papal court


T H E  W E S T E R N  S C H I S M (1378-1417)

The Schism in the Western Roman Church resulted from the return of the papacy to Rome under Gregory XI on January 17, 1377, ending the Avignon Papacy, which had developed a reputation for corruption that estranged major parts of Western Christendom. This reputation can be attributed to perceptions of predominant French influence and to the papal curia’s efforts to extend its powers of patronage and increase its revenues.

After Pope Gregory XI died in 1378, the Romans rioted to ensure the election of a Roman for pope. On April 8, 1378 the cardinals elected a Neapolitan when no viable Roman candidates presented themselves. Urban VI, born Bartolomeo Prignano, the Archbishop of Bari, was elected. Urban had been a respected administrator in the papal chancery at Avignon, but as pope he proved suspicious, reformist, and prone to violent outbursts of temper. Many of the cardinals who had elected him soon regretted their decision: the majority removed themselves from Rome to Anagni, where, even though Urban was still reigning, they elected Robert of Geneva as a rival pope on September 20 of the same year. Robert took the name Clement VII and reestablished a papal court in Avignon. The second election threw the Church into turmoil. There had been antipopes—rival claimants to the papacy—before, but most of them had been appointed by various rival factions; in this case, a single group of leaders of the Church had created both the pope and the antipope. (x)

jude law as pope urban vi
elijah wood as antipope clement vii


Well it’s April 6th today and our American friends are celebrating Tartan Day,  do you know the reason why the US picked this day?  Well arguably our most famous historical document The Declaration of Arbroath is dated 6 April 1320.  
  ‘It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.’
  Like the American Declaration of Independence, which is partially based on it, it is seen by many as the founding document of the Scottish nation. The Declaration is a Latin letter which was sent to Pope John XXII in April/May 1320. It was most likely drafted in the scriptorium of Arbroath Abbey by Abbot Bernard on behalf of the nobles and barons of Scotland. It was one of three letters sent to the Pope in Avignon, the other two being from King Robert Bruce himself and from four Scottish bishops, attempting to abate papal hostility. The document received the seals of several Scottish barons and it then was taken to the papal court at Avignon in France by Sir Adam Gordon. The Scots clergy had produced not only one of the most eloquent expressions of nationhood, but the first expression of the idea of a contractual monarchy. Here is the critical passage in question:
‘Yet if he (Bruce) should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.’ The threat to drive Bruce out if he ever sold Scotland to English rule was a fantastic bluff. There was nobody else to take his place. The point is that the nobles and clergy are not basing their argument to the pope on the traditional notion of the Divine Rights of Kings. Bruce is King first and foremost because the nation chose him, not God, and the nation would just as easily choose another if they were betrayed by the King. The explanation also neatly covers the fact that Bruce had usurped John Balliol’s rightful kingship in the first place and the Declaration was telling the Pope, we support Bruce, Balliol can bolt! Of course  it does say much more than that before I start another war.
Any way in spite of all possible motivations for its creation, the Declaration of Arbroath, under the extraordinary circumstances of the Wars of Independence, was a prototype of contractual kingship in Europe.

[…]Three days after the consistory Cesare departed for Naples and the crowning of Don Fadrique. It has often been suggested that he should not have gone so soon after his brother’s death, with Alexander in such a depressed state. That he should have asked to be replaced and insisted on going because he was eager to put himself beyong the reach of the men investigating the murder. Eager he may or may not have been, but if he was hoping for anything, it was not necessarily to escape scrutiny. He was young and high-spirited, and it is not implausible that what he wanted to get away from was the deep gloom that had descended upon the papal household and court. Naples offered not only a coronation ceremony in which Cesare was slated to play a central role but all the festivities attendant upon such an event. In any case he departed on schedule, and when his assignment was completed, he decided to remain in Naples, a city with much to interest a vigorous young man with a relaxed moral code.
—  G.J. Meyer - The Borgias
The Heroine of Gaeta - Maria Sophia of Bavaria

Maria Sophia of Bavaria was the last Queen of the Kingdom of the Two Siciles, who by the age of 19, had been a queen, lost her kingdom, rallied soldiers around her in the hopeless defense of a lost cause, and had had men - even her enemies - writing reams of romantic slush about her. She was “the angel of Gaeta” who would “wipe your brow if you were wounded or cradle you in her arms while you die”. D'Annunzio called her the “stern little Bavarian eagle” and Marcel Proust spoke of the “soldier queen on the ramparts of Gaeta”

She was intelligent, lovely, and headstrong; she could ride a horse and defend herself with a sword. She was everything you could ask for - a combination of Amazon and Angel of Mercy. 

Maria Sophia came from the Bavarian royal House of Wittelsbach, the daughter of Duke Maximilian Joseph of Bavaria and Princess Ludovika. She was the younger sister of the famous Empress Elizabeth (Sissi) of Austria. Like her ravishing older sister, Maria Sophia was said to be ‘unusually beautiful’.

In 1859, Maria Sophia married the soon-to-be King Francis II of Bourbon, the son of Ferdinand II, King of Naples. Within the year, with the death of the king, her husband ascended to the throne and Maria Sophia gave up the frivolous court pursuits of a princess and took on the full-time responsibilities as the queen of a realm on the verge of crisis. 

The Italian peninsula was in the grip of turmoil brought on by a combination of revolution, nationalism and republicanism. People were eager for an Italian unification. Upon their ascension, Francis II and Marie Sophia were already the target for invasion by the army of revolutionary republicans led by Giuseppe Garibaldi.

To avoid bloodshed in the major city of Naples, the king, the queen, and their army retreated to Gaeta to make what turned out to be a last stand. By this time also the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia under King Victor Emmanuel II had joined the fight for Italian unification and lay siege to the stronghold of Gaeta, which eventually overcame the defenders. It was the siege of Gaeta that gained Maria Sophia the reputation that stayed with her for the rest of her life. 

She was constantly on the walls, tireless in her efforts to rally the defenders, giving them her own food, caring for the wounded, encouraging the troops, and shouting defiance at the enemy. She refused the chivalrous offer from the attacking general that if she would but mark her residence with a flag, he would make sure not to fire upon it with artillery. “Go ahead and shoot at me”, she said; “I will be where the men are."  

However, it was a vain and hopeless fight. The King and Queen were forced to give up Gaeta and went into exile in Rome. They were welcomed as honored guests of the Papal court but the position of the Pope was under the same threat that had already befallen their own country. 

On 24 December 1869, after ten years of marriage, Maria Sophia gave birth to a daughter, Maria Cristina Pia. Cristina was born on the birthday of her aunt, Empress Elizabeth, who became her godmother. Unfortunately, the baby lived only three months and died on 28 March 1870. Maria Sophia and her husband never had another child.

In 1870, Rome fell to the forces of Italy, and the King and Queen moved in Bavaria where Francis II died there in 1894. Maria Sophia’s activities were, however, far from over. She continued to preside over a Two-Sicilies court-in-exile and never gave up hope for a restoration of her adopted kingdom. 

During World War I, Maria Sophia was actively on the side of Germany and Austria in their war with Italy. She hoped that the defeat of Italy might to lead to the restoration of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. But that was not meant to be. She went on to see her beloved homeland, the Kingdom of Bavaria, taken up into a united German Empire, and Italy became, irrevocably, a single nation state. She lived to see Mussolini take power in Italy and to see Hitler make his first move in Germany. She was still active enough in her 80s to stand at the window of her apartment in Munich and look at anarchists and police battling in the streets. She wanted "to see if young people of today still have the stuff they had when I was young.”

Maria Sophia died in exile in Munich in 1925. The Italian newspaper il Mattino announced her death, and was praised as ”…one of those European princesses who, with her great gifts, would have had another destiny but for the dramatic events of her times.“

She attracted harsh criticism, but she also generated so much respect and admiration in her long life. Even from those who would be her most extreme political enemies such as the famous Italian ultra-nationalist Gabriele d'Annunzio called her the "stern little Bavarian eagle”. The Queen was buried alongside her husband and their short-lived daughter in the Church of Santa Chiara in Naples.  The sculptress Harriet Homer (who made a sculpture of Maria Sophia) called Maria Sophia “a violet-eyed heroine of Gaeta.“

mbteenwolfi-deactivated20150424  asked:

I have seen your comparison of SFJs but I am still somewhat confused. Could you compare an ISFJ to an ESFJ using characters from the Tudors? Perhaps Katherine of Aragorn and her daughter Mary? :)

Can I dip a bit into history for this one?

Katharine was such a Fe-dom, from her childhood to her last parting words. The biggest indicators of Fe-dominance is that they cannot comprehend emotional separation from the object, in her case… Henry. She was devastated that he ceased loving her and turned from being a loving, protective husband to her worst nightmare. The stuff he did to her was downright cruel, from dismissing her favorite Spanish ladies to refusing to allow her to see her daughter during their legal turmoils. She, literally, could not comprehend that, because she loved so completely. She had invested all her emotions in Henry and she continued to love him even after he was hateful to her. Her last words to him in a letter were that her eyes desired to see him above all, and that she offered him forgiveness for his transgressions. 

The truly awful thing is … Katharine went through this her entire life. She loved completely and people betrayed her again and again; she could never understand it and it often reduced her to tears. How could her loving father, who doted on her, leave her destitute in England because Prince Arthur died? How could her older sister Johanna, whom she loved with all her heart, have no greater concern for her welfare, nor even offer to fight for her in this matter? She could not understand, because love was everything. 

That is the mark of Fe-dominance. This comes across in the series, too, both in how emboldened she is through support in her ordeal (think of her walking proudly from the courtroom, out to the cheering crowds who worship her) and how she constantly deflects her own rights to defend the people of England. “Katharine could build up an army and wage a war against me fiercer than any her mother Isabella ever waged in Spain!” Henry says at one point. It’s true. She could have. Katharine was that adored by the people. Why? Because she was charismatic, and she forever put them first. Her response? No, I’d never do that to England. It would be a sin, against God and my own conscience. Deflection of self. English men will not kill one another for my welfare. I must put the ways of my faith (pleasing God) above my personal desires.

Nor did she ever cave, or give an inch … because she was not afraid of what might happen as a result. Her high Ne enabled her to anticipate Henry’s moves and, like a master chess game, block his divorce / annulment proceedings with the Papal court for years. Katharine very much knew how to play the game, and she played it well. When the sweat scared the monarchy out of London, she went home first — long before Henry and Anne Boleyn. She wanted the people not to feel abandoned … and at the same time, she cemented herself in their minds as their one true queen, willing to risk illness at their side. Brilliant move. Fe/Ne working in tandem to get what she wanted. 

Yet, the one thing we hear time and again about Katharine is how “emotional” she was, and that she just about drove Henry crazy with her whining once he decided to get rid of her. Again, high Fe. Tears all the time. Devastated emotions on full display. Pleas that he not do this to her. She could not disengage her emotions because of her inferior Ti.

Mary did not have this problem. She was quieter than her mother, far more self-contained, more private in her grief although still emotional. As an introvert and due to her inferior Ne, which worries a great deal about the consequences of actions in the present and about the future in general, she caved where her mother held firm. She signed the document her father’s lawyers put before her, because “I very much fear if you do not, the king will put you to death.” In Mary, you have Si-dom on full display. Her experiences … the rapid shift from being a beloved, doted upon child to abandon, abused, threatened, forgotten, and bullied … waged war on her sensitive personality. She became SUPER CAREFUL and very accommodating toward her father… up to a point. She had her mother’s defiant nature but not her fearlessness.

Mary’s childhood was marked with emotion. Her brother even made her cry once when public ally shaming her for her Catholic beliefs in front of the entire court. I love that moment in the final episode of The Tudors, when Henry bids his family farewell, because it is so expressive of Mary and Elizabeth. Mary is in tears. Elizabeth is stone-faced. Mary turns to Catherine Parr for comfort. Elizabeth pivots on her heel and leaves the room. It’s indicative of how they were as women, and how they were as rulers. Powerful stuff.

Because her Fe was slightly repressed, Mary was less inclined to put others first — she cared about them, fought for them, loved them, supported them, and tried to please them … but her strong Si-driven views came first, so she was not as skilled a diplomat as her mother. Her own biases frequently got in the way of her Fe, and made her resistant to both Katherine Howard and Anne of Cleves’ attempts to make friends. Fe would make friends and find common ground, as a dominant; Si blocked it with her upbringing. For Mary, it was all about past precedence and experience, about chronic fear of the future … the clearest indicator of inferior Ne. Catastrophic fears about what might happen as a result of … this. Her father abandoning the “true faith” for another one. Her resistance potentially leading to her death. Even her persecution of Reformists during her reign was out of fear of the punishment God might inflict on England if she did not return to the Catholic Church. 

Katharine’s ESFJ weakness… the inability to understand falling out of love. Her inability to access strong Ti and comprehend it.

Mary’s ISFJ weakness … the inability to not be fearful of the future. Her fumbling hold on Ne, which presented numerous terrifying possibilities.

notsosoftly  asked:

This might not be your area of expertise, but I was wondering if you had any idea when the Catholic church started cracking down on priests having lovers & kids? I tried googling it but got nothing relevant. I ask because I'm reading a historical fiction book about the Borgias and even though I'm Protestant, this whole "I'm a churchman, here come meet my kids" thing is what's bothering me the most.

Okay so technically the answer to this question is “the first lateran council in 1123 which forbade priests, deacons and archdeacons from living with women who weren’t their close blood relatives.” The Gregorian Reforms (from which the Lateran Councils were born) were intended to crack down on the licentiousness in the church, including simony, nepotism, and the existence of priests’ live-in girlfriends, wives, and concubines.

But that was three hundred years before the Borgias, so it clearly didn’t quite stick.

It’s also worth noting that the Renaissance was particularly notorious for this, so much so that “the cleric’s mistress” becomes a stock character in the literature of the time. Between 1550 and 1650 priests and friars made up 58 of the 263 criminal and disciplinary trials in Venice. An English penitential tract gave more penance to a priest for sodomy with a woman than for the adultery which was part of the same activity. Giorgio Dati—a canon of Florence cathedral—was convicted of having entered the convent of S.Caterina illegally at night. Sandra of Ponte Carraia had a child by a friar of Santo Spirito. Boccaccio, who himself was an illegitimate son, had five illegitimate children. Margherita, a freed slave, had a child by the priest Ser Andrea—it would later become a paternity case argued in the papal courts.

It was a problem.

But right around this time, Martin Luther has also noticed that the Catholic Church can’t keep it in its pants. Preaching the Evils of Rome (told you that came up a lot) Martin Luther leads one of the most shocking breaks with Rome since the Great Schism. Not because such a break was unheard of (there are many, many revolutionary Christian groups) but because he had the support of the German nobility and he was wildly successful. Suddenly, the One True Church can’t deny that there are actually two churches in Western Europe, competing for the hearts and minds of the nobility and royalty people.

So Rome, like any institution waking up from a couple centuries of decadence, political upheaval, and military might, has to look really hard at itself to figure out where it went wrong.

This leads to the Counter-Reformation, which is the series of councils and reforms coming out of Rome in the late 16th-early 17th centuries that were intended to shore up the Church against its Protestant critics, and basically clean house, both theologically and institutionally. After the counter-reformation, you see a decrease in openly-acknowledged mistresses and children—Pope Gregory XIII, who held the seat of Saint Peter until 1585, is the last known sexually active pope. Pressured within by the Church, and without by public opinion and the growing threat of Protestantism and atheism, the practice fell off.

This isn’t to say that priests everywhere stopped having sex, or that there weren’t places where priests openly had mistresses and children. Father Philip Berrigan (who was actually super cool, led Catholic anti-war and desegregation protests in the 60s) married Sister Elizabeth McAlister in 1970, while still a priest—they kept it secret for three years, later having a daughter. In 2012 the Archbishop of Los Angles was forced to retire because it came out that he had two teenaged children.

So the real answer is: the Catholic Church starts cracking down on your kids and mistress when you start making them look bad.