Search results

Abstract only
Gottschalk of Orbais and the predestination controversy in the archdiocese of Rheims

turn to God with absolute humility for salvation, Gottschalk saw himself as a vessel of divine grace in the face of episcopal opposition and called Christians to repentance after decades of scandal and civil war. His attempts at Christianisation in Francia, however, failed and his doctrine of grace was condemned as heresy at Church councils in Mainz in 848 and then Quierzy in the archdiocese of Rheims in 849. Despite this condemnation, Gottschalk refused to recant and spurned episcopal authority in the process, showing himself to be a Carolingian rarity: an actual

in Hincmar of Rheims
Abstract only

great influence over the common people’.6 All in all the relatively informal practice of popular acclaim followed by formal episcopal approval lasted for roughly a millennium and apparently suited the spiritual needs of the communities that observed it, even if it occasionally ran into problems. Sometimes there were disagreements between ecclesiastical officials jealous of their authority and the faithful whom they considered reckless in their enthusiasms; in other cases it was among the authorities themselves that disagreements arose concerning the authenticity of

in Indispensable immigrants
Abstract only

were seeking exemption privileges directly from Rome. What significance did they hold for monks, bishops, secular lords, and popes? How and why did this practice develop throughout the early Middle Ages? I consider as my evidence a growing number of cases whereby privileges were granted to individual religious houses, as a means to understand the papacy’s vigilant efforts to protect, support, and even control them from afar. Given that such practices were frequently interpreted as an affront to episcopal order, jurisdiction, and authority, moreover, this book also

in Freedom and protection
William Sancroft and the later Stuart Church

in part a consequence of the general neglect of the subject of chaplaincy that this book is designed to mitigate. It also reflects the specific neglect of Sancroft’s career by modern scholars despite his obvious importance within the Restoration Church of England.2 This chapter will focus on three aspects of chaplaincy in Sancroft’s life: resisting becoming a chaplain in the 1640s and 1650s; acting as an episcopal and royal chaplain in the 1660s and 1670s; and interacting with his own chaplains while Archbishop of Canterbury in the 1680s and 1690s.3 Chaplaincy thus

in Chaplains in early modern England
Abstract only
The Church of England and the royal supremacy

. Respectively, these show churchmen’s positions on the supremacy when provoked by dissenters, Catholics, schism, and internal rifts. 18 Pace Spurr, churchmen before as well as after 1689 ‘pitted the royal supremacy against episcopal authority’; indeed, Jeffrey Collins rightly discerns a ‘hostility’ between clergy and crown ‘unprecedented since the Reformation’. 19 Albeit the following concentrates on the Anglican side of the

in The later Stuart Church, 1660–1714
Abstract only

. With this privilege, the pope essentially redefined Corbie’s relationship with kings and bishops, which was previously determined by means of royal immunity. The novelty thus came from restricting episcopal authority and protecting the monastery from outside, worldly intervention. The significance of Corbie’s privileges was surely recognised by contemporaries. They also come to prominence two centuries later under Pope Leo IX (1049–​54), in a dispute between Abbot Fulk of Corbie and the bishop of Amiens, Gui de Ponthieu.21 At the council of Reims in 1049, the abbot

in Freedom and protection
Hincmar in the crisis of 875

important cases: predestination; King Lothar II’s divorce, which ultimately gave the Lotharingian throne to Charles the Bald; the translation of Actard, bishop of Nantes, to Tours; and the conflict with Hincmar of Laon about episcopal power and freedom. In all these cases, Hincmar’s writings underlined his attachment to the rules established by canonical authorities: conciliar texts, decretals and papal letters, and patristic texts. Hincmar’s purpose was always to define a rule that would be suitable for any situation. In 875, when Charles the Bald left his kingdom for

in Hincmar of Rheims

‘in the great Metropolis’ of London. 1 Preaching in the heartland of Ireland’s ‘Protestant ascendancy’, in an island whose population was overwhelmingly Catholic, Travers explicitly identified and applauded a single, Protestant and Episcopal ‘Church’ that served plural ‘nations’. Between 1660 and 1685, his view would have been plausible, since Charles II’s return had been accompanied by the re-establishment of Episcopalian

in The later Stuart Church, 1660–1714

-​known episcopal privilege of Bishop Landeric of Paris, and a suite of false papal privileges allegedly issued by Zacharias I, Stephan II, Leo III, Hadrian I, Nicolas I, and Formosus I.24 The genuine exemption privilege issued at the Lateran synod of 1065 similarly cited the privileges of Dagobert, Clovis, and Landeric, but claimed to be confirming the decisions of Popes Zacharias I, Stephan II, Leo III, Nicholas I, Hadrian I, and Leo IX.25 The authority of this particular Roman council, therefore, backed by its hefty subscription list, served the monastery’s interests

in Freedom and protection
The case of Trising in context

on 25 April of this year but, before attending, he took precautions. On 19 April he convened the clergy of his diocese to a synod. Having lectured them on the might of episcopal authority, he had all those present subscribe a compilation of forged papal letters taken from the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, selected because they made bishops unassailable and undermined the authority of archbishops.35 On the same occasion, he also declared that if he were to be prevented from appealing to the pope, or be taken captive, his entire clergy would have to go on strike: no

in Hincmar of Rheims