name. It's a sense of ownership and of a transformation of our very natures. Made like him, we rise. We will become new creations completely, including our resurrection bodies. The change of name, I think in Peter's case, signifies a divine work of God's grace in Peter's heart. He will be a major part of the church, and Christ intends to equip him for it. He's going to prepare him to be what He wants him to be, for the history of the church. However, these words have caused major consternation in the history of the church and a great deal of misunderstanding. “I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church and I'll give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” For millennia and a half, the Roman Catholic Church has gone back to this statement by Jesus to the apostle Peter and said that Jesus was investing him papal authority and papal succession. In this moment, He gave him papal authority, the right to rule over all affairs, for the Christian church in Christ's place. The symbol of the Vatican is the Cross Keys. The keys, they're going right back to this statement in Matthew 16, a symbol of the Vatican and its authority and powers that Jesus entrusted to Peter, the keys. So, he has papal authority as the Bishop of Rome. Furthermore, there's also this idea of papal succession. That once Peter died, and went on to his eternal reward, he gave his earthly position to his successor, like a king on his death bed giving it to the Crown Prince. There is this idea of papal succession, so the present Pope has authority over all matters to do with the church in the entire world. That is Catholic teaching. However, I believe that Jesus is not doing that here, I don't think that's what He's doing with Peter. He's not entrusting to Peter authority over all spiritual things, so that Peter would rule somewhat like an earthly potentate over the church. There's a play on words going on here. There are two different Greek words, very similar in meaning. Both of them could be translated “rock”. He says, "You are Petros and on this rock, Petra will build my churches... Changing the terminology slightly to show that there's not a one-to-one correspondence between Peter and the rock. So, for me, I want to know what is Christ's church built on? What is the foundation of Christ's church? Some has said it's Peter's confession and, on that rock, the rock of confession, you are the Christ, the Son of Living God, I will build my church. But I don't think so, although I do think it's essential that we all make that confession in order to be saved, but I don't think that's what He has in mind. I think it says Peter, and the other apostles, were to play a very significant and unique role in the history of the church, a role that we don't play. What then is the foundation of Christ's church? Paul the apostle puts it this way in 1 Corinthians 3:11, “No one can lay any foundation other than the one that is already laid and that is Jesus Christ,” so Christ is the foundation of his own church. But in one sense, there's another truth to this idea of foundations and that is that none of us has access to Christ, except through the ministry of the apostles, and prophets. We must have the apostles and prophets tell us who Jesus is or we will never know him. Therefore, the apostles play a key role with the prophets in the foundation of Christ’s church. In Ephesians 2:19-20, the Apostle Paul wrote, speaking of God's household, that it's built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus Himself as the chief cornerstone. How are the apostles and prophets a foundation for God's eternal temple and how is that not contradictory to what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 3:11, "No one can lay any foundation except Jesus,”? I think this is it. The fact is that the apostles and prophets testified of Christ for now twenty centuries. They’ve been testifying to us to who Jesus is so that we can put our faith in him, and believe and on that foundation, the apostolic testimony and witness to the risen Christ the whole structure depends. It depends on the word of God through the apostles and prophets. This is how we know who Jesus is, and no other way. There's an intimate connection between Jesus Christ and his saving work, and this Bible. The apostles and prophets and their testimony to Christ. We can know a lot of things about God the Creator, by looking at what he has made by looking at creation, by looking at a magnificent sunrise, or a beautiful sunset, by looking at a majestic and powerful mountain, or experiencing a thunder and lightning storm, or feeling a soothing general rain or breeze, or hearing about a hurricane or tornado and its destructive power or watching an eagle soar on a thermal. All of these things give us evidence that there is a God, that He is mighty, that He is loving, that He is powerful, but they tell us nothing directly about Christ. We must have the scripture in order to know him. So, in this sense, “You are Peter, and you are going to testify to me, and on the basis of your testimony and that of the other apostles will the rest of the church be founded.” Therefore, we must know Christ based on the ministry of the apostles, and prophets. the Apostle John put it this way, in 1 John 1:1-3, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at, and our hands have touched, this we proclaim concerning the word of life. The life appeared, we have seen it, and testified to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father, and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us." Do you see the “we” in rhythm in 1 John 1:1-3? The “we” is the apostles, I believe. That's a good interpretation of it because we haven't seen with our eyes or handled or heard with our ears. We were not eyewitnesses, but they were. “Those things which we saw with our own eyes, which we were eyewitnesses to, this we proclaim concerning the word of life, so that you also can have fellowship with us and go to Heaven.” In that sense, the church is built on the apostles and prophets. Peter put it this way in 2 Peter 1:16, "We did not follow cleverly-invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." Peter was the rock on which the church was built in that he was an apostle, and together with the other apostles, he began on Pentecost preaching that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead, and that was the start of it all. On this rock I will build my church. Christ is the Builder of the Church Look at the progress of the church. He says, "On this rock, I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not prove stronger than it.” Let's begin with Jesus Christ. It is Jesus Christ who builds the church. “On this rock I will build my Church, I will build it.” Peter did not build the church and neither did Paul or John or any of the apostles. Martin Luther did not build the church and neither did Calvin or Zwingli or any of the Reformers. William Carey did not build the church neither did any of the missionaries, however great their sacrifices might have been. Yes, Jesus used each one of these godly servants to build up his church, but it is Jesus who builds his church and each one of those godly people would have told you the same. “Jesus raised me up, and he used me to build this church, but it was Christ that built it.” Notice also that sense of a promise, a sense of certainty. “I will build my church.” There's a sense of absolute confidence in this. I am putting my omnipotence behind this. "All authority in heaven and earth is behind this building project and it cannot fail. I will build my church.” He never loses focus, never forgets what He's about, never gets distracted. There are no significant setbacks, everything is on schedule, everything is progressing for 2000 years. Notice also the sense of ownership, “I will build my church.” There is no one here who can make that statement, not about any local church, not any absolute statement about the church. Jesus alone is the ruler of the church, Jesus alone shed his own blood for her, He bought her with his own blood. We are his... “I will build my church”, a sense of possession. Misconception of Papal Authority in the Church That leads us to the question of authority — the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Many again have stumbled over these words, misunderstanding them. As I said, the Catholic Church Roman Catholic church focuses on Peter saying that he is Christ’s vice regent on the earth, able to make absolute statements and the church must obey. Sometimes the interpretation is given that Peter has the keys in terms of who gets in and who doesn’t and from that has come a whole genre jokes about Peters at the pearly gates — ask a series of questions and if you answer the question right, you'll get in and if you don't, you won't. You know what I'm talking about? The whole thing is based on a theological misunderstanding as though Peter has the right to decide who gets in and who doesn't. He has the keys and if he doesn't let you in, you don't get in. Henry IV, in order to receive forgiveness from his papal magnificence, had to go and spend three days begging in the snow. Kneeling and begging and doing contrition in the snow before the Pope ordained to see him. When Henry was humbled sufficiently, he was brought into the papal court and there the Pope humbled him some more in front of everyone. Finally, he re-established him and took away the excommunication. Pope Gregory VII declared that the Pope has the right to depose kings and emperors, to make laws to require secular rulers to kiss his feet. He said that nobody has the right to judge the pope. Gregory also declared that because of the merits of Saint Peter, every duly elected pope is automatically a saint in their way of understanding. One hundred years later, Pope Innocent III said the authority of the Pope was like the sun, and that of all secular leaders like that of the moon, a reflected authority emanating originally from the pope. Let me tell you something, all of this pomp and arrogance does not come rightly from Matthew 16. It doesn't come from the keys, it doesn't come from the binding and loosing. I know in the Greek; Peter does receive something directly. It is second person singular, "I'll give to you Peter, the keys of the kingdom of heaven." That is true, but he also links the keys to the binding and loosing. Look at verse 19, "Whatever you bind on earth will bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Binding and loosing, is a term used by rabbis, to make spiritual pronouncements and decisions like binding someone's lifestyle or someone's practices or someone's behavior or binding the church, concerning doctrine. It implies the power to govern spiritually to make decisions. I believe this is what He gave to Peter, but we should not understand that Heaven was following Peter's leadership, as though Heaven didn't know what to do. "Tell us, Peter... What to do. The angels are wondering. We're kind of in a mish-mash up here, let us know what to do." It's not like that at all, there's perfect clarity in heaven. Heaven knows exactly what to do. The cloud is here on Earth, is it not? Even Peter sometimes got into the cloud, not dealing properly with Gentile converts and needed to be rebuked by the Apostle Paul, in Galatians 2. So, it's not like heaven needs Peter's help in figuring out what to do. In Matthew 6:10 in the Lord's prayer, "May your kingdom come. May your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." So, Heaven takes the lead. Actually, I think the problem is a translation one. I think that the translation would be better this way, "Whatever you bind on earth will be having already been bound in heaven. And whatever you loose on earth will be having already been loosed in heaven." That's the way it is and that's an accurate translation. Therefore, what is Peter's role of announcing what's been bound and loosed in heaven? We have the role and the responsibility of saying what heaven decides in matters, not doing it ourselves. And the binding and loosing is based on the Scripture. It's based on how God has revealed his truth, this is what binds us, this is what loses us, the scripture, and the binding and loosing He has given to all of his disciples. Turn over a few chapters to Matthew Chapter 18: 15- 20. There it's dealing with sin between brothers and sisters in Christ. As we have encounters with one another, we have issues from time to time. Look at verse 15 and following, “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along so that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you, plural, bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you, plural, loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in Heaven. For where two or three come together in my name there am I with them." Here in this passage, the binding and loosing is given to the disciples, it's given to the church and in this case, it has to do with church discipline. Notice in the hierarchy, the final court of appeals isn't Peter, it's the church. This authority of the church concerning binding and loosing, concerning sin and doctrine, this authority stands over every individual believer in Christ no matter how powerful they are in their secular responsibility. For example, it stands over a President of the United States. If the President of United States is a member of a church and commits adultery, the church has the responsibility to deal with it as they would anyone else. There's no difference. Doesn't matter what their position, doesn't matter if they're a king, an emperor. It doesn't matter who they are, if they have sin, the church has a responsibility of dealing with the sin in the same way they would with anyone else. But the church does not have the right to dictate secular policy to the President, and that's where the papal authority made its mistake, it got involved in secular affairs. The power of the church in the statement by Christ to Peter, and it's still in place, concerns spiritual ministry, strategy for missions, doctrinal statements and the issue of church discipline. The binding and loosing I think is especially connected to the issue of the forgiveness of sins. The issue of the forgiveness of sins. Jesus, the day He was raised from the dead, appears to his disciples in John chapter 20 and, "He shows them his hands and his sides, and he breathes on them and says, receive the Holy Spirit, if you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven. If you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." Again, we are not in the place of God. We don't sit on the throne and judge, that's not it. We are given the responsibility and the great privilege to announce based on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, based on the Word of God, somebody's spiritual situation before God, based on that. Let's say you're doing some workplace evangelism. You've got a co-worker who's an atheist. You share the gospel with that co-worker, they don't change at all. They might even mock a little bit. You get done with the encounter. I think it's your responsibility to tell him the truth. "I want you to know that based on your rejection of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, you are still in your sins, and you're not ready to die." That may be uncomfortable, but I think it's our responsibility. “You're still bound by your sins. Jesus can release you; he can set you free. Every chain can be broken. Simply trust in him for the forgiveness of your sins, and you'll have eternal life. But if you don't, you're still bound by your sins and in that you will die, you'll die in your sins and you'll be condemned to hell if you don't repent.” You must tell them the truth; they are still bound by their sin. Conversely, you share the gospel with someone, and they're moved. They're asking questions. You answer their questions. They're moved some more. After a while you start to know the spirit of God is present in that encounter. They want to accept Christ. What do I do? Act 16 says that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved." You tell them that, and they say, "Lord Jesus, save me from my sins." I think you have a responsibility to tell them that based on their confession of faith in Christ, that their sins are forgiven. Now we can be tricked. We can be fooled, and our approval of their faith doesn't mean much on Judgment Day, but I think as we share the Gospel with people, we have the responsibility to tell them, in Christ, their sins are loosed, and they can be forgiven. That's the binding and loosing. The Gates of Hades: Jesus is Stronger But then Jesus makes this incredible statement, "I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not prove stronger than it." Now what does this mean? The gates of Hades? In Greek mythology, Hades was both the name of the King of the Dead and his dark realm where he reigned, the underworld realm where the dead went. Hades was used either for the king or for his dark kingdom. It was similar to the Hebrew concept of sheol, the grave. The dark kingdom of Hades in Greek mythology was across the river Styx and had powerful gates guarded by a three-headed dog named Cerberus, a vicious, vicious dog and there was no getting past the gates of Hades. However, in Greek mythology from time to time, famous Greek heroes would be able to pass through the gates on certain missions to be able to show their skill or their strength thereby. For example, Hercules. One of his errands was to go down and actually capture Cerberus, the three-headed dog which he does by his supernatural God-given, in that mythology, strength. He's able to grab this three-headed dog and carry it up. King Hades wants his dog back and he eventually gets his dog back. But so, the story goes, it takes incredible strength. Then there's another story of a sweet singer named Orpheus who I believe on his wedding day, lost his bride because she stepped on a poisonous snake. She was carried down to the realm of the underworld and Orpheus wants his bride back and so he... Through the sweetness of his song is able to charm King Hades and he allows Orpheus to bring Eurydice, his wife, back up through the tunnel, through the gates and back to the realm of the living, except on one condition. That is, he cannot turn around and look at her as they are departing. So, he's traveling up as he goes, he's not hearing anything behind him. Very concerned about this, right as he's approaching the gates of Hades, he turns around... She's there and then suddenly there is King Hades as well who takes her back down, and Orpheus spends the rest of his life singing sad songs. How does Christ use this term, then, the “gates of Hades”? I think it represents death, and the one who holds the power of death, the devil, it says in Hebrews 2:14-15, "Since the children [that's us] have flesh and blood, He, Christ too, shared in their humanity. So that by his death, He might destroy him who holds the power of death, that is the devil, and free those who, all their lives, were held in slavery by their fear of death." Christ is mightier than Hercules. He rescues all of his people from the kingdom, and He destroys the kingdom itself. Christ is more skillful than Orpheus; He can look at us as much as He wants, his bride, and nobody's going to suddenly pop up and take us back to the realm of the dead. Christ is the hero that rescues us from the gates of Hades. I’s so beautiful, because it says in Revelation 1:18, Jesus’ speaking, “I am the living one. I was dead and behold, I'm alive forever and ever, and I hold the keys of death and Hades." Jesus holds the keys. And this is the one that speaks and says, "I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not prove strong within it." How? I think in two senses, in the present age, and in the future, the gates of Hades will not prove stronger than the church. Notice He doesn't say, "I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not prove stronger than me." That's not what he says. He says, "I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not prove stronger than the church." He's going to send the church on an assault mission and the gates of Hades don't stand a chance. That's the picture here. Now, in the present age, the gates of Hades, I think represent Satan's power of death that Satan holds captives in that power. That fear of death, they're captives. For most of military history, the safest place you could be would be inside a fortress, a walled fortress, like a walled city, or a castle or stronghold of some sort. That's where you wanted to be, until gunpowder blew that apart. But that's where you wanted to be. The weakest defense are the gates, so that's where special military engineering went. They were designed to be gates of death really, where they'd let you in and then some portcullis would come down and arrows would rain down. It was diabolical and powerful. If you can take the gates, you can take the whole city, so the gates represent the whole walled fortress I believe of Satan's dark power of sin and death. Jesus says, "I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not prove stronger than it." What's the issue here? It's a battle of power. You've got one captain, Jesus. You've got another captain, Satan. They are not equal in power, not even close. Jesus sends his church and they're going to win. Satan is not equal power to Jesus, but Jesus said in Luke 11:21-22, "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe but when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted, and he divides up the spoils." Satan is the strong man, Jesus is the one stronger and he strips Satan's powerful gates away, and he plunders Satan's dark kingdom. Each one of us who sit here today, each one of us who believes in Christ today were rescued from the dominion of darkness. Colossians 1 says we were transferred over into the kingdom of the Son that God loves, we were rescued from Satan's dark dominion. Christians are the Building Blocks of the Church Furthermore, we have become building materials. Remember I told you there's two images here. There's the image of a commando-raid rescue and then there's the image of a building. "I will build my church on this foundation," He says, "On this rock." Solomon's temple was built by stones that were dressed by Hiram, King of Tyre, floated down and then traveled inland, dressed off-site and then so no iron tool was heard on the work site there. Notre Dame was made, as I mentioned, from gypsum stones quarried from around Paris. It was very expensive to transfer them, so it was right nearby. St Peter’s Basilica in Rome was built in1499 out of marble from a specific quarry that Michelangelo later used to make the Pieta and other sculptures that were there. What did Christ use to build his church? He built the church out of us. We are the living stones in 1 Peter 2, "As you come to him, the living stone rejected by man, but chosen by God and precious to him. You also like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." We're living stones set in the walls of this beautiful spiritual house. That's what we are. We are both commandos going over the wall, through the wall, through the gates to go get the living stones and we are also the living stones in the wall. We're both. We are given, therefore, a mission and the only way, friends, that we are going to accomplish our mission is to have unshakable confidence in Jesus Christ that we will be victorious. The early opposition of the Jewish leaders couldn't stop the church. The persecution of the Roman emperors couldn't stop the church. Neither could the barbarian hordes that swept across. Neither could the Dark Ages. Neither could the Viking depredations stop the church. Neither could the Counter-Reformation stop the church. Neither could the Age of Enlightenment, or German higher criticism or the theory of evolution or two world wars, or the Cold War or communism stop the church, and neither will the self-indulgent materialism in which the United States of America leads the way, stop the church. None of those things can stop the building of the church. All of them have been satanic threats, but Jesus has overcome every single one of them by his sovereign power. Are you confident in that? Are you willing to risk it to do some evangelism? Are you willing to risk it, to go over the walls, and rescue some people who are perishing? Are you willing to do that? That is the present triumph of the church over the gates of Hades. What about the future triumph of the church? Our biggest test is yet to come. Someday it is appointed to every one of us to die, every one of us will die. Right before Jesus died, He said, "Father into your hands I commit my Spirit”, so you will do as well," and will Hades, those dark gates, be strong enough to keep your body in the grave? Can the grave hold you back when Christ summons you forth and gives you a resurrection body? Does the grave have the power to say, "No," to Jesus in that matter? I tell you it does not. "I will build my church out of people who will have... resurrection bodies and the gates of Hades cannot hold them back," and glory to God for it. In John 11: 25-26, Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life, he who believes in me will live even though he dies, and whoever lives and believes in me will never die." Also in 1 Corinthians 15, "So will it be with the resurrection of the dead, the body that is sown is perishable, it is raised, imperishable. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory, it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body but is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there will be a spiritual body.” And “When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true, death has been swallowed up in victory. Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” When Jesus raises you from the dead and you pass through the gates of Hades and you see them as nothing and the grave cannot hold you back, you will sing a triumph song and say, “Where O death, is your victory?" Application What application can we take from this magnificent passage? First of all, I want to speak to those of you that are here today, maybe your guests, family members, and maybe you've never trusted in Christ. I was speaking to you earlier. When I was saying that Jesus has the power to break the chains of sin. He has the power to forgive all of your sins, all you have to do is call on his name. He doesn't want your good works; He wants your faith. He wants you to just simply trust in him, turn away from sin. Turn away from wickedness, repent and turn to Christ, and He will welcome you. He will forgive you. On the basis of that I, and any Christian here, has the authority to tell you, "Your sins will be forgiven if you simply trust in Christ." If you've already made that commitment, can I urge you to be courageous for Christ? Don't waste encounters with non-Christians, not talking to them about Jesus. See yourself as a courageous warrior involved in a very powerful battle. Our struggle is not against flesh and blood. There are spiritually flaming arrows flying everywhere, bullets going everywhere, it's on. It's a tough battle, but this is what God has called us to do. Our theme verse for the entire year, in Luke 19:10, Jesus said, "The Son of man came to seek and to save the lost.” Are you seeking, and are you an instrument in God's hand to the saving of the lost? Are you involved? This week speak to someone about Christ, invite them to church, talk to somebody at the workplace, bring these issues home to bear. They're not thinking properly, they don't see time properly, they don't see sin properly, they're not ready for judgment day. Please tell them the truth. If they repent, tell them the good news that their sins are forgiven. If you've already repented and trusted in Christ, can I tell you the good news, your sins are forgiven. We walk around defeated all the time forgetting that Jesus' blood is ample provision for our guilt and that we are forgiven people. Shake off your chains and get up and get involved in what Jesus is doing in the world. Follow him. He's a courageous captain. He said, "Nothing's going to stop the building of my church." Can I also urge you to respect the authority of the church? The Church has the right to send out from its midst unrepentant sinners. Matthew 18 says, "We have that authority and that responsibility. Respect that authority." God also raises up leaders, elders who have the power and the authority to preach and to teach and to rightly divide the word of truth. I believe in congregational polity. The Church has the right to remove them from their position if they're found to be inaccurate and wrong in their ministry, but I believe that God raises up spiritual leaders and it's for the church to follow that leadership. Respect the authority of the church. Finally, don't fear death and Hades. Their days are numbered. Jesus is going to throw death and Hades into the lake of fire, it says in Revelation 20, and there'll be no more death. No more Hades. Death and Hades are temporary, but your life in Christ is not.

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the Cathars, a medieval European Christian sect accused of heresy. In 1215 Pope Innocent III called the greatest meeting of Catholic minds for a hundred years. He hoped that the Fourth Lateran Council would represent the crowning glory of a Papacy that was more powerful than ever before, and it laid down decrees to standardise Christian belief across the whole of Western Europe and heal the papal schism of a generation before. But despite the wealth and power of the Vatican, all was not as it should have been in the Catholic world; Jerusalem was lost, the Crusades were failing, and in the regions of Europe the spectre of heresy moved over the land. It loomed largest in the wealthy Languedoc region of Southern France, where celibate vegetarians called Cathars were proving more popular than Jesus. The Pope moved against the Cathars but why was Catharism such a threat, what were its beliefs and what was the intellectual and spiritual climate that made the high middle ages the era of the heretic?With Malcolm Barber, Professor of Medieval History at the University of Reading; Miri Rubin, Professor of Medieval History at Queen Mary, University of London; Euan Cameron, Professor of Modern History at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne.

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the Cathars, a medieval European Christian sect accused of heresy. In 1215 Pope Innocent III called the greatest meeting of Catholic minds for a hundred years. He hoped that the Fourth Lateran Council would represent the crowning glory of a Papacy that was more powerful than ever before, and it laid down decrees to standardise Christian belief across the whole of Western Europe and heal the papal schism of a generation before. But despite the wealth and power of the Vatican, all was not as it should have been in the Catholic world; Jerusalem was lost, the Crusades were failing, and in the regions of Europe the spectre of heresy moved over the land. It loomed largest in the wealthy Languedoc region of Southern France, where celibate vegetarians called Cathars were proving more popular than Jesus. The Pope moved against the Cathars but why was Catharism such a threat, what were its beliefs and what was the intellectual and spiritual climate that made the high middle ages the era of the heretic?With Malcolm Barber, Professor of Medieval History at the University of Reading; Miri Rubin, Professor of Medieval History at Queen Mary, University of London; Euan Cameron, Professor of Modern History at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne.

This episode of Communio Sanctorum is titled, “Breaking Up Is Hard to Do.”In our study of the History of the Church, we get to examine some periods when the followers of Jesus did some amazing, God-honoring, Christ-exalting, people-blessing things. In future episodes, we'll take a longer look at how the Gospel has impacted history and world civilization for the better.But, we have to be honest and admit there have been too many times when the Church totally fumbled the ball. Worse than that, after fumbling, they stepped on and kicked it out of bounds!The danger I face as we deal with these atrocious moments in Church History is of being assumed to be hostile to the Body of Christ. When I speak about the abysmal career of some of the popes, some listeners assume I'm Catholic-bashing. Later, when we get to the Reformation era and take a look at some of the Reformers, I'll be accused of being a closet-Catholic!So I want to pause here and say à This isn't a podcast about me, but I need to use me as an example . . .As most of you know, I'm a non-denominational Evangelical pastor. I'm not a scholar, not even close. I'm just a guy who loves history and decided to share what he was learning about the history of the church with others because at the time CS began, there just wasn't a short-format church history podcast available. While I genuinely try to be unbiased in presenting the story of the Church, it's inevitable I'll slant the narrative at points. I've already made it clear that when I do offer mere opinion, I'll preface it with a warning, but infrequent side comments can still color the material. Even what adjectives I pick reveal bias.While I aim to be faithful in my own walk with God, my role in my family as a husband and father, and my calling as a pastor, I freely admit I'm still a man in process. I have many faults and a long way to go to be conformed to Christ's image. Keenly aware of how far I have to go is what causes me to wonder how God could use me! Yet use me He does, week after week, in my role as pastor. I'm such a flawed vessel, yet God keeps pouring His grace thru me. It's humbling.The point is this: While so much of Church History is flat-out embarrassing, God still uses the Church, still works by His Spirit through His people to accomplish His purposes. So when we see the Church stumble, regardless of what group it is, what era, what label is applied to those who mess up, let's not white-wash, edit, or redact. Let's tell it like it is; own it as part of our history, but remember that while man fails, God never does.From the late 9th to 10th C the position of Roman bishop once held by such godly men as Popes Leo and Gregory was turned over to a parade of corrupt nobles who were anything but.This was a time when the position of the pope was a plum political appointment, with the potential of gaining great wealth and power for the pope's family.  The intrigue surrounding the selection of the pope was vast and nefarious. An Italian heiress named Marozia [mah-RO-zee-ah], controlled the bishop's seat at Rome for 60 years. She was one bishop's mother, another's murderer and a third's mistress.  In what just about everyone recognizes as a low point for the Papacy, Octavianus, Marozia's grandson, celebrated his impending election as Pope John XII, by toasting the devil. Once in office, his behavior was far from saintly. The immorality that attended his term was legendary. Corruption of the office didn't end with his death. Reform was desperately needed and many called for it. But one man's reform is another's loss of power and access to wealth.Though the Western and Eastern halves of the Church had quarreled for centuries over minor doctrinal issues and who ought to lead the Church, they still saw themselves as one Body. That unity was doomed by many years of contention and the fragmenting of the world into conflicted regions brought about by the dissolving of the Roman Empire and constant invasion of outsiders. The emergence of Islam in the 7th C accelerated the break between East and West. We might assume the 2 halves of the old Empire would unite in face of the Islamic threat, and there were times when that seemed hopeful. But the reality was, Islam presented a threat across such a huge front, the various regions of Christendom ended up having to face the threat on their own.Between the 9th and 13th Cs, three separate challenges split Christianity into 2 disparate camps. Like taps on a diamond, each furthered the emerging rift until finally the break came.The first tap had to do with the Nicene Creed hammered out at the Council of Nicea all the way back in the early 4th C when Constantine was Emperor. In the 9th C, the Nicene Creed still stood as the standard formulation for how Christians in the East and West understood God. But the Spanish church added something they thought would make the creed clearer. The original creed stated, “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.” The revised creed of the Spanish church said, “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.”This reflected the work on the Trinity that had been conducted by later Councils. Remember, the very first councils were consumed with understanding the nature of Jesus and settled on the doctrine He is both fully God and fully Man. They labored hard to find just the right words to say that. Then, they turned their attention to the issue of the Trinity, and after much labor settled on the wording that God is one in essence but three in person.  For most people, that was enough, but theologians have minds that want to go further. They debated over how to understand the divinity of God. Who actually possessed deity; all three equally? Or did one possess it, then shared it with the others?The Western Church centered held the idea divinity was co-equal and underived in Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But relationally the Son proceeds from the Father, and the Holy Spirit then proceeds from both Father and Son. This seemed to accurately reflect the subordinate missions assigned the 2nd and 3rd members of the Trinity in the Bible.The Western Church adopted the revised Nicene Creed. The Eastern Church balked! Everyone agreed the Nicene Creed had been a work of the Spirit of God illuminating the minds of the Council to the Word of God. It was inviolable! How could Rome think to fiddle with it? And especially without consulting them? Why, at the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, the Bishops committed themselves never to change the creed.According to Eastern theologians, divinity dwelt only in the Father. The Father then shared the divine being with the Son and Spirit. They could not say the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son.” If the Spirit arose from "the Father and the Son," the Son would possess divine being co-equally with the Father.While there had been potential doctrinal rifts before, the East and West had always been able to reach a consensus. That historic consensus became increasingly distant as this debate, known as the Filioque Controversy, raged. Filioque is Latin for “and the Son.”In 867 Photius, bishop of Constantinople formally denounced the added phrase. Five years later, Pope Adrian II offered to drop the phrase “and the Son” from the Nicene Creed. Rome would drop the Filioque clause if the Eastern church accepted the Pope's supremacy over the Church. Photius declined. >> Tap 1.Get ready for Tap 2 …One day in AD 1048, three shoeless pilgrims—Bruno, Humbert, and Hildebrand walked together through the gates of Rome. Each in his own way would transform the Roman church.Bruno was elected Pope Leo IX. He immediately set about reforming the Roman church morally and theologically.  To keep priests from passing ecclesiastical positions to their children, he demanded celibacy. Next, he moved to extricate the Church from secular entanglements and obligations to European nobility. Bruno and his successor popes really believed God had given them authority over all Christians.The new bishop of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, refused to recognize Bruno as Pope. He closed every church in Constantinople loyal to Rome. Bruno then sent envoys to Constantinople to negotiate peace. His chief envoy was his friend Humbert. Before leaving Rome, Humbert wrote a bold notice in the Pope's name. This official church notice is called a bull. We get our word “bulletin” from it. A Bull was an authoritative announcement of intention to follow a particular course. It's based in the authority of the person who writes it or whose name it bears.Humbert made the journey from Rome to Constantinople, bull in hand. He arrived on July 16, 1054, marched into the Hagia Sophia while Communion was being observed. As one author says, Humbert's notice was a lot like a Texas longhorn: It had a point here, a point there, and a lot of bull in between. Condemned in the bull were the Eastern practices of allowing priests to marry, refusing to recognize baptism performed in Roman churches, and deleting the Filioque.For the record, the Roman church had allowed priests to marry for several centuries, the Eastern church did not refuse to recognize Roman baptism, and they absolutely did NOT DELETE the phrase” and the son” from the Creed – The Western Church had added it!Humbert threw the bull on the Communion table, turned his back on the priest, and walked out, knocking the dust from his sandals and yelling "Let God judge!" A deacon picked up the bull and chased after Humbert, begging him to take it back. Humbert refused.The Papal Bull was viewed by the Eastern Church as the proverbial gauntlet, thrown at their feet by the Pope. The options seemed clear; either submit to the Pope's undisputed authority over the Church, or be considered by Rome a breakaway church.Tap 2The third and decisive tap that sundered East from West was the Crusades, specifically, the 4th. I need to make clear we're only dipping a toe into the subject of the Crusades for now. They're a major part of Church History we'll spend a lot more time on in future episodes. For now, we're only looking at how the Crusades served to split the Western and Eastern Churches.But even before THAT, I'm compelled to remind everyone that when I refer to the Eastern Church, what I really mean is the Greek Orthodox or Byzantine Church; not the Church of the East we've looked at in earlier podcasts. For simplicity sake. Picture a map of the ancient world; that swath of the globe that includes to the far left, Spain and Northwest Africa, up thru England and Scotland. Now, put the Middle East with Mesopotamia in the center of that mental map, and at the far right, China and Japan.Now, draw a mental oval over Spain, the British Isles, France, Germany, Italy, Scandinavia; shade it blue – That's the Western Church, speaking Latin, and centered at Rome under the Popes.Next, draw another oval over all East Europe and West Asia; shade it Green – That's the Byzantine Church, speaking Greek and centered at Constantinople under the Patriarchs.Finally, draw a 3rd oval over The Middle East, Mesopotamia, Persia, Central Asia, India, China and all the way to Japan. Shade it red – That's the Nestorian Church of the East, that speaks mainly Syriac and is headquartered at Nisibis & Edessa under the leadership of the Metropolitans.Note how much larger that 3rd sphere is. It covers a territory and population much larger than the two to its west combined. Yet in the popular review of Church History, this Church of the East is often neglected. The reason for that neglect is a subject for a later episode.My point here is that when we speak of the break between the Eastern and Western Churches, let's be sure we understand that the description of the Byzantine Church as the Eastern Church isn't really accurate. It's only a description of the Byzantine Church as being to the geographic East of the Western, Latin Church.Now, back to our look at the 3rd tap that severed West from East . . .As we've seen in previous episodes, penance played a major role in the religious life of Medieval Christians. Many believed they could prove themselves worthy of God's favor by going on a “pilgrimage.” So pilgrims traveled to shrines containing the bones of saints and relics from the Biblical story.  European cathedrals were centers where these sacred items were kept. But the greatest pilgrimage of all, one taken by not a few sincere believers was to Jerusalem. Even today with modern forms of transportation, a trip to Israel is a major event requiring special arrangements and a significant investment. Imagine what it meant for a pilgrim of the 10th or 11th C!  They walked hundreds of miles, braved a risky voyage aboard a ship that traveled through stormy, pirate-infested seas. This was no Disneyland ride; there were real-deal pirates who'd slit your throat or sell you into slavery. Fun stuff.Pilgrimages became such a fixture of medieval society, to impede a pilgrim's journey was thought to imperil his/her salvation. So a whole trade developed in assisting pilgrims reaching their destination, whether it was some cathedral or holy shrine in Europe, or the great pilgrimage to the Holy Land.From AD 638, Muslims controlled Jerusalem and the routes leading there. They required pilgrims to pay special fees. So in 1095 in France, Pope Urban II responded by preaching one of history's most influential sermons. We'll go into the details later. For now, just know he said, “Your Eastern brothers have asked for your help! Turks and Arabs have conquered their territories. I or, rather, the Lord begs you … destroy that vile race from your brothers' lands!”The response astounded both the Pope and Europe's nobility. The crowd of commoners began to chant, “Deus vult = God wills it!” There was an immediate response of hundreds to go in relief of their imperiled brothers.  As the days passed, the fervor spread and soon, nobles and serfs set off on the Great Pilgrimage to liberate Jerusalem from the infidels. They sewed crosses onto their tunics and painted them on their shields. Nobles forged new swords and spears while commoners grabbed whatever might make for a weapon and set off. They agreed to gather in Constantinople. The First Crusade was off and running.Among the peasants that set out on the 1st Crusade was a large group who followed a monk known as Peter the Hermit. The swarthy monk had not bathed in decades. He rode a burro that, according to some bore a remarkable resemblance to its rider. Peter's preaching was even more powerful than his odor. In 9 months, he gathered 20,000 European peasants to fight the Eastern infidel. They caused immediate chaos when they arrived in Constantinople. Complaints of robbery poured into the Emperor's office. He knew the untrained peasants were no match for the Muslims who cut their teeth on conquest, but he couldn't let them linger in his city. So he ferried them across the river where they began pillaging the homes of Eastern Christians, straining relations between the Byzantine and Roman churches. 2 months later, these peasants marched straight into an ambush. Peter, still in Constantinople begging for supplies, was the lone survivor. He joined another army, led by European nobility. These Crusaders clashed with the Muslims in Antioch, then continued on to Jerusalem.On July 15, 1099, Jerusalem fell to the Crusaders. Near the Temple Mount, the blood flowed ankle-deep. Newborns were thrown against walls. Crusaders torched a synagogue and burned the Jews inside alive. To this day, this wholesale slaughter affects how Jews and Muslims perceive the Church.A couple more Crusader campaigns were launched, then in 1198 a noble became Pope Innocent III. He inspired the 4th Crusade that would finally divide the Byzantine and Roman Churches.The bottom line of the 4th Crusade is that it was more than anything, a commercial venture. The merchants of the powerful city-state of Venice agreed to supply the Crusaders with ships at the cost of 84,000 silver coins. They were then to sail to Egypt and destroy a key Muslim base that would open up trade.  In the summer of 1202, the Crusaders arrived in Venice expecting to sail to Egypt. But there was a problem: Only one-third of the expected number of Crusaders showed up, and they came up with only 50,000 silver coins.Not to worry, an ambitious Eastern prince who fancied himself someone who deserved a fate and station better than the one life had dealt him, offered to finance the crusade à get this: Under the condition the Crusaders sail to Constantinople FIRST and dethrone the current Emperor. Once that was done, they could be on their merry way. Pope Innocent III forbade the assault on Constantinople, but no one paid him any mind. On July 5, 1203, the Crusaders arrived in Constantinople. But the people of the city were quite over the mess these Europeans kept making of things and revolted. They pre-empted the Crusaders attempt to install their own emperor and instead selected a fiercely anti-Crusader ruler.The Crusaders were furious. They'd set out to destroy Muslims in Egypt and saw their side trip to Constantinople as a brief diversion. Now, they were stranded in the Eastern Capital. With the promise of plunder the motive for their venture in the first place, they decided to go to town on those they now deemed their enemies – the people and city of Constantinople. One priest promised the Crusaders if they died in the now “holy cause” of sacking the city, they had the Pope's blessing and would go immediately to heaven. The Pope had said no such thing; on the contrary, he'd forbidden the entire campaign. But people hear what they want, and the Crusaders took that priest's announcement as a license to do whatever they pleased.On Good Friday, 1204, with red crosses on their tunics, the Crusaders sacked Constantinople. For 3 days, they raped and killed fellow believers. The city's statues were hacked to pieces and melted down. The Hagia Sophia was stripped of its treasures. A harlot performed sensual dances on the Lord's Table, singing vile drinking songs. One writer lamented that the Muslims were more merciful than those who bore a cross on their garments.Neither the Byzantine Empire nor Church recovered from those 3 horrible days. The Crusaders ruled the Eastern Empire for the next 60 years. The Eastern emperor set up a new capital in nearby Nicaea, to which many of the people of Constantinople fled.  They remained there until 1261, when an Eastern ruler retook the City.Pope Innocent III tried to prevent the fall of Constantinople, but no one had listened. Afterward, he attempted to reunite the churches, but it was too late. After the 4th Crusade, the Church was shattered into 2 communions. Today we know them as the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.And while there have been a few attempts to affect a reconciliation recently, the wight of history has served to keep them at odds.

This is part 4 of our series on the Crusades.The plan for this episode, the last in our look at the Crusades, is to give a brief review of the 5th thru 7th Crusades, then a bit of analysis of the Crusades as a whole.The date set for the start of the 5th Crusade was June 1st, 1217. It was Pope Innocent III's long dream to reconquer Jerusalem. He died before the Crusade set off, but his successor Honorius III was just as ardent a supporter. He continued the work begun by Innocent.The Armies sent out accomplished much of nothing, except to waste lives. Someone came up with the brilliant idea that the key to conquering Palestine was to secure a base in Egypt first. That had been the plan for the 4th Crusade. The Crusaders now made the major port of Damietta their goal. After a long battle, the Crusaders took the city, for which the Muslim leader Malik al Kameel offered to trade Jerusalem and all Christian prisoners he held. The Crusaders thought the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II was on his way to bolster their numbers, so they rejected the offer. Problem is, Frederick wasn't on his way. So in 1221, Damietta reverted to Muslim control.Frederick II cared little about the Crusade. After several false starts that revealed his true attitude toward the whole thing, the Emperor decided he'd better make good on his many promises and set out with 40 galleys and only 600 knights. They arrived in Acre in early Sept. 1228. Because the Muslim leaders of the Middle East were once again at odds with each other, Frederick convinced the afore-mentioned al-Kameel to make a decade long treaty that turned Jerusalem over to the Crusaders, along with Bethlehem, Nazareth, and the pilgrim route from Acre to Jerusalem. On March 19, 1229, Frederick crowned himself by his own hand in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.This bloodless assumption of Jerusalem infuriated Pope Gregory IX who considered control of the Holy Land and the destruction of the Muslims as one and the same thing. So the Church never officially acknowledged Frederick's accomplishments.He returned home to deal with internal challenges to his rule and over the next decade and a half, the condition of Palestine's Christians deteriorated. Everything gained by the treaty was turned back to Muslim hegemony in the Fall of 1244.The last 2 Crusades, the 6th and 7th, center on the career of the last great Crusader; the king of France, Louis IX.Known as SAINT Louis, he combined the piety of a monk with the chivalry of a knight, and stands in the front rank of all-time Christian rulers.  His zeal revealed itself not only in his devotion to religious ritual, but in his refusal to deviate from his faith even under the threat of torture. His piety was genuine as evidenced by his concern for the poor and the just treatment of his subjects. He washed the feet of beggars and when a monk warned him against carrying his humility too far, he replied, “If I spent twice as much time in gambling and hunting as in such services, no one would find fault with me.”The sack of Jerusalem by the Muslims in 1244 was followed by the fall of the Crusader bases in Gaza and Ashkelon. In 1245 at the Council of Lyons the Pope called for a new expedition to once again liberate the Holy Land. Though King Louis lay in a sickbed with an illness so grave his attendants put a cloth over his face, thinking he was dead, he rallied and took up the Crusader cross.Three years later he and his French brother-princes set out with 32,000 troops. A Venetian and Genoese fleet carried them to Cyprus, where large-scale preparations had been made for their supply. They then sailed to Egypt. Damietta once again fell, but after this promising start, the campaign turned into a disaster.Louis' piety and benevolence was not backed up by what we might call solid skills as a leader. He was ready to share suffering with his troops but didn't possess the ability to organize them.  Heeding the counsel of several of his commanders, he decided to attack Cairo instead of Alexandria, the far more strategic goal. The campaign was a disaster with the Nile being chocked with bodies of slain Crusaders. On their retreat, the King and Count of Poitiers were taken prisoners. The Count of Artois was killed. The humiliation of the Crusaders had rarely been so deep.Louis' fortitude shone brightly while suffering the misfortune of being held captive. Threatened with torture and death, he refused to renounce Christ or yield up any of the remaining Crusader outposts in Palestine. For the ransom of his troops, he agreed to pay 500,000 livres, and for his own freedom to give up Damietta and abandon the campaign in Egypt.Clad in garments given by the sultan, in a ship barely furnished, the king sailed for Acre where he stayed 3 yrs, spending large sums on fortifications at Jaffa and Sidon. When his mother, who acted as Queen-Regent in his absence, died—Louis was forced to return to France. He set sail from Acre in the spring of 1254. His queen, Margaret, and the 3 children born them in the East, returned with him.So complete a failure might have been expected to destroy all hope of ever recovering Palestine. But the hold of the crusading idea upon the mind of Europe was still strong. Popes Urban IV and Clement III made renewed appeals, and Louis once again set out. In 1267, with his hand on a crown of thorns, he announced to his assembled nobles his purpose to go a 2nd time on a holy crusade.In the meantime, news from the East had been of continuous disaster at the hand of the “Mohammaden” enemy (as they called Muslims) and of discord among the Christians. In 1258, 40 Venetian vessels engaged in battle with a Genoese fleet of 50 ships off Acre with a loss of 1,700 souls. A year later the Templars and Hospitallers held forth in a pitched battle, not with the Muslims, but  each other. Then in 1268, Acre, greatest of the Crusader ports, fell to the Muslims Mamelukes.Louis set sail in 1270 w/60,000 into disaster. Their camp was scarcely pitched on the site of ancient Carthage when plague broke out. Among the victims was the king's son, John Tristan, born at Damietta, and King Louis himself.  His body was returned to France and the French army disbanded.By 1291, what remained of the Crusader presence in the Holy Land was finally uprooted by Muslim control.Those more familiar with the history of the Crusades may wonder why I've neglected to mention the disastrous Children's Crusade of 1212, inserted between the 4th and 5th Crusades. The reason I've decided to mostly skip it is because historians have come to doubt the veracity of the reports about it. It seems now more apocryphal than real, conflated from several disparate reports of groups that wandered around Southern Europe looking to hop on to another campaign to capture Jerusalem. The story goes that a French or German child of 10 years had a vision in which he was told to go to the Middle East and convert the Muslims by peaceful means. As he shared this vision and began his trek to Marseilles, other children joined his cause, along with some adults of dubious reputation. As their ranks swelled, they arrived at the French coast, expecting the seas to part and make a way for them to cross over to the Middle East on dry land. Never mind that it was a trip of hundreds of miles. Anyway, the waters failed to part, and the children, most of them anyway, ended up dispersing. Those who didn't were rounded up by slavers who promised to transport them to the Holy Land, free of charge. Once they were aboard ship though, they were captives and were hauled to foreign ports all over the Mediterranean where they were sold off.As I said, while the Children's Crusade has been considered a real event for many years, it's recently come under scrutiny and doubt as ancient records were examined closely. It seems it's more a product of cutting and pasting various stories that took place during this time. The children were in fact bands of Europe's landless poor who had nothing better to do than wander around Southern France and Germany, waiting for the next Crusade to be called so they could go and hopefully participate in the plunder of the rich, Eastern lands.I want to offer some commentary now on the Crusades. So, warning, what follows is pure opinion.For 7 centuries Christians have tried to forget the Crusades, but critics and skeptics are determined to keep them a hot issue. While Jews and Muslims have (mostly rightly, I think) used the Crusades for generations as a point of complaint. In more recent time, New Atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have raised them like a crowbar and beaten Christians over the head with them. Isn't it interesting that these God-deniers have to first assume Biblical morality to then deny it? If they were consistent with their own atheistic beliefs they'd have to find some other reason to declaim the Crusades than that it's wrong to indiscriminately kill people. Why, according to their Darwinist evolutionary, Survival of the Fittest motif, shouldn't they in fact applaud the Crusades? After all, they were advancing the cause of evolution by getting rid of the weaker elements of the race.But no! The New Atheists don't use this line of reasoning because it's abhorrent. Instead, they have to first don a belief in Christian morality to attack Christianity. Talk about being hypocritical.And let's get our facts straight. The 20th Century saw more people killed for political and ideological reasons than all previous centuries combined! Between the Communists, Nazis, and Fascists, well over 100 million were killed. Stalin, Hitler, and Mao Zedong were motivated by an atheistic agenda, one rooted in a social application of Darwinism.Karl Marx, the ideological father of Communistic socialism, applied Darwin's evolutionary ideas to society and turned human beings into mere parts of a vast machine called the State. Anyone deemed a cog instead of a gear was to be removed so the machine could run as the leaders wanted. In the name of Communism, Stalin killed at least 20 million; Mao, about 70 million!Adolf Hitler was inspired by the atheist Fredrick Neizsche's Darwinian concept of the ubermensche = the superman; humanity's next evolutionary step. He justified the killing of 10 million saying the Final Solution was simply removing those who would hinder humanity's evolution. He employed an entire army of science-minded killers who believed it was right and good to rid the world of “human weeds” as they called Jews, Slavs, homosexuals and the infirm.It takes a colossal ignorance of history to neglect this. Yet the New Atheists ignore the facts because they destroy their premise that atheism has the moral high ground.As calculated by historical evidence, the Crusades, Inquisition and witch trials killed about 200,000 in all over a period of 500 years. Adjusting for population growth, that would be about a million in today's terms. That's just 1% of the total killed by Stalin, Mao and Hitler; and they did it in a few decades!So, let's keep the Crusades, as brutal as they were, and as utterly contrary to the nature and teaching of Christ as they were, in the proper historical perspective. No! I'm not justifying them. They were totally wrong-headed! To turn the cross into a sword and slay people with it is blasphemous and deserves the loud declamation of the Church.But let's not forget that the Crusaders were human beings with motives not unlike our own. Those motives were mixed and often in conflict. The word crusade comes from “taking the cross,” after the example of Christ. That's why on the way to the Holy Land the crusader wore the cross on his breast. On his journey home, he wore it on his back.But the vast majority of those who went crusading were illiterate, even most of the nobles. They weren't taught the Bible as Evangelicals are today. People throughout Europe thought salvation rested IN THE CHURCH and was doled out by priests at the direction and discretion of the Pope. So if the Pope said Crusaders were doing God's work, they were believed. When priests broadcast that dying in the holy cause of a Crusade meant they'd bypass purgatory and gain immediate access to heaven, thousands grabbed the nearest weapon and set off.For Urban and the popes who followed him, the Crusades were a new type of war, a Holy War. Augustine had laid down the principles of a “just war” centuries before. Those principles were . . .A Holy War was conducted by the State;Its purpose was the vindication of justice, meaning the defense of life and property;And its code called for respect for noncombatants; civilians and prisoners. While these principles were originally adopted by the Crusaders when they set out on the 1st Campaign, they evaporated in the heat of the journey and reality of battle.The Crusades ignited horrible attacks on Jews. Even fellow Christians were not exempt from rape and plunder. Incredible atrocities befell the Muslim foe. Crusaders sawed open dead bodies in search of gold.As the Crusades progressed, the occasional voice was lifted calling into question the propriety of such movements and their ultimate value. At the end of the 12th C, the abbot Joachim complained that the popes were making the Crusades a pretext for their own advancement.Humbert de Romanis, general of the Dominicans, in making out a list of matters to be handled at the Council of Lyons in 1274, was obliged to refute no less than 7 well-known objections to the Crusades. They included these 4 . . .It was contrary to the precepts of the NT to advance religion by the sword;Christians may defend themselves, but have no right to invade the lands of another;It is wrong to shed the blood of unbelievers;And the disasters of the Crusades proved they were contrary to the will of God. Christians in Europe during the 14th and 15th Cs were to face far more pressing problems than a conquest of the Holy Land. So while there was still an occasional call for one, it fell on deaf ears.Erasmus, writing at the close of the Middle Ages, made an appeal for the preaching of the Gospel as a way to deal with Muslims.  He said the proper way to defeat the Turks was by conversion, not annihilation. He said, “Truly, it is not meet to declare ourselves Christian men by killing very many but by saving very many, not if we send thousands of heathen people to hell, but if we make many infidels Christian; not if we cruelly curse and excommunicate, but if we with devout prayers and with our hearts desire their health, and pray unto God, to send them better minds.”The long-range results of 2 centuries of crusading were not impressive. If the main purpose of the Crusades was to win the Holy Land, to check the advance of Islam, and heal the schism between the Eastern and Western Churches, they failed spectacularly.For a time, the 4 Crusader kingdoms held a beach-head on the Mediterranean coast of the Holy Land. In them, three semi-monastic military orders formed: the Templars, whose first headquarters were on the site of the old Temple of Jerusalem; the Hospitallers, also known as the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, originally founded to care for the sick and wounded; and the Germanic Teutonic Knights. These orders combined monasticism and militarism and had as their aims the protection of pilgrims and perpetual war against Muslims. They fielded 500 armed knights. Their great castles guarded the roads and passes against attack. For 2 centuries the Templars in their white robes decorated with a red cross, the Hospitallers in black robes emblazoned with the white Maltese cross, and the Teutonic Knights in white robes with a black cross were common sights in Crusader States and across Europe.While the Crusades seem to us today a terrible betrayal of Biblical Christianity, we must bring the historian's mindset to them and consider them against the times in which they occurred. This doesn't excuse them, but it does make them a bit more understandable.European society of the Middle Ages was ir-redeemably warlike. In feudal Europe, the whole economic and social system depended on the maintenance of a military; the knights, permanent professional soldiers; by necessity due to the cost involved, noblemen whose only profession was fighting. The city-states of Italy were frequently at war. In Spain, a line was drawn across the map for centuries by the presence of the Muslim Moors. So even if Christians had wanted to create a peaceful society, it would have been socially and practically difficult to do.One way of dealing with this was to idealize warfare. That is, casting war as a contest between good and evil. In the development of the idea of the Christian knight, there was an attempt to give the spiritual battle a corresponding literal application. The knight was a ‘soldier of Christ', a warrior for good.  At a time when priests and monks were deemed the only ones able to make contact with God, the Crusades were a way for laypeople to enter the spiritual realm and rack up some serious points with God. Priests fought the good fight by prayer; now laymen could fight as well, with a sword, mace, or if that's all they could afford, a pitchfork, until they got to the battlefield where hopefully they'd find a more suitable weapon.So it was important for medieval Christians to convince themselves the war they were fighting was justified. A sophisticated system of identifying a ‘just' war developed. Augustine had said a good deal about this, explaining that someone whose property or land was stolen is entitled to get it back, but that this was different from warfare designed to enlarge one's territory. The underlying principle was that reasonable force could be used to maintain order.The late 11th C saw the arrival of a new thought; not Augustine's “Just War,” but the concept of “Holy War”, one God called His people to fight to restore Christian control to the Holy Land. This was war which could not only be regarded as ‘justified', and the sins committed in the course of it forgiven, but meritorious. God would reward those who fought it. Guibert of Nogent, in his book The Acts of God through the Franks, explained how to identify a Holy War. It wasn't motivated by the desire for fame, money or conquest. Its motive was the safeguarding of liberty, the defense of the State and the protection of the Church. He considered this kind of warfare a valid alternative to being a monk.This idea was so engaging to the Medieval mind that as the 12th C wound on it had to be discouraged as it seemed everyone began seeing knighthood and combat as spiritual warfare. Bullies have always been able to villainize those they want to victimize. They justified their brutality by calling it a divine mission. So priests and theologians emphasized not all fighting came under the same umbrella. Crusading was special.Of course, one of the major tenets of Muslim theology is jihad, Holy War to spread the faith. Despite loud protests by some today, the fact remains that the Islam Mohammad taught, which of course is true Islam, endorses jihad. How else did it spread from its desert base in Arabia across the Middle East, North Africa, and into Europe in such a short time if not by the power of the scimitar?I find it interesting that modern Muslims decry the Crusades when it was their own bloody campaigns that took the lands the Crusaders sought to what? RECLAIM! How could they RECLAIM something what wasn't CLAIMED and conquered by the Muslims previously? I say it again: This in no way justifies the Crusades. They're an indefensible period of Church history that stands as a dark stain. But let's be clear; if they're a stain on Church history, the conquests by the Muslims that predate the Crusades are just as dark.

This Episode of CS is titled, Francis and continues our look at the mendicant orders.Though we call him Francis of Assisi, his original name was Francesco Bernardone. Born in 1182, his given name was Giovanni (Latin of John). His father Pietro nicknamed him Francesco which is what everyone called him. Pietro was a wealthy dealer in textiles imported from France to their hometown of Assisi in central Italy.His childhood was marked by the privileges of his family's wealth. He wasn't a great student, finding his delight more in having a good time entertaining friends. When a local war broke out, he signed up to fight for his and was taken prisoner. Released at 22, Francis then came down with a serious illness. That's when he began to consider eternal things, as so many have when facing their mortality. He rose from his sick-bed disgusted with himself and unsatisfied with the world.The war still on, he was on his way to rejoin the army when he turned back, sensing God had another path for him.  He went into seclusion at a grotto near Assisi where his path forward became clearer. He decided to make a typical pilgrimage to Rome, where it was assumed the godly went to seek God. But there he was stuck by the terrible plight of the poor who lined the streets, many of them just outside the door of luxurious churches.Confronted with a leper, he recoiled in horror. Then it dawned on him that his reaction was no different from an indifferent Church, which tolerated such gross need in their midst but doing nothing to lift the needy out of their condition. He turned around, kissed the leper's hand, and left in it all the money he had.Returning to Assisi, he attended the chapels in its suburbs instead of the main city church. There seemed less pretention in these humble chapels. He lingered most at the simply furnished St. Damian's served by a single priest at a crude altar. This little chapel became a kind of Bethel for Francis; his bridge between heaven and earth.The change that came over the one-time party-animal led to scorn and ridicule from those who'd known him. Privileged sons like Francis didn't grovel in the mucky world of commoners; yet that was exactly what Francis was now doing. His father banished him from the family home.  He renounced his obligations to them in public saying: “Up to this time I have called Pietro Bernardone ‘father,' but now I desire to serve God and to say nothing else than 'Our Father which art in heaven.'” From then on, Francis was wholly devoted to a religious life. He dressed in beggar's clothes, moved in with a small community of lepers, washed their sores, and restored the damaged walls of the chapel of St. Damian by begging building materials in the squares and streets of the city. He was 26 years old.Francis then received from the Benedictine abbot of Mt. Subasio the gift of a little chapel called Santa Maria degli Angeli. Nicknamed the Portiuncula—the Little Portion. It became Francis' favorite shrine. There he had most of his visions. It was there he eventually died.While meditating one day in 1209, Francis heard the Words of Jesus to his followers, “Preach, the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils. Provide neither silver nor gold, nor brass in your purses.” Throwing away his staff, purse, and, shoes, he made this the rule of his life. He preached repentance and gathered about him several companions. Their Rule was nothing less than full obedience to the Gospel.Their mission was to preach, by both word and deed. Their constant emphasis was to make sure their lives exemplified the Word and Work of God. One saying attributed to him is: “Preach at all times. When necessary, use words.”In 1210, Francis and some companions went to Rome were they were received by Pope Innocent III. The chronicle of the event reports that the pope, in order to test his sincerity, said, “Go, brother, go to the pigs, to whom you are more fit to be compared than to men, and roll with them, and to them preach the rules you have so ably set forth.” This may seem like a cruel put off, but it may in truth have been a test of Francis' sincerity. He proposed a very different way than priests and monks had chosen. This command would certainly determine if Francis' claim to poverty and obedience were genuine. Well, Francis DID obey, and returned saying, “My Lord, I have done so.” If the pope had only been mocking, Francis' response softened him. He gave his blessing to the brotherhood and sanctioned their rule, granted them the right to cut their hair in the distinctive tonsure that was the badge of the monk, and told them to go and preach repentance.The brotherhood increased rapidly. The members were expected to work. In his will, Francis urged the brethren to work at some trade as he'd done. He compared an idle monk to a drone. The brethren visited the sick, especially lepers who sat at the very bottom of the social order. They preached in ever expanding circles, and went abroad on missionary journeys. Francis was ready to sell the very ornaments of the altar rather than refuse an appeal for aid. He was ashamed when he encountered any one poorer than himself.One of the most remarkable episodes of Francis' career occurred at this time. He made a covenant, like marriage, with Poverty. He called it his bride, mother, and sister, and remained devoted to Sister Poverty with the devotion of a knight.In 1217, Francis was presented to the new Pope Honorius III. At the advice of a powerful Cardinal who would later become Pope Gregory IX, he memorized his sermon. But when he appeared before the pontiff, he forgot it all and instead delivered an impromptu message, which won over the papal court.Francis made evangelistic tours in 1219 thru Italy then into Egypt and Syria. Returning from the East with the title “il poverello” the little Poor Man, he found a new element had been introduced into the brotherhood thru the influence of a stern disciplinarian named Cardinal Ugolino, the same cardinal who'd coached him to memorize his sermon before the pope.Francis was heart-broken over the changes made to his order. Passing through Bologna in 1220, he was deeply grieved to see a new house being built for the brothers. Cardinal Ugolino was determined to manipulate the Franciscans in the interest of the Vatican. Early on he'd offered Francis help to negotiate the intricacies of Vatican life and politics, and Francis accepted. Little did he realize he was inviting a force that would fundamentally alter all he stood for. Under the cardinal's influence, a new code was adopted in 1221, then a third just two years later in which Francis' distinctive perspective for the Franciscans was set aside. The original Rule of poverty was modified; the old ideas of monastic discipline re-introduced, and a new element of absolute submission to the pope added. The mind of Francis was too simple for the shrewd rulers of the church. His lack of guile couldn't compete with men whose entire lives were lived wielding vast levers of political power. He was set aside and a member of the nobility was put at the head of the Order.The forced subordination of Francis offers one of the most touching spectacles of medieval biography. Francis had withheld himself from papal privileges. He'd favored freedom of movement. But the deft hand of Cardinal Ugolino installed a strict monastic obedience. Organization replaced devotion. Ugolino probably did attempt to be a real friend to Francis but his loyalty was always and only to the Pope whom the Cardinal thought ought to be the undisputed ruler of all and every facet of Church life. It didn't seem right to him that any monastic order wasn't directly answerable to and controlled by the Pope. Ugolino laid the foundation of the cathedral in Assisi to Francis' honor, and canonized him only two years after his death. But the Cardinal did not appreciate Francis' humble spirit. Francis was helpless to carry out his original ideas, and yet, without making any outward sign of rebellion, he held them tightly to the end.These ideas were affirmed in Francis' famous will. This document is one of the most moving pieces of Christian literature. Francis called himself “little brother.” All he had to leave the brothers was his benediction, the memory of the early days of the brotherhood, and counsels to abide by their first Rule. This Rule, he said, he'd received from no human author. God himself had revealed it to him, that he ought to live according to the Gospel. He reminded them how the first members loved to live in poor and abandoned churches. He bade them not accept ornate churches or luxurious houses, in accordance with the rule of holy poverty they'd professed. He forbade their receiving special privileges from the Pope or his agents, even orders that gave them personal protection. Through the whole of the document there runs a note of anguish over the lost simplicity that had been the power of their first years; years when the presence of God had been so obvious and they had power to live the holy lives they longed for.Francis' heart was broken. Never strong, his last years were full of sicknesses. Change of location only brought temporary relief. The works of physicians, such as the age knew, were employed. But no wonder they didn't help when you hear what they were: an iron, heated white-hot, was applied to his forehead.As his body failed, he jokingly referred to it as Brother Ass.Francis's reputation as a saint preceded his death. We've talked about relics in previous episodes. But relics were always attributed to people dead for decades, usually hundreds of years. Francis was a living saint from whom people craved things like fragments of his clothing, hairs from his head, even the parings of his nails.Two years before his death, Francis composed the hymn Canticle to the Sun, called by some the most perfect expression of religious feeling. It was written at a time when he was beset by temptations with blindness setting in. The hymn is a pious peal of passionate praise for nature, especially Brother Sun and Sister Moon.The last week of his life, Francis asked for Psalm 142 to be read to him since his eyes were failing. Two brothers sang to him. That's when a priest named Elias, loyal to Cardinal Ugolino and had advocated setting aside Francis' original Rule in favor of the Cardinal's more strict rule, rebuked Francis for making light of death and acting as though he wanted to die! “Why, what kind of faith did that reveal,” the indignant priest asked? It was thought unfitting for a saint. Francis replied that he'd been thinking of death for at least a couple years, and now that he was so united with the Lord, he ought to be joyful in Him. One witness at his bedside said when the time came, “he met death singing.”Before Francis' coffin was closed, great honors began to be heaped upon him. He was canonized only two years later.The career of Francis of Assisi, as told by his contemporaries, and as his spirit is revealed in his own last testament, leaves the impression of purity, purpose, and humility of spirit; of genuine saintliness. He sought not positions of honor nor a place with the great. With a simple mind, he sought to serve his fellow-man by announcing the Gospel, and living out his understanding of it in his own example.He sought to give the Gospel to the common people. They heard him gladly. He didn't possess a great intellect but had a great soul.He was no diplomat, but he was a man whose love for God and people was obvious to all who met him.Francis wasn't a theologian in the classic sense; someone who thought lofty thoughts. He was a practical theologian in that he lived the truths the best theology holds.  He spoke and acted as one who feels full confidence in his mission. He spoke to the Church as no one after him did till Martin Luther came.While history refers to the followers of Francis as the Franciscans, their official name was the fratres minores, the Minor Brethren, or simply the Minorites. When the order was first sanctioned by the Pope, Francis insisted on this as their title as a warning to the members not to aspire after positions of distinction.They spread rapidly in Italy and beyond; but before Francis' generation passed, the order was torn by the strife Cardinal Ugolino introduced. No other monastic order can show anything like long conflict within its own membership over a question of principle. The dispute had a unique place in the theological debates of the Middle Ages.According to the founding Rule of 1210 and Francis' last will, they were to be a free brotherhood devoted to poverty and the practice of the Gospel, rather than a closed organization bound by precise rules. Pope Innocent III who'd originally sanctioned them, urged Francis to take the rule of the older orders as his model, but Francis declined and went his own path. He built upon a few texts of Scripture. And as we said, just six years into the order's life, Cardinal Ugolino installed a rigid discipline to the order, pushing aside Francis' vision of a free brotherhood governed by grace instead of rules.In 1217, the order began sending missionaries beyond Italy. Elias, a former mattress-maker in Assisi and one of Ugolino's lackeys, led a band of missionaries to Syria. Others went to Germany, Hungary, France, Spain and England. The Franciscans proved to be courageous and entrepreneurial agents for the Gospel.  They went south to Morocco and east as far as China. They accompanied Columbus on his 2nd journey to the New World and were active in early American missions from Florida to California, from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.The Rule of 1221, second in the order's history, shows two influences at work; one from Ugolino, the other of course from Francis. There are signs of the struggle which had already begun several years before. The Rule placed a general at the head of the order and a governing body or board was installed, made up of the heads of the order's houses. Poverty was retained as a primary principle and the requirement of work remained. The sale of their products was forbidden except when it benefited the poor and needy.The Rule of 1223, the third, was briefer but added even more organization to the order. It went further in erasing from the order the will of Francis. The mendicant or begging character of the order was emphasized. But obedience to the pope was introduced and a cardinal was made the order's protector and guardian. Contrary to Francis' will, a devotional book of prayers and hymns called the Roman Breviary was ordered to be used as the book of daily worship. Monastic discipline replaced Biblical liberty. The Rule of 1223 made clear the strong hand of papal hierarchy. The freedom of the 1210 Rule disappeared. The pope's agents did everything they could to suppress Francis' last testament since it was a passionate appeal for the original freedom of his brotherhood against the new order.In light of the way the order was stolen out from under Francis' leadership during his own lifetime, it's a wonder they continued to be known as the Franciscans; they ought to have been called the Ugolinoians.Alongside the male Franciscans were the Clarisses, nuns who took their name from Clara of Sciffi, canonized in 1255.  Clara was so moved by Francis' example she started a parallel order for women. Francis wrote a Rule for them which enforced poverty and made a will for Clara. The nuns supported themselves by the labor of their hands, but by Francis' advice and example also became mendicants who depended on alms. Their rule was also modified in 1219 and the order was afterwards compelled to adopt the much older Benedictine rule.The Tertiaries, or Brothers and Sisters of Penitence, were the third order of the Franciscans. The Tertiaries were lay brothers and sisters who held other employment but wanted to show a greater level of devotion to God than the common person. Francis never made an order for the Tertiaries. He simply called them to dedicate themselves wholly to God while going about their usual lives as merchants, workers and family men and women.Francis wanted to include all classes of people, men and women, married and unmarried. His object was to put within the reach of lay-people the higher practice of virtue and godliness it was thought only sequestered monks or nuns could attain.Historians wonder where Francis got his idea for his attempt to take the rigid formalism of the church of the Middle Ages back to more of a New Testament practice. Chances are good he took his example from the Waldenses, also called the Poor Men of Lyons, a group well known in Northern Italy in Francis' day.Most likely, it was Francis' original intent to start an organic movement of lay-people, and that the idea of a monastic order only developed later.Following Francis' death, throughout the rest of the 13th C, the Franciscans were split into two groups; those who clung to his original vision and Rule and the stricter sect loyal to Cardinal Ugolino. The contest became so bitter that at times it fell to bloodshed. Eventually the pro-papal party prevailed.In the pervious episode, I mentioned Francis was a bit of an anti-intellectual. That is to say, he'd seen too many priests who could parse fine points of doctrine, but who, like the religious leaders in the parable of the Good Samaritan, seemed not to understand the practical compassion, mercy and grace their theology ought to have stirred in them. Francis was not against learning per say; only when such study pre-empted living out what Truth commends. To a monastic leader named Anthony of Padua, Francis wrote, “I am agreed that you continue reading lectures on theology to the brethren provided that kind of study does not extinguish in them the spirit of humility and prayer.”Francis' followers departed from his anti-intellectual leaning and adopted the 13th Century's trend of casting off the darkness of the Middle Ages by establishing schools and universities. They built schools in their convents and were well settled at the chief centers of university culture. In 1255, an order called upon Franciscans going out as missionaries to study Greek, Arabic, and Hebrew.The order spread rapidly all the way to Israel and Syria in the East and Ireland in the West. It was introduced in France by Pacifico and Guichard, a brother-in-law of the French king. The first successful attempt to establish the order in Germany was made in 1221.They took root in England in Canterbury and London in 1224. They were the first popular preachers England had seen, and the first to embody practical philanthropy. The condition of English villages and towns at that time was wretched. Skin diseases were common, including leprosy. Destructive epidemics spread rapidly due to the poor sanitation. The Franciscans chose quarters in the poorest and most neglected parts of towns. In Norwich, they settled in a swamp through which the city sewerage passed. At Newgate, now part of London, they settled into what was called Stinking Lane. At Cambridge, they occupied a decaying prison.It was for this zeal to reach the poor and needy they received recognition. People soon learned to respect the brothers. By 1256, the number of English Franciscans had grown to over 1200, settled in just shy of fifty locations around England.We'll see what became of the Franciscans later. Suffice it to say, Francis would not approve of what became of his brotherhood.  No he would NOT!The Mendicant orders of the Franciscans and Dominicans, which we'll look at next time, comprised a medieval poverty movement that was in large part, a reaction to the politicizing of the Faith. It was a movement of priests, monks and eventually commoners,  who'd come to believe Church policies sought to wrangle political influence for ever more power in world affairs. These would-be reformers wondered, “Is this what Jesus and the Apostle intended? Didn't Jesus say His Kingdom was NOT of this world? Why then are Bishops, Cardinals and Popes working so hard at controlling the political realm?”The call to voluntary poverty drew its strength from widespread resentment of corrupt clergy; not that all or even most priests were. But it seemed the only priests selected for advancement were those who played the Church's political game. The back-to-the-New Testament poverty movement of the Mendicants became a political movement in itself – a reform movement fueled by the spiritual hunger of the common people.As early as the 10th C, reformers had called for a return to the poverty and simplicity of the early church. The life and example of the Apostles was regarded as the norm and when modern bishops were held up to that example, it was clear something unusual had happened; bishops in their religious finery stood markedly higher than the Apostles in terms of worldly power and wealth.To illustrate this, visit the cathedral at Cologne, Germany. There's a little museum there called the Treasury. It contains several display cases with the various vestments and tools the cardinals of Cologne have worn. Composed of gold and silver threads, encrusted with gems, these robes are priceless; literally. But one set of cases sums up for me the utter contradiction of an exalted clergy; the croziers. A crozier is a stylized shepherd's staff carried by a bishop or cardinal. It's a symbol of his role as a pastor, a shepherd. As a shepherd's staff it ought to be a functional and useful tool. A humble piece of wood used to guide and protect sheep. But the croziers in the Treasury at Cologne Cathedral are made of solid gold, their head-pieces jammed with rubies, emeralds, diamonds, and pearls. You would no more use that to tend sheep than you would a painting by Rembrandt. Every time a cardinal wrapped his fingers around it, he ought to have been convicted deeply about how FAR FROM his calling as a humble servant to the flock we was.Now, imagine you're a commoner at church one Sunday. You've just been told by some priest God wants every bit of money you can give. How God NEEDS your money! Then in walks the Cardinal with his jewel-encrusted cape, his mitre and that priceless crozier in his hand.How long before you begin to say to yourself, “WHAT is going on here? Did Jesus wear a get-up like that? Did Peter or John or any of the Apostles? I don't think so. In fact, Jesus said something about not even having anywhere to lay his head. I'll bet that Cardinal has a nice satin covered down pillow.”In the earlier centuries of the Church, calls for reform were dealt with by channeling them into internal reform movements that directed attention away from the upper hierarchy to a more personal desire for reform that ended up in increased devotion. That's what many of the monastic orders were. But by the 12th and 13th Centuries things began to change. Many of the lesser clergy began to speak out against the abuses of the Church. When they did they often entered the ranks of what were called “heretics.”Francis adopted a radical devotion to poverty as a way to confront the blatant greed of the Church. His example spread like wild-fire precisely because it was so obvious to everyone how far off the Church had gotten. And it explains why Ugolino felt obligated to bring the order back in line by bringing it under the control of the Pope. While outwardly commending their order's devotion to poverty, he installed policies that made the order dependent on their land holdings and property. It's hard to criticize the wealth of “The Church,” when you're part of that church and possess a good measure of that wealth.Some were wise to Ugolino's ways and went further by staying true to Francis' original vision and commitment to poverty. Because they refused to knuckle under to his rule, they were declared heretical. And as heretics, they were treated with a brutality no one can reconcile with the Gospel of Grace. à But that, is for a later episode.

This is part 2 of “The Long Road to Reform.”Before diving into the THE Reformation, we'll do some review and add detail to the story of the Church. We do this because I fear too many of us may have the impression Martin Luther and John Calvin were wild aberrations. That they just sprang up out of nowhere. Many Protestants assume the Roman Catholic Church got progressively more corrupt during the Late Middle Ages and that Luther was a lone good guy who stood up and said, “Enough!” Many Roman Catholics would agree that the late medieval Church got a bit off but see what Luther did as a gross over-reaction that took him off the rails.So in this series of podcasts within the larger Church-story, I want to make sure we understand The Reformation was the inevitable result of a long attempt at reform that had gone on for awhile. To do that, we need to go back over some of the ground we've already covered.Pope Clement V made his headquarters the French city of Avignon. For the next 70 years, the popes resided there and bent their policies to the advantage of the French throne. The rest of Europe wasn't real excited about this, giving this period the title of “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church.”When Clement V died in 1314, the cardinals found it difficult to agree on a successor so they decided to elect a 72 year old, assuming he'd not last long, but it would afford them time to reach a consensus on a real pope. But Pope John XXII turned out be far more than a mere place-holder. He lived for 18 years and surprised everyone with his vigorous rule. Pope John was determined to make the Italians honor his papacy and sent troops to force down recalcitrant nobles. To finance these military excursions as well as funding the expansion of the papal court at Avignon, John devised a complex tax system. This only added to resentment against his rule.In the decade Pope Clement VI reigned, nepotism in the Church reached new heights and the papal palace at Avignon rivaled those of the secular courts of Europe in pompous luxury.Innocent VI made arrangements to move back to Rome but died before doing so.The eight years of Pope Urban V were marked by reform. Urban was an austere man of great personal discipline. He simplified the life of the court and removed from office anyone who wouldn't abide his reforms. In 1365, he returned to Rome to the acclaim of the people. But his policies weren't pro-Italian enough and loyalty to him quickly eroded. When his rule was defied by large groups, he moved back to Avignon.When Urban V died in 1370, Gregory XI was elected. Gregory's uncle was Pope Clement VI who made him a cardinal at the age of 17. It's that nepotism thing I mentioned a moment ago. This Gregory is the pope St. Catherine of Siena urged to return to Rome, we talked about in an earlier episode. On January 17, 1377, amid great rejoicing, Gregory entered Rome. The Babylonian Captivity of the Church was over and most assumed things would return to normal. It was not to be. The Great Papal Schism is just around the corner.The Avignon Papacies engaged in numerous intrigues and conducted military forays into various regions of Europe that had to be funded. So the popes came up with ingenious ways to raise revenue that furthered corruption. When an ecclesiastical position was vacant, its income was sent to Avignon. So the popes rather preferred that these positons weren't filled and churches went without bishops. When the positon WAS filled, it was auctioned off to the highest bidder in a return to the practice of simony Pope Gregory VII had worked so hard to end. Since these ecclesiastical offices were a source of income, some men managed to secure several of them. But, being that they could only be in one place at a time, they served as absentee landlords in their parishes. Added to this simony and absenteeism, the nepotism that marked the Avignon Papacy was so bad, by the end of the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, there was a widespread sense of the need for radical reform of the Church. And since it was the papacy itself that needed reform, the voices calling for it increasingly understood reform would need to come from someone other than the Pope.While I'd love to dive into the story of the Great Papal Schism, I don't think it would make for very good podcast material. We've already given a decent summary of it in previous episodes. Any more would devolve into a long list of names that become a jumble. The intrigues that went on during this time are rich and complex and would make for a great TV miniseries. But we're going to pass over it now and just say that the emergence of 2, then 3 popes all claiming to be Peter's rightful heir is one more obvious evidence things had gone horribly awry in the leadership of the Western Church.It became clear to everyone reform was needed. And in fact, many voices called for it.During the Great Schism, the conciliar movement wanted to reform the structure of the church while leaving its doctrine alone. Others, like John Wycliffe, who we recently looked at, and Jan Hus we have yet to - concluded it wasn't just the structure of the Church that needed reform; so did its doctrine.As a backdrop to all this were the frequent popular movements, especially among the poor, who saw the Mongol threat to the East, the Hundred Years' War, and the devastation of the Plague as harbingers of the End Times and potential judgments of God on a corrupt State and Church.The Conciliar Movement arose to deal with the Great Schism. Church leaders realized the history of the church had been dramatically shaped by its councils. They'd kept it ON THE RAILS at times it was being threatened with de-railing. It began all the way back in the 4th C, when Constantine called the first at Nicaea. Other crises were solved by similar councils over the centuries. Then, when popes gained power, the councils became instruments to enforce their power. This was especially true in the famous Fourth Lateran Council, which adopted a long list of polices of Pope Innocent III.But as papal authority diminished during the Great Schism, many hoped a new council would convene and undo the wrongs that had settled in as the status quo in both Church and State. As this theory grew, advocates said such a council held more authority than the pope because it would represent the WHOLE church, and not the partisan interests of one. Therefore, the council could select a new pope all could and should agree on.Now, this may seem imminently reasonable to us in the 21st C, but the issue was tied up in a sticking point its advocates had a hard time resolving à and that was this:Who had authority to call such a council. The first council was called by Constantine. Subsequent councils were convened by a notable church leader, and eventually by the popes. And—the findings of a council had to be officially endorsed by the Pope or they weren't valid.This problem was solved in 1409 when cardinals of both sides in the Great Schism, agreed to a great council in Pisa. è And they all lived happily ever after.You know enough of the history of this period to know that's not how the story goes. On the contrary, each of the rival popes called his own council to pre-empt the one at Pisa. You gotta' wonder who would consent to such silliness and be on one of those councils. Wouldn't you get an invitation and say, “Ah, thanks, I'm so honored. But, ummm, I have to decline. I need to uhhh, ummm – visit my dying uncle in Tuscany.”It seems this was in fact what some did because both papal councils failed. So the rival popes retreated to strongholds to await the outcome of the Pisan Council. It had the support of both colleges of cardinals and most courts of Europe.Rather than saying one of the two papal claimants was right, the council declared both unworthy and deposed them. The council then renewed opposition to simony and several other ecclesiastical ills.  They elected Alexander V as the new Pope.Convinced they'd ended the schism, the council adjourned.Ready for some fun? Here we go . . .All of this illustrates just how BADLY the Church needed reformation.Though the Pisan Council deposed the rival popes and installed Alexander, they refused to step down and had enough support to retain their position, in title at least. So now there were 3 popes. Then, months after being elected, Alexander died, and the cardinals appointed John XXIII. Turmoil saw John flee to the German Emperor Sigismund, who was himself in a tussle with 2 claimants to the throne, each supporting a different pope.Sigismund called another council to put an end to the now 3-way schism. John assumed this new council would endorse his papacy and agreed with Sigismund to call it in 1414 at Constance. The council realized John was not the reformer they needed and deposed him. He fled but was captured and returned to Constance where he agreed to resign. Worried he'd flee again and set up somewhere else, he was consigned to prison for the rest of his life.Then the Roman pope, Gregory XII, resigned as he'd promised if his rivals did likewise. The Constance council passed some rules for reformation and began the process of picking a new pope, which resulted in the selection of Martin V.Benedict XIII, last of Avignon popes, took refuge on the coast of Spain, where he continued his claim as pope, but by now, no one was listening. When he died in 1423, no successor was elected.Those who gathered at Constance hoped to rid the church of heresy and corruption. So they condemned Jan Hus, a guy they should have embraced as a fellow reformer.Then they fumbled when it came to ridding the church of simony and absenteeism simply because so many in the church's hierarchy had attained their position that way. It issued some decrees and made provision for future councils that would meet regionally to address local issues.The next council, called by Martin V as agreed at Constance, gathered at Pavia in 1423, but then moved to Siena due to the plague. Attendance was thin and not much was done. As 1430 and the next council drew near, Pope Martin was inclined to skip it. Advisors informed him the urge for conciliarism was still strong and if he failed to convene it might provoke a new crisis. The council met in Basel, during which Martin died. The council picked Eugene IV as his successor and as soon as he was elected, Eugene adjourned the council. But they refused, and considered deposing him. Under threat by Emperor Sigismund, Eugene withdrew the decree of adjournment.Up to this point, the Basel Council had gone virtually unnoticed by Europe, but now, all eyes were on it. A council seemed to have gained power over a Pope. Some said the council ought to stay convened and rule the church directly.It was then that an urgent request for help came from Constantinople being severely threatened by the Turks. Both the Byzantine emperor and patriarch said they were willing to rejoin the Western church and take part in the council, if it would move to a city closer to Constantinople. Eugene saw this as a way to regain some of his mojo and moved the council to Ferrara in NE Italy. Most of the council refused to relocate, but some, in hopes of ending the long rift between East and West, went to Ferrara.And so it was that the conciliar movement, which had come into being as a response to schism, was itself “schized” (yeah, I know that's not a word). There were now 2 councils à  and 1 pope.The Council of Ferrara later moved to Florence where it gained recognition for seeing the Eastern Church accept papal authority.The Council of Basel, meanwhile, became more radical in its pronouncements, causing increasing numbers of its members to leave and head off for Ferarra. Basel deposed Pope Eugene and named Felix V as the new Pope.Are you keeping track? There are now 2 councils and 2 popes. The conciliar movement, conceived as a way to end the schism resurrected it!But the truth is, the council in Basel had dwindled down to such a small number that people paid little attention to it. They moved to Lausanne and eventually disbanded when they realized they were irrelevant to church life. Felix V gave up his claim to the papacy.While it seemed for a while that conciliarism would be a standing feature of church life, in the end, the Popes won. Any future councils would be at their discretion.

This episode is titled, Dominic and continues our look on monastic life.In our last episode, we considered Francis of Assisi and the monastic order that followed him, the Franciscans. In this installment, we take a look at the other great order that developed at that time; the Dominicans.Dominic was born in the region of Castile, Spain in 1170. He excelled as a student at an early age. A priest by the age of 25, he was invited by his bishop to accompany him on a visit to Southern France where he ran into a group of supposed-heretics known as the Cathars. Dominic threw himself into a Church-sanctioned suppression of the Cathars through a preaching tour of the region.Dominic was an effective debater of Cathar theology. He persuaded many who'd leaned toward their sect to instead walk away. These converts became zealous in the resistance against them. For this, the Bishop of Toulouse gave Dominic 1/6th of the diocesan tithes to continue his work. Another wealthy supporter gave Dominic a house in Toulouse so he could live and work at the center of controversy.We'll come back to the Cathars in a future episode.Dominic visited Rome during the 4th Lateran Council, the subject of another future episode. He was encouraged by Pope Innocent III in his apologetic work but was refused in his request to start a new monastic order. The Pope suggested he instead join one of the existing orders. Since a Pope's suggestion is really a command, Dominic chose the Augustinians. He donned their black monk's habit and built a convent at Toulouse.He returned to Rome a year later, staying for about a half year. The new Pope Honorius II granted his petition to start a new order. Originally called the “Order of Preaching Brothers,” it was the first religious community dedicated to preaching. The order grew rapidly in the 13th C, gaining 15,000 members in 557 houses by the end of the century.When he returned to France, Dominic began sending monks to start colonies. The order quickly took root in Paris, Bologna, and Rome. Dominic returned to Spain where in 1218 he established separate communities for women and men.From France, the Dominicans launched into Germany. They quickly established themselves in Cologne, Worms, Strasbourg, Basel, and other cities. In 1221, the order was introduced in England, and at once settled in Oxford. The Blackfriars Bridge, London, carries in its name the memory of their priory there.Dominic died at Bologna in August, 1221. His tomb is decorated by the artwork of Nicholas of Pisa and Michaelangelo. Compared to the speedy recognition of Francis as a saint only two years after his death, Dominic's took thirteen years; still a quick canonization.Dominic lacked the warm, passionate concern for the poor and needy that marked his contemporary Francis. But if Francis was devoted to Lady Poverty, Dominic was pledged to Sir Truth.  If Francis and Dominic were part of a cruise ship's crew; Francis would be the activities director, Dominic the lawyer.An old story illustrates the contrast between them. Interrupted in his studies by the chirping of a sparrow, Dominic caught and plucked it. Francis, on the other hand, is revered for his tender compassion and care for all things. To this day he's represented in art with a bird perched on his shoulder.Dominic was resolute in purpose, zealous in propagating Orthodoxy, and devoted to the Church and its hierarchy. His influence continues through the organization he created.At the time of Dominic's death, the preaching monks, or “friars” as they were called, had sixty monasteries and convents scattered across Europe. A few years later, they'd pressed to Jerusalem and deep into the North.  Because the Dominicans were the Vatican's preaching authority, they received numerous privileges to carry out their mission any and everywhere.Mendicancy, that is begging as a means of support, was made the rule of the order in 1220. The example of Francis was followed, and the order as well as the individual monks renounced all right to personal property. However, this mendicancy was never emphasized among the Dominicans as it was among Franciscans. The obligation of corporate poverty was revoked in 1477. Dominic's last exhortation to his followers was that they should love, service humbly, and live in poverty but to be frank, those precepts were never really taken much to heart by most of his followers.Unlike Francis, Dominic didn't require manual labor from the members of the order. He substituted study and preaching for labor. The Dominicans were the first monastics to adopt rules for studying. When Dominic founded his monastery in Paris, and sent seventeen of his order to staff it, he told them to “study and preach.” A theological course of four years in philosophy and theology was required before a license was granted to preach, and three years more of theological study followed.Preaching and the saving of souls were defined as the chief aim of the order. No one was permitted to preach outside the cloister until he was 25. And they were not to receive money or other gifts for preaching, except food.  Vincent Ferrer and Savonarola were the most renowned of the Dominican preachers of the Middle Ages. The mission of the Dominicans was mostly to the upper classes. They were the patrician order among the monastics.Dominic would likely have been just one more nameless priest among thousands of the Middle Ages had it not been for that fateful trip to Southern France where he encountered the Cathars. He'd surely heard of them back in Spain but it was their popularity in France that provoked him. He saw and heard nothing among the heretics that he knew some good, solid teaching and preaching couldn't correct. He was the right man, at the right time doing the right thing; at first. But his success at answering the errors of the Cathars gained him support that pressed him to step up his opposition toward error. That opposition would turn sinister and into what is arguably one of the dark spots on Church history – the Inquisition.  Though hundreds of years have passed, the word still causes many to shiver in terror.Dante said of Dominic he was, “Good to his friends, but dreadful to his enemies.”We'll take a closer look at the Inquisition in a later episode.  For now àIn 1232, the conduct of the Inquisition was committed to the care of the Dominicans. Northern France, Spain, and Germany fell to their lot. The stern Torquemada was a Dominican, and the atrocious measures which he employed to spy out and punish ecclesiastical dissent an indelible blot on them.The order's device or emblem as appointed by the Pope was a dog with a lighted torch in its mouth. The dog represented the call to watch, the torch to illuminate the world. A painting in their convent in Florence represents the place the order came to occupy as hunters of heretics. It portrays dogs dressed in Dominican colors, chasing away heretic-foxes. All the while the pope and emperor, enthroned and surrounded by counselors, look on with satisfaction.As we end this episode, I thought it wise to make a quick review of the Mendicant monastic orders we've been looking at.First, the Mendicant orders differed from previous monastics in that they were committed, not just to individual but corporate poverty. The mendicant houses drew no income from rents or property. They depended on charity.Second, the friars didn't stay sequestered in monastic communes. Their task was to be out and about in the world preaching the Gospel. Because all of European society was deemed Christian, the mendicants took the entire world as their parish. Their cloister wasn't the halls of a convent; it was the public marketplace.Third, the rise of the universities at this time presented both the Franciscans and Dominicans with new opportunities to get the Gospel message out by educating Europe's future generations.Fourth, the mendicants promoted a renewal of piety by the Tertiary or third-level orders they set up, which allowed lay people an opportunity to attend a kind of monk-camp.Fifth, The mendicants were directly answerable to the Pope rather than local bishops or intermediaries who often used orders to their own political and economic ends.Sixth, the friars composed an order and organization more than a specific house as the previous orders had done. Before the mendicants, monks and nuns joined a convent or monastery. Their identity was wrapped up in that specific cloister. The Mendicants joined an order that was spread over dozens of such houses. Monks' obedience was now not to the local abbot or abbess, but to the order's leader.Besides the Dominicans and Franciscans, other mendicant orders were the Carmelites, who began as hermits in the Holy Land in the 12th C; the Hermits of St. Augustine, and the Servites, who'd begun under the Augustinian rule in the 13th C, but became mendicants in the 15th.

The title of this episode of is Of Popes and Princes.As far as the Church in the West was concerned, the 14th C opened on what seemed a strong note. Early in 1300, Pope Boniface VIII proclaimed a Year of Jubilee, a new event on the Church calendar. The Pope's decree announced a blanket pardon of all sins for all who visited the churches of St. Peter's and St. Paul's in Rome over the next 10 months. Huge crowds poured into the city.Boniface VIII was interesting. He had a flair for the pomp and circumstance of what some might call pretentious ceremony. He regularly appeared in public dressed in royal, or even better, imperial robes, announcing, “I am Caesar. I am Emperor.” His papal crown had 48 rubies, 72 sapphires, 45 emeralds, and 66 large pearls. He could afford to be generous with pardons. At the Church of St. Paul, pilgrims to Rome kept priests busy night and day collecting and counting the unending offerings.For Boniface, looking ahead the years seemed bright.  The Vatican had held unrivaled religious and political power for 2 centuries and there was nothing on the horizon that portended change. The Pope had before him the sparkling example of Innocent III, who a hundred years before dominated emperors and kings. Boniface assumed he'd carry on in the same vein.But just 3 years later, Boniface died of a shock of the greatest personal insult ever inflicted on a Pope. Even as the Jubilee celebrants rejoiced, forces were at work to end the hegemony of medieval papal sovereignty.You don't have to study history long before you realize there are often major changes brewing beneath the surface, long before people are aware of them. The 14th C was such a time. The Roman popes continued on in a “business as usual” mode while radical new ideas and forces were altering the Faith.  The idea of Christendom, a Christian Empire unifying Europe from the 6th thru 14th C's, was rapidly deteriorating.So-called Christendom had been useful in creating 7th and 8th C Europe . But its importance faded in the 12th and 13th Cs. Pope Innocent III had indeed demonstrated that papal sovereignty was effective in rallying princes for a crusade or for defending the Church against heretics. But the 14th and 15th C's saw a marked decline in papal power and prestige.Because we are used to thinking of the World politically, as a collection of nation-states, it's difficult to get our heads around the idea they're a rather recent phenomenon. For most of history, people lived regionally; their lives and thoughts circumscribed by the borders of their county or village. For centuries, Gauls and Goths defined themselves by their tribe. It never occurred to them to call themselves French or German. Such national labels don't come into play until late, as Europe emerged from the Middle Ages into what we call the Modern World. A world, BTW, marked as modern precisely because of this new way of identifying ourselves.By the 14th C, people were just beginning to get used to the idea they were English or French. This was possible because for the first time, they began to think of the political state in terms independent of their religious affiliation.Europe was moving, ever so slowly, away from its feudal past. Land was less important as hard cash became the new emphasis. Those at the political top came to realize they needed ever-larger sources of revenue, which meant taxes.Edward I of England and Philip the Fair of France were, as was typical for centuries – at odds with each other. To finance their increasingly expensive campaigns of territorial expansion, they decided to tax the clergy. But popes had long maintained the Church was exempt from such taxation, most especially if the money raised was going to be used to let some other guys' blood out of his body at high speed.In 1296, Pope Boniface VIII issued a decree threatening excommunication for any ruler who taxed the clergy and any clergy who paid w/o the Pope's consent. But Edward and Philip were of the new kind of monarch advancing to Europe's many thrones. They were unimpressed by Rome's threats. Edward warned if the Church didn't pay, the Crown's protection of the Church would be removed, their properties seized in lieu of taxes. Phillip's answer was to block the export of gold, silver, and jewels from France, depriving Rome of a major source of revenue from its collections.Pope Boniface backed down, protesting he'd been misunderstood. He certain had not meant to cut off contributions for defense of the realm in times of need. It was a clear victory for both kings.Their victory over papal power had a way yet to go, though. Reinforced by the success of the Jubilee, Pope Boniface assumed the reverence shown him in every corner of Europe extended to the civil sphere as well. He had another gold ornament added to his crown signifying his temporal power. Then, he went after France's King Philip, trying to undermine his right to rule. Philip responded by challenging the Pope to show where Jesus gave the Church temporal authority.In 1301, Philip imprisoned a French bishop on charges of treason. Boniface ordered his release and rescinded his earlier concession on taxation of Church lands. The next year Philip summoned the French nobility, clergy, and other leaders and formed a kind of French parliament. He then gained their unanimous support in his quarrel with the pope. One of the new civil ministers put the choice they had to make this way, “My master's sword is made of steel; the Pope's is made of words.”Several months later Boniface issued the most extreme assertion of papal power in Church history; the papal bull known as the Unam Sanctum = The One Holy, most famous of all bulls of the Middle Ages, asserting the Pope's authority over all other authorities. His meaning was unmistakable. He declared, “It's altogether necessary for every human being to be subject to the Roman pontiff.”Philip's counter to the Unam Sanctum was no less drastic. He moved to have Boniface deposed on the grounds his election had been illegal. To carry out this plan, Philip turned to William of Nogaret, the lawyer helping him set up the political foundations of France.Nogaret was also a master at producing so-called “evidence.”  He'd gained testimony to support his case by such dubious means as stripping a witness, smearing him with honey, and hanging him near a beehive. His case against Boniface went way beyond the charge that his election was illegitimate. Nogaret claimed the Pope was guilty of heresy, simony, and gross immorality. Given authority by a French assembly of clergy and nobles, he rushed to Italy to bring the Pope to France for trial before a Church council.Boniface was 86 and had left Rome for the Summer. He was staying in his hometown when Nogaret arrived with troops. They broke in to Boniface's bedroom, violently manhandling him. They waited a few days for him to recover, then prepared to return to France. But the people of the town discovered what was happening and rescued the Pope. He died a few weeks later, weak and humiliated.This tragic affair becomes something of a marker for the fact that Europe's rulers would no longer tolerate papal interference in what they regarded as political matters. The problem was after so many centuries of Christendom, it was difficult sorting out where politics ended and Church affairs began. What was clear was that a king's power within his own country was now a fact.At the same time, abuse of a Pope, even an unpopular one, was deeply resented. Despite his declaration of the Jubilee, Boniface was not a beloved leader. He'd been a target of much criticism. To give you an idea of just how low Boniface's esteem had fallen, Dante, author of The Divine Comedy, reserved a place in hell for him. Still—the Pope was the Vicar of Christ. Few people at that time could conceive of Christianity without the Pope and the Church hierarchy he presided over.Even when there was no political vocabulary for it, people of the early 14th C began to distinguish between secular and religious authority and recognize the rights of each in its own place.When Boniface's successor died after a brief reign, Philip's daring coup seemed to bear its fruit. In 1305, the College of Cardinals elected a Frenchman, the Archbishop of Bordeaux, as Pope Clement V. Clement never set foot in Rome, preferring to stay closer to home, where he was always accessible to do the royal bidding.Clement's election marked the start of a 72 year long period called “The Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy” named after the Jewish exile some 2000 years before. Following Clement, six popes, all French, ruled from the French town of Avignon rather than in Rome.This relocation of the Popes to France was more than a matter of geography. In the thinking of Europeans, the Eternal City of Rome stood not only for the idea of the Apostolic Succession of the Church founded by St. Peter, but also of Roman imperium. Avignon was surrounded by what? The French kingdom. The Church was a mere tool in the hands of one nation, the power-hungry French.This was resented bitterly in Germany. In 1324, Emperor Louis the Bavarian moved against the French Pope John XXII by appealing to a general council. Among the scholars supporting such a move was Marsilius of Padua who'd fled from the University of Paris. In 1326, Marsilius and his colleague John of Jandun presented Louis with a work titled Defender of the Peace. This questioned the entire papal structure of the Church and called for a democratic government. Defender of the Peace asserted that the Church was the community of all believers and that the priesthood was not superior to the laity. Neither popes, bishops, nor priests had any special function; they served only as agents of the community of believers.In this revolutionary view of the church, the Pope was made over into an executive office of the Church council which were simply spiritual elders. The Pope was subordinated to the authority of the Council. This new church government form was called counciliarism. It would soon move from theory to practice.But that - as we often say, is the subject for another podcast.I want to take a moment at the end of this episode to once again thank all those who've taken the time to give us a review on iTunes. As the largest podcast portal, ratings there go a long way to promote CS.And thanks to those who've donated to CS recently. Every donation is used to keep the podcast up and running.