[Humbert of Silva Candida](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humbert_of_Silva_Candida) was an important medieval theologian, best known for his involvement in the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054. He was also a vocal proponent of a number of views, such as papal authority and clerical celibacy. On this latter point, Everett Ferguson writes that he "said that sacraments administered by married clerics were invalid," and then continues: > Humbert's later work *Against the Simoniacs* in three books made a similar claim: Any cleric appointed to office by a layman, no matter how honestly, could not administer valid sacraments, a doctrine that revived the viewpoint of Donatism, which made the validity of sacraments depend on the status of the administrator. ([*Church History*, I, 19.V.B](https://books.google.com/books?id=mRQwAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT351)) This does sound like Donatism to me, but I don't see any indication on Wikipedia or elsewhere that Humbert's views actually violated Catholic dogma. In light of subsequent clarifications of the doctrines of the sacraments, are these views of Humbert's considered problematic in modern Catholicism?

Practically, how were prayer requests handled in medieval monasteries? Did only the abbot/prior review them, or did all the monks know about the prayer requests outsiders would submit to the monastery?

This year (2024) we are right in the middle of 3 significant anniversaries related to St. Thomas Aquinas and Pope Francis [launches three years of celebrations in his honor](https://www.ewtnvatican.com/articles/three-anniversaries-to-celebrate-thomas-aquinas-1258) : 700 years since canonization (July 18, 2023), 750 years since his death (March 7, 2024), and 800 years since his birth (2025). There are more than a dozen biographies written of St. Thomas Aquinas. **What is the latest scholarship on his birth date?** Most encyclopedias will only say ca. 1225 ([*Wikipedia*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas) and [SEP](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/)) , 1224/1225 ([*Britannica*](https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Thomas-Aquinas)) . Here's what the [1912 *Catholic Encyclopedia* article](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14663b.htm) says: > From Tolomeo of Lucca . . . we learn that at the time of the saint's death there was a doubt about his exact age (Prümmer, op. cit., 45). The end of 1225 is usually assigned as the time of his birth. Father Prümmer, on the authority of Calo, thinks 1227 is the more probable date (op. cit., 28). All agree that he died in 1274. But the above quote must have been based on scholarship that may have been superseded. **I'm looking for 2-3 proposed dates and the reasoning behind each, citing late 20th century scholarship up to today.**

"Hugh of Saint-Cher († 1263) was the second Dominican Master of Theology in Paris, and the first Dominican cardinal" (n. 39) who, "through the persuasion of Master [St.] Albert [the Great]", convinced "John of Vercelli, Master General of the [Dominican] Order" to accept St. Thomas Aquinas into "the Baccalaureate at the Order’s studium in Paris." (*William of Tocco’s Life of St. Thomas Aquinas* pp. 61-62). "Hugh is celebrated for his prodigious theological and exegetical works, particularly the monumental commentary on the entire Bible (*Postillæ in totam Bibliam*) that he composed with a team of friars." (*ibid.* p. 62n39). Does an English translation of Hugh of Saint-Cher's *Postillæ in totam Bibliam* exist?

What was the Investiture Controversy and lay investiture, and why exactly was it condemned? Fr. Hardon, S.J., defines "lay investiture ": >The act by which a sovereign, in the Middle Ages, granted titles, possessions, and temporal rights to bishops, abbots, and other spiritual leaders. The ritual of investiture consisted in the delivery of the spiritual emblems, ring and crosier, and sometimes the keys of the church. This privilege of secular princes and lords dates from the time of Charlemagne. So long as these princes had the Church's welfare at heart, lay investiture was tolerated. But when ecclesiastical offices were bought and sold, and free elections of bishops hindered, the Church vigorously opposed it with anti-investiture legislation, which was sporadically enforced. Pope Gregory VII, upon becoming Pope, enacted stringent measures against investiture, even to excommunicating those who continued it. The Concordat of Worms in 1122 finally ended the strife between the emperors and the Holy See. Once the major concessions were made by the emperors, the Pope agreed that all elections would be held in the emperor's presence and his bestowal of the temporalities of the bestowed office would be continued. The conflict over lay investiture reached its peak in Germany. Was "lay investiture" condemned because it enabled spiritual leaders to dictate in matters that properly belonged only to the temporal order (or *vice versa*)?

Are there any church fathers or medieval Christian writers who gave their opinion on extraterrestrial lives ?

I heard a Catholic Bishop talking about William of Ockham (Robert Barron) but I'm still not quite sure of some things: What is the contribution of William of Ockham to the Church? What would sum up his work? And how does it help us today? Also (for Catholics) how is he seen in the Catholic Church today?

Did any [medieval](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages) Catholics have a pious belief that immediately after death, God gave people a last chance to repent of their sins and thus save their immortal soul from going to hell for all eternity? I recently came across the following tidbit about St. Padre Pio in which he affirmed his own belief that repentance immediately after death was possible. > "I believe that not a great number of souls go to hell. God loves us so much. He formed us at his image. God loves us beyond understanding. And it is my belief that when we have passed from the consciousness of the world, when we appear to be dead, God, before He judges us, will give us a chance to see and understand what sin really is. And if we understand it properly, how could we fail to repent?" - [Close encounters of a special kind with Padre Pio: The Souls in Purgatory, The Guardian Angel, the devil.](https://caccioppoli.com/Close%20encounters%20of%20Padre%20Pio%20with%20deceased%20souls%20in%20Purgatory,%20Guardian%20Angel,%20devil.%20His%20own%20words%20on%20temptation,%20virtues,%20life..html) This got me thinking of what a priest that once told me some years ago: “Some Catholics in the Middle Ages (500 AD - 1500 AD) had a pious belief that immediately after sinners had died, Our Lord gave them a final chance to repent!” The priest in question is no longer amongst us and I have never known him to state something like this erroneously. Can anyone find any references from any Catholic sources about the possible existence of this [pious belief](https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35592) during the Middle Ages?

Around AD 485, the patriarch of Constantinople, [Acacius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acacius_of_Constantinople) , was excommunicated by [Pope Felix III](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Felix_III) , in a dispute over both theology and authority. This excommunication, however, seems unique in that it was said to be "perpetual," as the *Catholic Encyclopedia* explains: > Acacius was branded by Pope Felix as one who had sinned against the Holy Ghost and apostolic authority (*Habe ergo cum his . . . portionem S. Spiritus judicio et apostolica auctoritate damnatus*); and he was declared to be perpetually excommunicate — *nunquamque anathematis vinculis exuendus*. ([source](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01082a.htm)) Wikipedia further indicates that Acacius was "irrevocably excommunicated," though I'm not sure if that's an accurate characterization, particularly in light of the [*Catholic Encyclopedia*'s article on excommunication](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm) , which does not seem to address the concept of a "perpetual" excommunication. After reviewing that article, I can conceive of a few ways that the perpetual excommunication of Acacius could be understood: 1. That this excommunication was simply a "reserved" excommunication, one that could only be absolved by the Pope, and the "perpetual" was an indication of the Pope's confidence that absolution would not be sought or given. 2. That this excommunication was of a special category not described in the *CE*, and that it truly was irrevocable, without any possibility of absolution. - If so, does this special category continue to exist today? 3. That Wikipedia and I misunderstand the term "perpetual" in this context and thus this isn't actually any different from many other excommunications (perhaps the adjective simply means "perpetual until absolution") **How does Catholicism today understand this excommunication of Acacius by Pope Felix?** Was it truly "irrevocable," and if so, can such excommunications be pronounced today?

Do we know of any martyrs from among the Roman Catholic Church that lived during the five centuries before Martin Luther (i.e., 10–15th centuries)? I am especially interested in those who have been well-spoken of by Martin Luther.

Is there any evidence that in the middle ages (specifically in France and maybe Spain), there was a wafer/bread given to the priests as a gift for the priest and not given to be used for Eucharist?

His Eminence Scipione Rebiba is considered as the last bishop most Roman Catholic bishops can trace their episcopal lineages from. Who consecrated Scipione Rebiba? If we don't know, are there at least theories on who did? The *Wikipedia* article on him says: > "However, since it is canon law that there must be at least three bishops present at a consecration, it is possible to bypass Rebiba using the bishops who cooperated with him in his consecrations." Are there any records about who cooperated with him?

What were the doctrinal differences that caused the split of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic Church in 1054?

I was readIng an ad for a movie about blessed Duns Scotus which said he was debated and won against the Dominicans in the 13th century about the special privilege given to Mary, her Immaculate Conception. What I don't know (and don't really want to buy the movie to find out is) 1. For what reason did they doubt her Immaculate Conception? (and) 2. Is this why the Rosary starts with the Annunciation and not the Immaculate Conception?

On the eve of the Reformation, *The Mirror of a Christian Man* (1470) by [Dietrich Kolde](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Coelde) was one of the most popular Catholic catechism in the German language (German title: "Kerstenspiegel" or "Christenspiegel"). It is sometimes also titled as *A Fruitful Mirror of a Christian Man*. [It has been argued](https://reformedreader.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/late-medieval-catechism-vs-the-heidelberg-catechism/) that the Protestant [Heidelberg Catechism](https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/heidelberg-catechism) was written partly as an antidote to the dismal attitude of the Christian faith at the time. Is this true? I would like to check this claim by myself. This book is included in the 1982 book [Three Reformation Catechisms: Catholic, Anabaptist, Lutheran](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1933276.Three_Reformation_Catechisms) , but I am looking for a freely downloadable copy of Kolde's book only, preferably in an English translation.

Explain the reasons for which the Christian church found it difficult to accept Nicolaus Copernicus' heliocentric theory.

As I read through Oman's treatment of the Dark Ages, I am struck again and again by his references to Catholics (which seems in a contextual sense to mean Christian orthodoxy writ large) and what I read as the seeds of the Great Schism of 1054. Before the Iconoclast dispute, the Henoticon seems to have created an uproar. I am at a loss to understand why, beyond the usual problems of counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. As I understand the document, it was *an attempt to heal the rift* between the Monophysites and the rest of Christian orthodoxy at the time. **On what theological basis did the bishop of Rome excommunicate the Patriarch Acacius, for assisting Zeon in drafting the Henoticon ?**

Reading through St. Malachy's Popes Prophecy , I couldn't understand a particular phrase: > Peter the Roman, who will nourish the sheep in many tribulations; when > they are finished, **the city of seven hills will be destroyed**, and the > dreadful judge will judge his people I have been searching the internet for some time now but I have not found any clue. What does _the city of seven hills_ refer to?

Hildebrand, *Man, Woman, and the Meaning of Love* , § "Friendship Between Man & Woman", §§ "There are many spiritual differences between the sexes" claims: >In the Middle Ages the depth of this difference [between men and women] was totally understood, as evidenced by the interest in the question of whether the angels were also masculine and feminine. What medieval theologians discussed this question? St. Thomas's , John of St. Thomas's , and Súarez's treatises on angels don't appear to discuss it. I've [heard it claimed](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gO0O7w5VBs) that our souls are male or female, yet St. Thomas denies this ([_Super Sent._, lib. 4 d. 25 q. 2 a. 1 qc. 1 arg. 3](http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/snp4024.html#19092) : "*Sed sexus non est in anima.* [But sex is not in the soul.]") and so does St. Ambrose ([_De Virginitate_ cap. 15](https://archive.org/stream/patrologiaecur16mign#page/152/mode/2up) : "*anima enim sexum non habet* [for the soul does not have a sex].").

I'm interested in finding books and studies (both for and against) the idea that Medieval European society had a kind of order that's desirable. Foundationally, there's a clear religious order--officially Western Europe was completely Catholic. In turn, this kind of religious uniformity supported a clear political order--the secular authorities were committed to this religious order and drew from it as a basis for their political order. I believe this is a version of "Medievalism", but there may be a better more specific name for it. Whether such a description of Medieval society is accurate or not really is irrelevant for me: the fact is that a minority of Christians (Catholics and others) seem to have this belief. I'd like to understand more about its recent origins, key apologists for it, and any significant criticisms of the idea. Catholic critiques in particular would be helpful. Patrick Deneen is one key thinker I've already identified. Thanks so much. See: [Medievalism (Wikipedia)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medievalism) .