Crowder, C.M.D. Unity, Heresy and Reform, 1378–1460: The Conciliar Response to the Great
Schism. New York: St. Martin, 1977.
Oakley, Francis. Council over Pope? Towards a Provisional Ecclesiology. New York: Herder and
Herder, 1969.
——. The Western Church in the Later Middle Ages. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1979.
Spinka, Matthew. Advocates of Reform from Wyclif to Erasmus. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953.
Swanson, Robert N. Universities, Academics and the Great Schism. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1979.
Ullmann, Walter. The Origins of the Great Schism. London: Burns, Oates and Washbourne, 1948.
SCHOLASTICISM
. Name commonly given to the system of thought and teaching used in the early
universities (or “schools”), especially those of Paris and Oxford. Scholasticism begins in
the belief that God’s truth can and ought to be known by rational understanding as well as
by revelation. It draws a distinction between an understanding of God based on “simple”
belief based on revelation, and an understanding drawn from questioning and argument,
resolved by means of logic (the “scholastic method”). The Schoolmen’s method of
proceeding can be characterized as argumentative, authoritative, and additive.
(1) Argumentative: Truth can be found by argument, which is to say by the asking and
answering of questions. Although these questions (quaestiones) originally arose from
issues in a biblical text that were separable from and wider than the general run of
commentary, they expanded to encompass the great philosophical-theological issues of
Christianity, such as the nature and number of God, the number and purpose of
sacraments, or the typology of sin. A”classic” scholastic question runs according to a set
form. First the question is posed, with a formulaic Quaeritur utrum..., An..., or Videtur
quod...(“It is asked whether...,” “Whether...,” or “It seems that...”). Then the arguments
for the proposition are given (“And it seems that it is, because...”), followed by the
arguments against, sed contra (“on the other hand”) or objectio (“it is objected...”). The
writer then makes his judgment for the proposition (almost never against: that is simply
the way the questions are posed) in a Solutio (“solution”) or Respondeo quod (“I answer
that...”) and completes the question by answering each of the objections in turn Ad
quod...(“to that which was objected...”). The meat of the arguments pro and con is culled
from acknowledged “authorities,” the second characteristic of the method.
(2) Authoritative: Truth should be sought in the opinions of the authorities of the past.
Preeminent among these is the Bible, but since Scripture can be self-contradictory it
cannot be relied upon to provide the solution itself. The next “level” of authority is the
writings of the Latin and Greek fathers, in particular Augustine and Jerome: these are
regarded as almost as authoritative as the Bible itself. Finally, more “modern” writers,
closer to contemporaneous, may be adduced as secondary evidence, but their opinions are
frequently given anonymously.
(3) Additive: Truth is additive: one system is not to be replaced by another, but rather
each single truth can be added to all others to give a fuller picture. The classic
epigrammatic statement of this belief is found in Bernard of Chartres, repeating what was
Medieval france: an encyclopedia 1624