Pope Gregory VII and Henry IV, Moderate Reform, and Christendom

"What were the problems besetting the Church in the tenth and eleventh centuries? What was 'moderate reform'?"


The problems that the Church was facing during this time, is that instead of church officials appointing bishops, popes, etc., we see laymen (people other than church officials) appointing these people.  This results in the laymen sometimes appointing rotten individuals to church office.

Moderate reform came about when Pope Leo IX decided to put emphasis on papal authority.  He said that laymen should choose morally good candidates instead of those who would do harm.



"Describe the events that took place during the conflict between Pope Gregory VII and Henry IV.  What was at stake?"



The conflict between Pope Gregory VII and Henry IV came about when the Pope decided that kings had no right at all to appoint people to church positions.  The king did not agree with this, and hence went against the Pope.  Pope Gregory ultimately removed the king from power, and eventually Henry came begging for forgiveness.  Grace was bestowed, and then the king went against the Pope all over again.  Henry was removed from authority by Pope Gregory, but Henry was powerful enough to come back and send Pope Gregory into exile.  The Pope then died while he was still exiled and it is said that these were among his last words,

                    "I have loved righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore I die in exile."

What was at stake in the conflict between these two men was church authority.  Who had the jurisdiction to make church decisions, the Pope or the king?



"What was Christendom?"


Christendom was the idea of an international church society.  This is why church officials were able to enter Christian lands even without their nationality being that of the country.  Nationality was of no concern, for it was a society of the Christian religion, not a society of "who came from what place".  This was Christendom.


Thanks for reading, and please let me know what you think!  



   

Epicureanism and Ancient Liberty

                 Ancient Liberty Compared to Today 

     As you can probably guess, the liberty of the ancient world (specifically Greece, which is what I will be focusing on today) was very different than today's world.  For instance, the ancient's idea of freedom was more focused on the whole community, whereas we are focused on mainly the individual.  The ancients seem to have thought more along the lines of,  "If I can participate in politics, then I am free." Whereas, we think along the lines of,  "If I can own a business, have a family, participate in whatever religion I see fit, go to and from where I live, etc., I have liberty."

     Let's take Sparta for instance.  In Sparta, people had very little freedom.  Spartan boys were taken away from their homes and went through military training up until they reached the age of twenty.  That's when they were entered into the citizen army and were finally allowed to marry.  They were not allowed to live with their families until they reached the age of thirty.  Once they were thirty years old, they could live with their families but they still had to eat at a public mess hall.

     Now we get to the part where they participate somewhat in politics.  Every Spartan male over the age of thirty was a part of an assembly of citizens.

     In Athens, we do not see such a strict military district, but we do see Athens focusing mainly on the community as a whole rather than on the individual.

     For instance, if there was a certain number of votes regarding to the banishment of a person from Athens, he would be banished.  The person may have not even done anything!  The people may have just seen him as a threat to their future.

     Needless to say, we find many things lacking in the liberty of the ancients, but then again, I'm sure that they would find things lacking in our liberty.  It's funny to me how every point in history finds it so easy to see the things wrong with the other point, but not of itself.  I hope that we will not forget the things lacking in our liberty as I find it wrong to criticize other times in history without noting that we also face difficulties in our own time regarding our liberty.

                       Epicureanism

     Epicureanism is based on the teachings of Epicurus.  The "mystery religion" was founded about 307 BC, and taught that pleasure is the ultimate good.  But not just being a pig about what you indulge in. Epicurus thought that a simple life and no pain was the greatest pleasure.  They believe that to much of a good thing is a bad thing because it results in displeasure, but that you should not deprive yourself of pleasure.

     Let's use drinking and eating as two examples.  If you have only a little wine, you will have pleasure, but if you have a lot of wine, you don't feel good the next day.  The same thing goes for eating to much.  You shouldn't eat to much because that results in displeasure, but you should not deprive yourself of eating.

     Epicurus believed that everything was made of atoms but we still have free will.  This is a challenge to the atomists who believed that everything is just made of atoms bouncing around and that no one really has free will.  They believed this because if everything is the result of atoms bouncing around, then our thoughts and actions are also just the result of this.

     Epicureanism teaches that gods do not interfere in human matters.  It also says that gods are made up of atoms.
   
     I hope that you have enjoyed this essay, and please let me know what you think!