Lawrences Works Details How The Mendicant Orders Arose Before A

Lawrences works details how the mendicant orders arose before and during the thirteenth century. Europe supported the establishment of the church, implemented change and reform leading to heresy and separation. Lawrence regards the revolutionary situation (page 225), as one resulting partly by the growth of towns and the general population. Due to social changes within medieval Europe itself it sought control and threatened the stability of the Church and of the religious beliefs of the people. In a way, the rise of the mendicant orders at this time is an answer to the problems in this situation. Mendicant orders are seen by Lawrence as a revolutionary answer to a potentially revolutionary situation (page 225) because of the long-term effect to help preserve the church hierarchy. This sometimes was in conflict and even become partly incorporated into that hierarchy themselves. Although, to some extent the mendicant orders were innovative, they cannot be seen as itself revolutionary. In order to be considered revolutionary, they would have had to overthrow the previous church order and perhaps replacing it with a new one. But mendicant order did nothing of the sort. The establishment of monasteries and schools allowed them to later become part of the Catholic Church, government system. The Friars were well trained in theology and pastoral skills which is why they were chosen by the papacy to completely destroy the religious beliefs that opposed the orthodox views (page 188). At this time religion in the West was a relatively new concept. The friars are noted to have had some importance in the Inquisition: suppressing the heresy (Websters New World Dictionary, 249). Developing out of measures to combat the dualist heresies rampant in France and in northern and central Italy by the middle of the twelfth century. (Page 189). Here the Church used its various means to combat the Cathars and others who opposes the belief of Dogma [that body of theological doctrines authoritatively affirmed (Websters New World Dictionary, 146)] in that area. The Dominicans played a major role in the Albigensian Crusade directed against the Cathars to wipe them out. Dominicans also played a part in the development of the Inquisition. The Frascisians were drawn into enterprise, though at first on a more limited scale. (Page 190) although it wasnt until Pope Innocent IV, that the Fransciscans began to play an important role in the Inquisition (page 191). Nevertheless, judging from just this it can be seen that the role of the Friars could hardly be considered revolutionary. Instead of overturning the established order, the friars supporting it, and even encouraged the use of violence against those who threatened the heretics. Their presence resulted in reforms in learning and in the organization of the Church that accommodated as a part of the clergy. The friars role counteracted the threats made to the Church by enabling it to adapt new ideas. What the friars did do, then, was to serve as an important force for reform. The Dark Ages were over, and the practices that works in earlier times were less likely to work for the purpose of the Church as time went on. Medieval towns were becoming cities with the rise of commercial class. Better education that before, they were in a better position to criticize corruption within the clergy itself. Thus, the power of the clergy and the church was also in question. It was only a question of time before the secular nobility would become more and more independent of the church. We can see that even at the time of Albigensian Crusade, political and military leaders such as the Count of Toulose were not hesitant to openly oppose church policies. In intellectual, economic and social uproar, the cities were productive areas for heresy. The literate a laity, who formed the upper strata of the new urban society aware of the educational and moral shortcomings of secular clergy, were a natural forcing ground both for orthodox criticism of the Church and for radical dissent. (Page 3). For this reason, the Church was faced with a potentially revolutionary situation. The situation developed to an extent not again until the Reformation. So the Cathars in southern France were able, to field their own clerical hierarchy, and eventually oppose to

Free Essays on Monarchy Vs. Democracy

Monarchy, in various shades and formulations, was the modern government of civilized people. Every European nation was governed by a Monarch, and the British empire was especially proud of its "mixed" form of government- the finest form yet developed. The prevailing political theory of the day was that any pure form of government, be it monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy, would ultimately collapse. Each of these was susceptible to despotism, so the only rational system would be one whereby two or more pure forms were played off each other in order to achieve a sort of balance. Great Britain, with its King (monarchy), its House of Lords (aristocracy), and its Parliament (republican-democracy) was touted as the most perfectly constituted government ever. Two facts were at hand to demonstrate the reason of that claim. First, that the English people, no matter where they lived in the Empire, enjoyed standards of diet, education, and justice, that were hard to attain outside of the Empir e. Second, that the Empire itself had been such a successful mechanism, political and economic, for so long. These arguments were good enough for many people, but there were several problems on the ground. For this ideal English government was not so much designed as it was a devils bargain. For centuries, philosophers, theologians, and rulers pointed to the downfall of the Roman Empire as the final failure of democracy, and of any purely republican form of government. The only answer to government was to be found in Monarchy. The rule of a Monarch, it was agreed, had to be a contract between the ruler and the ruled. But how would the Monarch be accountable to justice? Well, certainly not by recall from the people at large. The Monarch was supposed to be accountable to God, most immediately through God's emissary in Rome, through the Pope. The balance struck placed God on one side, the King and his subjects on the other. The King had a responsibility to r... Free Essays on Monarchy Vs. Democracy Free Essays on Monarchy Vs. Democracy Monarchy, in various shades and formulations, was the modern government of civilized people. Every European nation was governed by a Monarch, and the British empire was especially proud of its "mixed" form of government- the finest form yet developed. The prevailing political theory of the day was that any pure form of government, be it monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy, would ultimately collapse. Each of these was susceptible to despotism, so the only rational system would be one whereby two or more pure forms were played off each other in order to achieve a sort of balance. Great Britain, with its King (monarchy), its House of Lords (aristocracy), and its Parliament (republican-democracy) was touted as the most perfectly constituted government ever. Two facts were at hand to demonstrate the reason of that claim. First, that the English people, no matter where they lived in the Empire, enjoyed standards of diet, education, and justice, that were hard to attain outside of the Empir e. Second, that the Empire itself had been such a successful mechanism, political and economic, for so long. These arguments were good enough for many people, but there were several problems on the ground. For this ideal English government was not so much designed as it was a devils bargain. For centuries, philosophers, theologians, and rulers pointed to the downfall of the Roman Empire as the final failure of democracy, and of any purely republican form of government. The only answer to government was to be found in Monarchy. The rule of a Monarch, it was agreed, had to be a contract between the ruler and the ruled. But how would the Monarch be accountable to justice? Well, certainly not by recall from the people at large. The Monarch was supposed to be accountable to God, most immediately through God's emissary in Rome, through the Pope. The balance struck placed God on one side, the King and his subjects on the other. The King had a responsibility to r...

Create a Timeline highlighting the changes in political parties Essay

Create a Timeline highlighting the changes in political parties - Essay Example This paper will basically have to objectives firstly, give a description of the contributions that capitalism, agriculture, and industrialization have had on economics, economic development, regional specialization, and social reform, taking into consideration the timeline between 1780 to 1850, and the contributions that democracy has had on the market revolution. Secondly, it will identify the beginning of American expansionism, how it has shaped foreign relations and the contributions expansionism has had on the growth of democracy. From 1823 to 1836 most individuals were farmers: trading and industrialization were very minimal. Capitalism at that time was known as mercantilism in that it trade was controlled by the government, powerful individuals and monopolies (Hollis, 2008). It is evident that in the absence of a democracy, aristocracy is bound to prevail in that a small group of people control power and the economy. Lack of democracy before the period of 1780 to 1850 limited t he poor and powerless in that they had no chance to engage in any economic activity, only the powerful and rich could freely participate (Hollis, 2008). The ownership of land and harvesting of agricultural products in 1790s ensured food security. Individuals owned lands in which they cultivated resulting in a surplus production of food. This led them to sell the surplus food to other people who did not produce food. Individuals could also sell their agricultural products to other people who produced different products from theirs. People wanted to protect and invest their acquired properties, this required peace and so, they avoided war at all cost. The idea of individuals owning their own property made the government to let individuals participate freely in political matters. This participation in turn led to social reforms. Individuals from minority groups could become political leaders fighting for their own course (Mohl, 1997). The advent of capitalism ensured that individuals c ould own private property. Many scholars throughout the years have argued that a clear democracy results from a capitalist industrialization. Furthermore, democracy will flourish in a society that has strongly embraced individual responsibility. The new civilization that rose from 1780s was supported by the pillars of capitalism and democracy. Capitalism brings about democracy when individuals pursue their self-interest which in turn leads to social harmony (Sanders, 1999). In capitalism, many people benefit from one person’s self-interest economic. Capitalism and democracy ensured that the state and the economy were strictly separated. Individual rights and also rights for private ownership in 1780s were more respected since that was part of democracy. All in all the growth of democracy was spear headed by capitalism because of the recognition it had on individuals owning their lives and property as long as they do not harm others (Joy, 2003). Regional specialization was hig hly seen in the 1820s in America, the South had big plantations and exported agriculture while the people in the North focused on trade and business. Most agricultural products came from the South, since they had big plantations the South was the sole exporter of agricultural products. On the other, hand putting up steel manufacturing industry in Pennsylvania brought about regional