The medieval church (c. 800-1500)

What you'll learn

Trace the growth of papal power from Charlemagne to Unam Sanctam, and explain the East-West Schism, the Avignon papacy and the Great Schism.
Explain the medieval sacramental system, transubstantiation, purgatory and indulgences in the Roman Catholic Church's own terms, and show where and why Reformed theology parts company with them.
Assess the Crusades and scholasticism honestly, and describe the forerunners of reform (Waldensians, Wycliffe, Hus, Erasmus) as background to the Reformation.

Charlemagne and Christendom

On Christmas Day 800, in St Peter's in Rome, Pope Leo III crowned the Frankish king Charlemagne emperor of the Romans. The scene captures the medieval ideal of Christendom: one Christian society in which church and empire, pope and king, worked together, though who was really in charge would be fought over for centuries.

Charlemagne promoted schools and the copying of manuscripts (the 'Carolingian renaissance', led by scholars such as Alcuin of York). He also forced the conversion of the pagan Saxons by the sword, which shows the darker side of Christendom: faith imposed by power, contrary to the way of the apostles. In this period debates also arose that foreshadow the Reformation: in the ninth century two monks of Corbie, Paschasius Radbertus and Ratramnus, disagreed about how Christ is present in the Supper, and the monk Gottschalk, who taught a strong Augustinian doctrine of double predestination, was condemned and imprisoned (Quierzy, 849).

What does Charlemagne's reign show about both the ideal and the darker side of Christendom?Show answer

His coronation by Pope Leo III on Christmas Day 800 captures the ideal of one Christian society where church and empire worked together, and he promoted schools and manuscript copying in the Carolingian renaissance. But he forced the pagan Saxons to convert by the sword, which is faith imposed by power, contrary to the way of the apostles. Who was really in charge, pope or king, would be fought over for centuries.

coronation in 800
Carolingian renaissance
forced conversion of Saxons
contrary to the apostles

The growth of papal power

The bishop of Rome had long held a primacy of honour in the West, but in the Middle Ages his claims grew dramatically. Gregory VII (pope 1073-1085) fought the 'Investiture Controversy' over whether kings or the church should appoint bishops. His private list of principles, the Dictatus papae (1075), claimed among other things that the pope may depose emperors. When he excommunicated the German king Henry IV, Henry's support collapsed; in January 1077 Henry came as a penitent to the castle of Canossa, standing in the snow until Gregory lifted the sentence. The dispute was settled by compromise in the Concordat of Worms (1122).

Innocent III (pope 1198-1216) brought papal power to its height. He compared the papal and royal powers to the sun and the moon, the king's authority reflecting the pope's. He launched the Fourth Crusade and a crusade against the Cathar heretics of southern France (from 1209), forced King John of England to submit, and in November 1215 presided over the Fourth Lateran Council.

Boniface VIII went further still in his bull Unam Sanctam (18 November 1302), which ends: 'Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.'

Some of the documents used to support papal power were forgeries. The Donation of Constantine, which claimed that Constantine had handed the Western empire to Pope Sylvester, was shown to be a later forgery by the Italian scholar Lorenzo Valla in 1440, partly by showing that its Latin could not come from the fourth century. Catholic historians accept this today. For the apologist, the lesson is that the papacy as it stood in 1500 was the result of a long historical development, not the arrangement of the apostolic church.

How did papal claims grow from Gregory VII to Boniface VIII? Give two examples.Show answer

Gregory VII's Dictatus papae claimed the pope may depose emperors, and he brought Henry IV as a penitent to Canossa in 1077. Innocent III compared papal and royal power to the sun and the moon and forced King John of England to submit. Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctam (1302) declared it absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Dictatus papae and Canossa
Innocent III: sun and moon
Unam Sanctam 1302
claims grew over time

What was the Donation of Constantine, and why does its exposure matter for the apologist?Show answer

It claimed that Constantine had handed the Western empire to Pope Sylvester and was used to support papal power. In 1440 Lorenzo Valla showed it was a later forgery, partly because its Latin could not come from the fourth century, and Catholic historians accept this today. It shows that the papacy as it stood in 1500 was the result of long development, not the arrangement of the apostolic church.

claimed empire given to pope
Valla exposed it, 1440
Latin not fourth-century
papacy a later development

The East-West Schism (1054)

Over centuries the Greek East and Latin West drifted apart in language, culture and politics. Two theological issues stood out. The first was the Filioque ('and the Son'): Western churches added to the Nicene Creed the words that the Spirit proceeds from the Father 'and the Son' (the addition began in Spain in the sixth century and entered the Roman liturgy in the early eleventh). The East objected both to the theology and to changing an ecumenical creed without an ecumenical council. The second was papal authority: the East accepted Rome's primacy of honour but not its claim to universal jurisdiction. Smaller disputes, such as leavened or unleavened bread in the Eucharist, added fuel.

On 16 July 1054 the papal legate Cardinal Humbert laid a bull excommunicating Patriarch Michael Cerularius on the altar of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, and the patriarch replied by excommunicating the legates. (Pope Leo IX, who had sent them, had already died, which casts doubt on the bull's validity.) At the time it looked like one more quarrel, but it became a lasting division. What sealed it was the Fourth Crusade's sack of Constantinople in April 1204, when Western crusaders looted the greatest Christian city in the world. A reunion agreed at the Council of Florence (1439) collapsed in the East. In 1965 Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras lifted the mutual excommunications of 1054, though the churches remain divided.

This matters when someone claims that 'the church was always Roman Catholic'. The Eastern Orthodox churches, which also trace their history to the apostles, have never accepted the papal claims. Reformed Christians do not agree with Orthodoxy on many points, but the schism shows that the papacy's universal jurisdiction was never the consensus of the whole ancient church.

What were the two main theological issues behind the East-West Schism?Show answer

The first was the Filioque, the Western addition to the Nicene Creed saying the Spirit proceeds from the Father 'and the Son'; the East objected to the theology and to changing an ecumenical creed without an ecumenical council. The second was papal authority: the East accepted Rome's primacy of honour but not its claim to universal jurisdiction. Smaller disputes, such as leavened or unleavened bread, added fuel.

the Filioque
creed changed without a council
honour vs universal jurisdiction
smaller disputes added fuel

How does the schism help answer the claim that 'the church was always Roman Catholic'?Show answer

The Eastern Orthodox churches also trace their history to the apostles, yet they have never accepted the papal claims. That shows the papacy's universal jurisdiction was never the consensus of the whole ancient church. Reformed Christians disagree with Orthodoxy on many points, but the history still counts against the idea of one church always under the pope.

Orthodox also apostolic in origin
never accepted papal claims
not the consensus of the whole church
Reformed still differ from Orthodoxy

The Crusades, honestly assessed

The Crusades must be judged honestly, neither with modern myths nor with defensive excuses. The context: by the eleventh century Muslim powers had ruled the formerly Christian lands of Syria, Palestine, Egypt and North Africa for four centuries. After the Seljuk Turks defeated the Byzantines at Manzikert (1071), the emperor Alexios I appealed to the West for help (Council of Piacenza, March 1095). On 27 November 1095 at Clermont, Pope Urban II called for an armed pilgrimage to free Jerusalem and offered remission of penance to those who went.

The motives were mixed: genuine piety and a desire for penance, defence of eastern Christians and pilgrims, but also ambition and plunder. The sins were grave. In 1096 crusading mobs massacred Jewish communities in the Rhineland at Speyer, Worms and Mainz. When Jerusalem fell on 15 July 1099, many of its inhabitants were slaughtered. In 1204 crusaders sacked Christian Constantinople, against Innocent III's explicit orders. Later 'crusades' were turned against heretics in Europe. Saladin retook Jerusalem in 1187, and the last crusader stronghold, Acre, fell in 1291.

A Reformed assessment: Jesus said, 'My kingdom is not of this world' (John 18:36), and Paul that 'the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh' (2 Cor 10:4). Defending neighbours from aggression can be just, and Christians may serve as soldiers (Luke 3:14; Rom 13:4). But promising spiritual reward for fighting, and treating war as a means of salvation, contradicted the gospel. In 2001 Pope John Paul II expressed deep regret to the Orthodox for the sack of 1204. When a sceptic says the Crusades prove Christianity is violent, the honest answer is that the worst crusading atrocities betrayed the teaching of Christ rather than expressing it, and that the standard by which we condemn them comes from Christ himself (Matt 5:44).

Explain the context and the mixed motives of the First Crusade in your own words.Show answer

By the eleventh century Muslim powers had ruled formerly Christian lands for four centuries, and after the Seljuk victory at Manzikert in 1071 the Byzantine emperor appealed to the West for help. In 1095 Pope Urban II called for an armed pilgrimage to free Jerusalem and offered remission of penance to those who went. Motives included genuine piety, penance and defence of eastern Christians and pilgrims, but also ambition and plunder.

Muslim rule of Christian lands
Manzikert and Byzantine appeal
Urban II, remission of penance
piety mixed with plunder

How would you answer a sceptic who says the Crusades prove Christianity is violent?Show answer

Admit the grave sins honestly: the massacres of Rhineland Jews in 1096, the slaughter in Jerusalem in 1099 and the sack of Christian Constantinople in 1204. But promising spiritual reward for fighting contradicted Jesus' words, 'My kingdom is not of this world' (John 18:36), and Paul's 'the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh' (2 Cor 10:4). The worst atrocities betrayed Christ's teaching rather than expressing it, and the standard by which we condemn them comes from Christ himself (Matt 5:44).

admit the atrocities
John 18:36; 2 Cor 10:4
betrayed, not expressed, Christ
the standard comes from Christ

Scholasticism: Anselm and Aquinas

From the eleventh century, schools and then universities (Paris, Oxford, Bologna) produced a new style of theology called scholasticism: careful questions, logical distinctions and the harmonising of authorities.

Anselm (1033-1109), Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093, summed up his approach as 'faith seeking understanding'. In his Proslogion (1077-78) he offered the 'ontological argument': God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, and such a being must exist. In Why God Became Man (Cur Deus Homo, c. 1098) he argued that sin dishonours God's infinite majesty, that only God can make satisfaction and only man ought to, so the Saviour must be the God-man. The Reformers built on this but went further, grounding the cross in God's justice and penal substitution, not only his honour (Isa 53:5; Rom 3:25-26).

Peter Lombard's Sentences (c. 1150) became the standard textbook of theology. Then Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-1274), a Dominican friar, wrote the Summa Theologiae (1265-1274, unfinished), including his 'Five Ways' of arguing for God's existence from motion, causation, contingency, degrees of perfection and design. Near the end of his life, after an experience during Mass in December 1273, he stopped writing; his companion Reginald reported him saying that all he had written seemed like straw to him.

Reformed theologians have both used and criticised the scholastics. Later Reformed theologians such as Francis Turretin used scholastic method and drew on Aquinas for the doctrine of God. But they rejected medieval teaching on merit, justification as a process of infused grace, and the sacramental system. Classical apologists today still use Aquinas's arguments; presuppositionalists question the assumption that reason can reach God neutrally (Foundations of Defence, Lesson 2).

What was Anselm's argument in Why God Became Man, and how did the Reformers build on it?Show answer

Anselm argued that sin dishonours God's infinite majesty, that only God can make satisfaction and only man ought to, so the Saviour must be the God-man. The Reformers built on this but went further, grounding the cross in God's justice and penal substitution, not only his honour (Isa 53:5; Rom 3:25-26).

sin dishonours God
only God can, only man ought
Saviour must be God-man
Reformers: justice, penal substitution

How have Reformed theologians both used and criticised the scholastics?Show answer

Later Reformed theologians such as Francis Turretin used scholastic method and drew on Aquinas for the doctrine of God. But they rejected medieval teaching on merit, justification as a process of infused grace, and the sacramental system. Today classical apologists still use Aquinas's arguments, while presuppositionalists question the assumption that reason can reach God neutrally.

Turretin used scholastic method
drew on Aquinas for doctrine of God
rejected merit and infused justification
classical vs presuppositional use

The sacramental system: transubstantiation, purgatory and indulgences

By the late Middle Ages the Western church taught that grace comes chiefly through seven sacraments: baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, extreme unction (anointing), orders and marriage. The list was set out in Peter Lombard's Sentences and formally taught by the Council of Florence (1439) and later Trent.

Transubstantiation. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215), canon 1, taught that Christ's body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine being changed in substance (transubstantiatis) by divine power into his body and blood. Earlier fathers had spoken of the Supper in both realistic and symbolic language, and the question had been debated (Radbertus and Ratramnus in the ninth century; Berengar of Tours, forced to recant in the eleventh). Lateran IV also required every believer to confess to a priest at least once a year and receive communion at Easter (canon 21), and, to our shame, required Jews and Muslims to wear distinctive dress (canon 68).

Purgatory. The Catholic Church teaches that those who die in God's grace but 'still imperfectly purified' undergo purification after death before entering heaven (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1030). It was first formally defined at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) and restated at Florence. The noun purgatorium as the name of a place appears only in the late twelfth century. The Orthodox churches do not accept the Latin doctrine of purgatory.

Indulgences. In Catholic teaching an indulgence is 'a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven' (CCC 1471). In 1095 Urban II offered crusaders full remission of penance. In 1343 Clement VI's bull Unigenitus defined a 'treasury' of the merits of Christ and the saints from which the pope grants indulgences. By the fifteenth century indulgences were preached for money, applied to souls in purgatory, and widely abused, which set the scene for 1517.

The Reformed response is that Christ's one sacrifice 'has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified' (Heb 10:14), that 'the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin' (1 John 1:7), that there is one mediator (1 Tim 2:5), and that the believer who dies goes to be 'with Christ' (Phil 1:23). Represent Catholic teaching in its own words, then let Scripture judge it. You will meet these doctrines again, in the Catholic Church's own sources, in Roman Catholicism (m11).

Explain in your own words what transubstantiation and purgatory mean in Catholic teaching, as the section describes them.Show answer

Transubstantiation, taught by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, holds that Christ's body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine being changed in substance by divine power. Purgatory is the teaching that those who die in God's grace but are still imperfectly purified undergo purification after death before entering heaven (CCC 1030). It was first formally defined at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274.

Lateran IV, 1215
change of substance
purification after death
defined at Lyons, 1274

What is an indulgence, how was the system abused, and which Scriptures shape the Reformed response?Show answer

In Catholic teaching an indulgence is a remission of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt is already forgiven (CCC 1471), granted from a 'treasury' of the merits of Christ and the saints. By the fifteenth century indulgences were preached for money, applied to souls in purgatory and widely abused. The Reformed response is that Christ's one sacrifice has perfected those being sanctified (Heb 10:14), his blood cleanses from all sin (1 John 1:7), there is one mediator (1 Tim 2:5), and the believer who dies goes to be with Christ (Phil 1:23).

remission of temporal punishment
treasury of merit
sold for money and abused
Heb 10:14; 1 John 1:7; 1 Tim 2:5

Avignon and the Great Schism

From 1309 the popes lived not in Rome but at Avignon in southern France, under heavy French influence, until Gregory XI returned to Rome in 1377. Soon after his death in 1378, the cardinals elected Urban VI in Rome, then declared the election invalid and elected Clement VII, who returned to Avignon. Two popes now excommunicated each other, each backed by different nations. The Council of Pisa (1409) tried to solve it by deposing both and electing a third, Alexander V, so that for a time there were three claimants. The Council of Constance (1414-1418) finally ended the 'Great Western Schism' by securing resignations and depositions and electing Martin V in 1417. Its decree Haec sancta (1415) claimed that a general council holds authority directly from Christ which even a pope must obey, a view called conciliarism that later popes rejected.

For a generation, devout Catholics could not be sure who the true pope was. This history is useful when someone argues that an unbroken papal office guarantees certainty.

How does the Great Western Schism help answer someone who says an unbroken papal office guarantees certainty?Show answer

After 1378 two rival popes excommunicated each other, each backed by different nations, and after the Council of Pisa in 1409 there were for a time three claimants. Only the Council of Constance ended the schism, and it even claimed that a council holds authority a pope must obey. For a generation devout Catholics could not be sure who the true pope was, so the office did not provide the certainty claimed for it.

two, then three, popes
Constance ended it
council claimed authority over pope
Catholics unsure who was pope

Forerunners of reform

Long before Luther, voices called the church back to Scripture. Peter Valdes (Waldo), a merchant of Lyons, gave away his wealth around 1173 and sent preachers out with the Bible in the common tongue. His followers, the Waldensians, were excommunicated in 1184 and persecuted for centuries. In 1532, at the Synod of Chanforan, they joined the Reformed movement, and the Waldensian Church in Italy is still Reformed today.

John Wycliffe (c. 1328-1384), an Oxford theologian, taught that Scripture is the supreme authority, criticised the wealth and claims of the papacy, and rejected transubstantiation. His followers produced the first complete English Bible, translated from the Latin Vulgate, in the 1380s and 1390s. His followers were called Lollards. The Council of Constance condemned him in 1415, and in 1428 his bones were dug up, burned and the ashes thrown into the River Swift. John Bale (1548) is usually credited with first calling him the 'morning star' of the Reformation.

Jan Hus (c. 1372-1415), preacher at the Bethlehem Chapel in Prague, was influenced by Wycliffe and wrote On the Church (1413). Summoned to Constance under a safe-conduct from the emperor Sigismund, he was arrested, condemned, and burned on 6 July 1415, having refused to recant unless shown his errors from Scripture.

Erasmus of Rotterdam (c. 1466-1536) was no Protestant, but his cry ad fontes, 'back to the sources', prepared the way. On 1 March 1516 Johann Froben of Basel published his Novum Instrumentum, the first published printed Greek New Testament, with a fresh Latin translation. It was hurried and based on a few late manuscripts, but Luther used its second edition (1519) for his German New Testament. Printing (Gutenberg's Bible, c. 1455) meant the Scriptures could soon reach ordinary people.

Why this matters. The Reformation did not appear from nowhere in 1517. It stood in a long line of believers who appealed from the church's later traditions back to Scripture and the early church, and many of them paid with their lives. Nor was the medieval church empty of the gospel. Luther called Bernard of Clairvaux one of the greatest doctors of the church, and Calvin quoted Bernard favourably more often than any other medieval writer. Reformed Christians honour such believers while rejecting the system that grew up around them.

Choose two forerunners of reform and explain what each contributed.Show answer

Peter Valdes sent preachers out with the Bible in the common tongue; his Waldensians were persecuted for centuries and joined the Reformed movement in 1532. John Wycliffe taught that Scripture is the supreme authority, criticised the papacy's wealth and claims, rejected transubstantiation, and his followers produced the first complete English Bible. Jan Hus, influenced by Wycliffe, was burned at Constance in 1415 after refusing to recant unless shown his errors from Scripture.

Waldensians and the vernacular Bible
Wycliffe: Scripture supreme
first complete English Bible
Hus burned for appealing to Scripture

Erasmus was no Protestant. Why, then, does the lesson count him among those who prepared the way for reform?Show answer

His cry ad fontes, 'back to the sources', pointed people back to the original texts. In 1516 he published the first published printed Greek New Testament with a fresh Latin translation; though hurried and based on a few late manuscripts, Luther used its second edition for his German New Testament. Along with printing, this meant the Scriptures could soon reach ordinary people.

ad fontes
Greek New Testament, 1516
Luther used it
printing spread Scripture

Key texts

1 Timothy 2:5: One God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus: the Reformers' answer to a system of many mediators.
Hebrews 10:10-14: Christ offered one sacrifice for sins for all time and by it has perfected those being sanctified: the key text against the Mass as a repeated sacrifice and against purgatory.
1 John 1:7: The blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin, leaving no remaining debt to be purged after death.
Philippians 1:21-23: Paul expects, at death, to depart and be with Christ, which is far better: no intermediate purgation in view.
Matthew 16:18-19: The text used for papal claims. Know the Catholic reading and the Protestant answer (Peter's confession, the keys given to all the apostles in Matt 18:18).
1 Peter 5:1-4: Peter calls himself a 'fellow elder' and Christ the 'chief Shepherd': a striking contrast with Unam Sanctam.
John 18:36: Christ's kingdom is not of this world, so his servants do not fight to establish it: the standard by which the Crusades are judged.
Psalm 119:105: God's Word is a lamp to my feet: the conviction that drove Valdes, Wycliffe and Hus to put Scripture in the people's hands.

Objections and answers

Try answering each one yourself before you open the response.

“The Crusades prove that Christianity is a violent religion.”Show a response

The Crusades included real atrocities, and I won't excuse them: the massacres of Jews in the Rhineland in 1096, the slaughter in Jerusalem in 1099, the sack of Christian Constantinople in 1204. But context matters too. They began as a response to four centuries of Muslim conquest of once-Christian lands and an appeal for help from the Byzantine emperor. More importantly, ask what Christianity teaches. Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world and that his servants would not fight for it (John 18:36). He told us to love our enemies (Matt 5:44). When crusaders promised salvation for killing, they were contradicting their founder, not following him. The very standard we use to condemn the Crusades comes from Jesus. Can a worldview be judged by those who betray its teaching?

“For fifteen hundred years there was one church under the pope. The Reformers broke that unity.”Show a response

The history is more complicated. The Eastern churches had already separated from Rome in 1054, and they never accepted the papal claims. Within the West, for nearly forty years after 1378 there were two and then three rival popes, and devout Catholics could not tell which was real. Doctrines that Rome later required, like transubstantiation (defined 1215), purgatory (defined 1274) and the claim that submission to the pope is necessary for salvation (Unam Sanctam, 1302), came centuries after the apostles. Meanwhile the Waldensians, Wycliffe and Hus were already calling the church back to Scripture. The Reformers did not want to start a new church. They wanted to reform the one church by the Word of God. The question is not who broke unity first, but where the apostolic faith is found.

“Medieval Christians believed the earth was flat and the church opposed reason.”Show a response

That is a modern myth. Educated medieval Christians knew the earth was a sphere; the scholar Bede wrote about it in the eighth century, and the historian Jeffrey Burton Russell traced the flat-earth story to nineteenth-century writers. Far from opposing reason, the medieval church founded the first universities. Anselm's motto was 'faith seeking understanding', and Thomas Aquinas built carefully reasoned arguments for God's existence that philosophers still debate. Reformed Christians have serious disagreements with medieval theology, especially on merit, the sacraments and the papacy. But those disagreements are about Scripture and the gospel, not about whether Christians should think carefully. If anything, the medieval period shows that Christians have always believed God's world is rational because its Maker is.

“Transubstantiation was always the church's belief. Lateran IV only gave it a name.”Show a response

The early fathers certainly spoke strongly about the Supper as Christ's body and blood, and Reformed Christians believe Christ is truly present and received by faith (WCF 29.7). But the fathers also used symbolic language; Augustine, for example, could speak of the sacrament as a sign. Most tellingly, the question was openly debated in the West: in the ninth century the monks Paschasius Radbertus and Ratramnus of Corbie took different views, and in the eleventh Berengar of Tours was compelled to recant his. Only in 1215 did Lateran IV define that the bread and wine are changed in substance. A doctrine that needed six centuries of debate to be defined, and that the Eastern churches did not define in those terms during the Middle Ages, is a development, not the universal belief of the apostolic church.

“Catholics and Protestants agree on the Trinity and the deity of Christ. Purgatory and indulgences are side issues. Why keep fighting about them?”Show a response

There's a lot we share, and we should say so gladly: the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, the great creeds of the early church. But purgatory and indulgences are not side issues, because they touch the question of what Christ's death achieved. If believers still need purifying punishment after death, or merits drawn from a treasury and applied to them, it suggests the cross left something unfinished. Scripture says Christ's one sacrifice 'has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified' (Heb 10:14), that his blood 'cleanses us from all sin' (1 John 1:7), that there is one mediator (1 Tim 2:5), and that the believer who dies goes to be 'with Christ' (Phil 1:23). We can disagree charitably, stating Catholic teaching in its own words. But the sufficiency of Christ is worth caring about.

“So some medieval popes were corrupt. Bad popes don't prove Catholic doctrine is wrong. Every church has its scandals.”Show a response

That's true, and a fair point. Protestant churches have had their scandals too, and sinful leaders don't disprove a doctrine by themselves. The Reformed case doesn't rest on bad behaviour; it rests on Scripture. But the medieval history matters in two other ways. First, it shows that papal claims grew over time: the Dictatus papae claimed the right to depose emperors, Boniface VIII declared subjection to the pope necessary for salvation, and the Donation of Constantine, used to support papal power, turned out to be a forgery, as Catholic historians accept. Second, during the Great Schism even devout Catholics could not tell who the true pope was, which weakens the claim that the office guarantees certainty. So the right approach is to state Catholic teaching fairly and then let Scripture judge it.

Written task

A Catholic friend says: 'Before Luther there was one church, and everyone believed in transubstantiation, purgatory and the pope.' Write a 300-400 word gracious reply that (1) acknowledges what is true in the claim, (2) uses at least four dated events or documents from 800-1500 to show a more complex picture, (3) states Catholic teaching on one doctrine accurately in its own terms (citing the Catechism or a council), and (4) answers it from at least two Scripture passages.

Hand this in to Mr Scott. He will look for:

Acknowledges fairly what is true in the friend's claim
Uses at least four accurate, dated events or documents (e.g. 1054, 1215, 1302, 1378, 1415)
States one Catholic doctrine accurately with a correct citation
Answers from at least two relevant Scripture passages
Charitable tone that aims to win the friend, not just the argument