You are currently browsing the archives for the heresy category.
Team 3 Wyclif
Within the Roman Catholic church, it is taught that Christ is literally present during Communion. They taught that Christ was not figuratively or symbolically there but rather He was wholly present. They taught that people were genuinely eating the body of Christ and drinking His blood. In summation the Catholic Church taught Real Presence, which… Continue reading
Hus, The Council of Constance, “Four Articles of Prague”
The teachings of John Wyclif spread from England to Bohemia (Prague) in two primary ways, the first was through the impact that literacy and theology had from Oxford, both the city and the university to the University of Prague. The second is that in Prague, Wyclif’s views were held in a higher regard than they… Continue reading
Team 6: Jan Hus
Wyclife’s teachings made its way to bohemia in two ways. The first was through Czech students who left the University of Paris for Oxford when the church fell into schism. The second was “the desire of Czech professors…to distinguish themselves, philosophically speaking, from their German counterparts” (Madigan, 395). a.The Holy Spirit is, according to Hus,… Continue reading
Team 1: Question 1
Essentially, the church’s teaching on the Eucharist promotes transubstantiation, which means that the bread and wine in the sacrament of Holy Communion miraculously turns into the real flesh and blood of Christ. Thus, Christ is literally present in the Eucharist. Earlier in Madigan’s discussion of Wyclif, he notes that, “some of [his] positions logically flowed… Continue reading
Team 2: Wyclif and Pope Gregory XI
John de Wyclif had a differing view of the Eucharist than the church, which resulted in an abundance of agitation and declarations of heresy from the church. The Roman church viewed transubstantiation from the Eucharist as the divine act of transforming bread and wine into the blood and flesh of Christ, so that one may… Continue reading
Heresy and Orthodoxy
Team 6 Kerzic: Question 2
The Church’s reactions to the two different types of heresy described in Madigan were very different and highlighted the church’s feelings about each sect. For the Waldensians the church initially gave them an ultimatum and said that if they didn’t join the Orthodox Church and follow their rules for preaching that they would be considered… Continue reading
. Team 7: Burgess: question 2
Madigan describes the two types of reform movements as “dramatically different from Orthodox Christianity” and “dogmatically deviant” (Madagin, 177), these words however come from sources that are almost entirely against these newer forms of Christianity. The Carthars and Waldensians were both criticized and interrogated by the Church with full support of the Pope. Several different… Continue reading
Team 3: Question 1 {Heresy}
There were two different types of new movements starting in the 1140s that Madigan described as being associated with heresy. The first genus was so completely opposite of the doctrines that the orthodox Christians believed, that it was very obvious to other Christians that they were heretics. They believed in such different theology than the… Continue reading