by Lance Ralston | Aug 10, 2014 | English |
The title of this episode is “What a Mess!”
As is often the case, we start by backing up & reviewing material we’ve already covered so we can launch into the next leg of our journey in Church History.
Anglo-Saxon missionaries to Germany had received the support of Charles Martel, a founder of the Carolingian dynasty. Martel supported these missions because of his desire to expand his rule eastwards into Bavaria. The Pope was grateful for his support, and for Charles’ victory over the Muslims at the Battle of Tours. But Martel fell afoul of papal favor when he confiscated Church lands. At first, the Church consented to his seizing of property to produce income to stave off the Muslim threat. But once that threat was dealt with, he refused to return the lands. Adding insult to injury, Martel ignored the Pope’s request for help against the Lombards taking control of a good chunk of Italy. Martel denied assistance because at that time the Lombards were his allies. But a new era began with the reign of Martel’s heir, Pippin or as he’s better known, Pepin III.
Pepin was raised in the monastery of St. Denis near Paris. He & his brother were helped by the church leader Boniface to carry out a major reform of the Frank church. These reforms of the clergy and church organization brought about a renewal of religious and intellectual life and made possible the educational revival associated with the greatest of the Carolingian rulers, Charlemagne & his Renaissance.
In 751, Pepin persuaded Pope Zachary to allow Boniface to anoint him, King of the Franks, supplanting the Merovingian dynasty. Then, another milestone in church-state relations passed with Pope Stephen II appealing to Pepin for aid against the Lombards. The pope placed Rome under the protection of Pepin and recognized him and his sons as “Protectors of the Romans.”
As we’ve recently seen, all of this Church-State alliance came to a focal point with the crowning of Charlemagne as Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire in AD 800. For some time the Popes in Rome had been looking for a way to loosen their ties to the Eastern Empire & Constantinople. Religious developments in the East provided the Popes an opportunity to finally break free. The Iconoclastic Controversy dominating Eastern affairs gave the Popes one more thing to express their disaffection with. We’ll take a closer look at the controversy later. For now, it’s enough to say the Eastern Emperor Leo III banned the use of icons as images of religious devotion in AD 726. The supporters of icons ultimately prevailed but only after a century of bitter and at times violent dispute. Pope Gregory II rejected Leo’s edict banning icons and flaunted his disrespect for the Emperor’s authority. Gregory’s pompous and scathing letter to the Emperor was long on bluff but a dramatic statement of his rejection of secular rulers’ meddling in Church affairs. Pope Gregory wrote: “Listen! Dogmas are not the business of emperors but of pontiffs.”
The reign of what was regarded by the West as a heretical dynasty in the East gave the Pope the excuse he needed to separate from the East and find a new, devoted and orthodox protector. The alliance between the papacy and the Carolingians represents the culmination of that quest, and opened a new and momentous chapter in the history of European medieval Christianity.
In response to Pope Stephen’s appeal for help against the Lombards, Pepin recovered the Church’s territories in Italy and gave them to the pope, an action known as the ‘Donation of Pepin’. This confirmed the legal status of the Papal States.
At about the same time, the Pope’s claim to the rule of Italy and independence from the Eastern Roman Empire was reinforced by the appearance of one of the great forgeries of the Middle Ages, the Donation of Constantine. This spurious document claimed Constantine the Great had given Rome and the western part of the Empire to the bishop of Rome when he moved the capital of the empire to the East. The Donation was not exposed as a forgery until the 15th Century.
The concluding act in the popes’ attempt to free themselves from Constantinople came on Christmas Day 800 when Pope Leo III revived the Empire in the West by crowning Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor. It’s rather humorous, as one wag put it – the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, and can scarcely be called an Empire.
Charlemagne’s chief scholar was the British-born Alcuin who’d been master of the cathedral school in York. He was courted by Charlemagne to make his capital at Aachen on the border between France & Germany, Europe’s new center of education & scholarship. Alcuin did just that. If the school at Aachen didn’t plant the seeds that would later flower in the Renaissance it certainly prepared the soil for them.
Alcuin profoundly influenced the intellectual, cultural and religious direction of the Carolingian Empire, as the 300-some extant letters he wrote reveal. His influence is best seen in the manuscripts of the school at Tours where he later became abbot. His influence is also demonstrated in his educational writings, revision of the Biblical text, commentaries and the completion of his version of Church liturgy. He standardized spelling and writing, reformed missionary practice, and contributed to the organizing of church regulations. Alcuin was the leading theologian in the struggle against the heresy of Adoptionism. Adoptionists said Jesus was simply a human being who God adopted & MADE a Son. Alcuin was a staunch defender of Christian orthodoxy and the authority of the Church, the pre-eminence of the Roman Bishop and of Charlemagne’s sacred position as Emperor. He died in 804.
The time at which Alcuin lived certainly needed the reforms he brought & he was the perfect agent to bring them. From the palace school at Aachen, a generation of his students went out to head monastic and cathedral schools throughout the land. Even though Charlemagne’s Empire barely outlived its founder, the revival of education and religion associated with he and Alcuin brightened European culture throughout the bleak and chaotic period that followed. This Carolingian Renaissance turned to classical antiquity and early Christianity for its models. The problem is, there was only one Western scholar who still knew Greek, the Irishman John Scotus Erigena. Still, the manuscripts produced during this era form the base from which modern historians gain a picture of the past. It was these classical texts, translated from Greek into Latin that fueled the later European Renaissance.
The intellectual vigor stimulated by the Carolingian Renaissance and the political dynamism of the revived Empire stimulated new theological activity. There was discussion about the continuing Iconoclastic problem in the East. Political antagonism between the Eastern and the Carolingian emperors led to an attack by theologians in the West on the practices and beliefs of the Orthodox Church in the East. These controversial works on the ‘Errors of the Greeks’ flourished during the 9th C as a result of the Photian Schism.
In 858, Byzantine Emperor Michael III deposed the Patriarch Ignatius I of Constantinople, replacing him with a lay scholar named Photius I, AKA Photius the Great. The now deposed Ignatius appealed to Pope Nicholas I to restore him while Photius asked the Pope to recognize his appointment. The Pope ordered the restoration of Ignatius & relations between East & West sunk further. The issue ended in 867 when Pope Nicholas died & Photius was deposed.
Latin theologians also criticized the Eastern church for its different method of deciding the date of Easter, the difference in the way clergy cut their hair, and the celibacy of priests. The Eastern Church allowed priests to marry while requiring monks to be celibate, whereas the Western Church required celibacy of both.
Another major doctrinal debate was the Filioque [Filly-o-quay] Controversy we briefly touched on in an earlier episode. Now, before I get a barrage of emails, there’s debate among scholars over the pronunciation of Filioque. Some say “Filly-oak” others “Filly-o-quay.” Take your pick.
The point is, the Controversy dealt with the wording of the Nicene Creed as related to the Holy Spirit. The original Creed said the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father. A bit later, the Western Church altered the wording a bit so as to affirm the equality of the Son of God with the Father. So they said the Spirit proceeded from both Father & Son. Filioque is Latin for “and the Son” thus giving the name of the controversy. The Eastern Church saw this addition as dangerous tampering with the Creed and refused to accept it while the Filioque clause became a standard part of what was considered normative doctrine in the West.
Another major discussion arose over the question of predestination. A Carolingian monk named Gottschalk, who studied Augustine’s theology carefully, was the first to teach ‘double predestination’; the belief that some people are predestined to salvation, while others are predestined to damnation. He was tried and condemned for his views by 2 synods and finally imprisoned by the Archbishop of Rheims. Gottschalk died 20 years later, holding his views to the end.
The other major theological issue of the Carolingian era concerned the Lord’s Supper. The influential Abbot of Corbie wrote a treatise titled On the Body and Blood of the Lord. This was the first clear statement of a doctrine of the ‘real presence’ of Christ’s body and blood in the Communion elements, later called the doctrine of “transubstantiation,” an issue that will become a heated point in the debate between the Roman Church & Reformers.
The reforms of King Pepin and Pope Boniface focused attention on priests. It was clear to all that clergy ought to lead lives beyond reproach. That synod after synod during the 6th, 7th, & 8th Cs had to make such a major issue of this demonstrated the need for reform. Among the violations warned against were the rejection of celibacy, gluttony, drunkenness, tawdry relationships with women, hunting, carrying arms & frequenting taverns.
Monastic developments at this time were significant. The emphasis was on standardization and centralization. Between 813 and 17 a revised Benedictine rule was adopted for the whole of the Carolingian Empire. Another Benedict, a monk from Burgundy, was responsible for an ultra-strict regimen. Charlemagne’s successor, Louis the Pious, appointed Benedict the overseer of all monasteries in the realm, and a few years later his revised Benedictine rule was made obligatory for all monasteries. Sadly, with little long-term effect.
When Louis succeeded Charlemagne, the Pope was able to regain his independence, following a long domination by the Emperor. The imperial theocracy of Charlemagne’s reign would have yielded a ‘state church’ as already existed in the East. But the papacy stressed the superiority of spiritual power over the secular. This was reinforced by the forged Donation of Constantine with its emphasis on papal pre-eminence in the governing of the Empire, not just the Church.
In the middle of the 9th C, priests at Rheims produced another remarkable forgery, the False Decretals. Accomplished with great inventiveness, the Decretals were designed to provide a basis in law which protected the rights of bishops. They included the bogus Donation of Constantine and became a central part of the canon of medieval law. It shored up papal claims to supremacy in church affairs over secular authority. The first Pope to make use of the False Decretals was Nicholas I. He recognized the danger of a Church dominated by civil rulers and was determined to avert this by stressing that the church’s government was centered on Rome, not Constantinople, and certainly not in some lesser city like Milan or Ravenna.
From the late 9th until the mid-11th C, Western Christendom was beset by a host of major challenges that left the region vulnerable. The Carolingian Empire fragmented, leaving no major military power to defend Western Europe. Continued attacks by Muslims in the S, a fresh wave of attacks by the Magyars in the E, and incessant raids by the Norsemen all over the Empire, turned the shards of the empire into splinters. One contemporary lamented, “Once we had a king, now we have kinglets!” For many Western Europeans, it seemed the end of the world was at hand.
The popes no longer had Carolingian rulers as protectors. So the papacy became increasingly involved in the power struggles among the nobility for the rule of Italy. Popes became partisans of one political faction or another; sometimes willingly, other times coerced. But the cumulative result was spiritual and moral decline. For instance, Pope Stephen VI took vengeance on the preceding pope by having his body disinterred and brought before a synod, where it was propped up in a chair for trial. Following conviction, the body was thrown into the Tiber River. Then, within a year Stephen himself was overthrown. He was strangled while in prison.
There was a near-complete collapse of civil order in Europe during the 10th C. Church property was ransacked by invaders or fell into the hands of the nobility. Noblemen treated churches and monasteries as their private property to dispose of as they wished. The clergy became indifferent to duty. Their illiteracy & immorality grew.
The 10th C was a genuine dark age, at least as far as the condition of the Church was concerned. Without imperial protection, popes became helpless playthings for the nobility, who fought to gain control by appointing relatives and political favorites. A chronicle by the German bishop of Cremona paints a graphic picture of sexual debauchery in the Church.
Though there were incompetent & immoral popes during this time, they continued to be respected throughout the West. Bishoprics and abbeys were founded by laymen after they obtained the approval of the papal court. Pilgrimages to Rome hardly slackened during this age, as Christians visited the sacred sites of the West; that is, the tombs of Peter and Paul, as well as a host of other relics venerated in there.
At the lowest ebb of the 10th C, during the reign of Pope John XII, from 955-64, a major change in Italian politics affected the papacy. An independent & capable German monarchy emerged. This Saxon dynasty began with the election of Henry I and continued with his son, Otto I, AKA Otto the Great .
Otto developed a close relationship with the Church in Germany. Bishops and abbots were given the rights and honor of high nobility. The church received huge tracts of land. Thru this alliance with the Church, Otto aimed to forestall the rebellious nobles of his kingdom.
But the new spiritual aristocracy created by Otto wasn’t hereditary. Bishops & abbots couldn’t “pass on” their privileges to their successors. Favor was granted by the King to whomever he chose. Thus, their loyalty could be counted on more readily. In fact, the German bishops contributed money and arms to help the German kings expand into Italy, what is now the regions of East Germany & Poland.
Otto helped raise the papacy out of the quagmire of Italian politics. His entrance into Italian affairs was a fateful decision. He marched south into Italy to marry Adelaide of Burgundy and declare himself king of the Lombards. Ten years later, he again marched south at the invitation of Pope John XII. In February of 962, the Pope tried a renewal of the Holy Roman Empire by crowning Otto and Adelaide in St Peter’s. But the price paid by the pope for Otto’s support was another round of interference in Church affairs.
For the next 300 years, each new German monarch followed up his election by making a march to Rome to be crowned as Emperor. But at this point, it wasn’t so much Popes who made Emperors as it was Emperors who made Popes. And when a pope ran afoul of the ruler, he was conveniently labeled ‘anti-pope’ & deposed, to be replaced by the next guy. It was the age of musical chairs in Rome; whoever grabs the papal chair when the music stops gets to sit. But when the Emperor instructs the band to play again, whoever’s in the chair has to stand and the game starts all over again. Lest you think I’m overstating the case, in 963 Otto returned to Rome, convened a synod which found Pope John guilty of a list of sordid crimes and deposed him. In his place, they chose a layman, who received all of his ecclesiastical orders in a single day to become Pope Leo VIII. He managed to sit in the Pope’s chair less than a year before the music started all over again.
by Lance Ralston | Aug 3, 2014 | English |
Welcome to the 49th installment of CS. This episode is titled “Charlemagne Pt. 2.”
After his coronation on Christmas Day AD 800, Charlemagne said he didn’t know it had been planned by Pope Leo III. If setting the crown of a new Holy Roman Empire on his head was a surprise, he got over the shock right quick. He quickly shot off dispatches to the lands under his control to inform them he was large and in-charge. Each missive began with these words, “Charles, by the will of God, Roman Emperor, Augustus … in the year of our consulship 1.” He required an oath be taken to him as Caesar by all officers, whether religious or civil. He sent ambassadors to soothe the inevitable wrath of the Emperor in Constantinople.
What’s important to note is how his coronation ceremony in St. Peter’s demonstrated the still keen memory of the Roman Empire that survived in Europe. His quick emergence as the recognized leader of a large part of Europe revealed the strong desire there was to reestablish a political unity that had been absent from the region for 400 years. But, Charlemagne’s coronation launched a long-standing contest. One we’d not expect, since it was, after all, the Pope who crowned him. The contest was between the revived empire and the Roman Church.
In the medieval world, Church and State were two realms comprising Christendom. The Medieval Church represented Christian society aimed at acquiring spiritual blessings, while the Medieval State existed to safeguard civil justice and tranquility. Under the medieval system, both Church and State were supposed to exist side by side in a harmonious relationship, each focused on gaining the good of mankind but in different spheres; the spiritual and the civil.
In reality, it rarely worked that way. The Pope and Emperor were usually contestants in a game of thrones. The abiding question was: Does the Church rule the State, or the State the Church? This contest was played out on countless fields, large and small, throughout the Middle Ages.
Charlemagne left no doubt about where sovereignty lay during His reign. He provided Europe a colossal father figure as the first Holy Roman Emperor. Everyone was answerable to him. To solve the problem of supervising local officials in his expansive realm, Charlemagne passed an ordinance creating the missi dominici or king’s envoys. These were pairs of officials, a bishop and noble, who traveled the realm to check on local officials. Even the pope was kept under the watchful imperial eye.
Though Charlemagne occasionally used the title “emperor” in official documents, he usually declined it because it appeared to register his acceptance of what the Pope had done at his coronation. Charlemagne found this dangerous; that the Pope was now in a position to make an Emperor. The concern was—The one who can MAKE an emperor, can un-make him. Charles thought it ought to be the other way around; that Emperors selected and sanctioned Popes.
In truth, what Pope Leo III did on Christmas Day of 800 when he placed the crown on Charlemagne’s head was just a final flourish of what was already a well-established fact – Charles was King of the Franks. One recent lecturer described the coronation as the cherry on the top of a sundae that had already been made by Charles the Great.
In our last episode we saw a major objective of Charlemagne’s vision was to make Europe an intellectual center. He launched a revival of learning and the arts. Historians speak of this as the Carolingian Renaissance. Charlemagne required monasteries to have a school for the education of boys in grammar, math and singing. At his capital of Aachen he built a school for the education of the royal court. The famous English scholar Alcuin headed the school, and began the difficult task of reviving learning in the early Middle Ages by authoring the first textbooks in grammar, rhetoric, and logic.
It was Charlemagne’s emphasis on education that proved to be his enduring legacy to history. He sent out agents far and wide to secure every work of the classical age they could find. They returned to Aachen and the monastery schools where they were translated into Latin. This is why Latin became the language of scholarship in the ages to come. It was helped along by Charlemagne’s insistence a standard script be developed – Carolingian miniscule. Now, scholars all across Western Europe could read the same materials, because a consistent script was being used for Latin letters.
This became one of the most important elements in making the Renaissance possible.
Few historians deny Charlemagne’s massive impact on European history, and thereby, the history of the modern world. The center of western civilization shifted from the Mediterranean to Northern Europe. After 300 years of virtual chaos, Charles the Great restored a measure of law and order. His sponsorship of the intellectual arts laid a heritage of culture for future generations. And the imperial ideal he revived persisted as a political force in Europe until 1806, when the Holy Roman Empire was terminated by another self-styled emperor, Napoleon Bonaparte.
In reality, the peace of Charlemagne’s rule was short-lived. His empire were too vast, its nobility too powerful to be held together once his domineering personality was removed. Like Clovis before him, Charlemagne’s successors were weak and the empire disintegrated into a confusion of civil wars and new invasions. The Northmen began their incessant raiding forays, called going “a-viking” à So we know them as the Vikings. They set sail from Scandinavia in their shallow-hulled long ships, able to sail up rivers and deep inland, where they raided villages, towns and any other unfortunate hamlet they came on. These raids of the Vikings, forced the native peoples to surrender, first their lands, then their persons to the counts, dukes, and other local lords who began to multiply during this time, in return for protection from the raiders. It’s not difficult to see how the process of feudalism developed.
Common people needed protection from raiders; whoever they were. But the king and his army was a long way away. It could take weeks, months even, to send a message and get help in reply. In the meantime, the Vikings are right here; right now. See ‘em? Yeah à That blond, long-haired giant berserker with his 2 headed battle axe is about to crash through my door. What good is the king and his army in Aachen or Paris?
What I need is someone near with enough men at his call, enough trained and armed soldiers that is, who can turn away a long-ship’s crew of 50 berserkers. How expensive is it to hire, train, outfit and keep a group of soldiers; figure 2 for ever Viking? Who can field an army of a hundred professional soldiers? Well, the nearest Count is 20 minutes away and he only has a half dozen hired men for protection.
That count’s a smart guy though and realizes he’s the only one in the area to do what needs to be done. So he goes to 25 of the area’s farmers and says, “Listen, I’ll protect you. But to do that, I need to field an army of a hundred men. That’s very expensive to do so here’s what I need in exchange for protection: Give me the title to your land. You live on and continue to work it. You keep half the yield of all the farm produces; the rest is mine. And for that, I and my army will keep you safe.”
When the choice is either yield to that Count or face the long-ships on your own; there’s not much choice. So feudalism with its system of serfs, counts, barons, dukes, and earls began.
Central to feudalism was the personal bond between lord and vassals. In the ceremony known as the act of homage, the vassal knelt before his lord, and promised to be his “man.” In the oath of loyalty that followed, called fealty, the vassal swore on a Bible, or a sacred object such as a Cross. Then, in the ritual of investiture, a spear, a glove, or a bit of straw was handed to the vassal to signify his control, but not ownership, over his allotted piece of the lord’s realm.
The feudal contract between lord and vassal was sacred and binding on both parties. Breaking the tie was a major felony because it was the basic bond of medieval society. It was thought that to break the rules of feudal society was to imperil all of society, civilization itself.
The lord was obliged to give his vassals protection and justice. Vassals not only worked the land for the Lord, they also gave 40 days w/o pay each year to serve as militia in the event of all-out war. But only 40 days, because as farmers, they needed to be home to work their fields and tend the herds.
For the most part, this system worked pretty well, as long as the lord treated his vassals well. What became a problem was when lords got greedy and decided to mobilize their army and militia to make a land grab on a neighboring lord. Ideally, Feudalism was supposed to be for protection, not conquest.
As the Church was so much a part of medieval life, it couldn’t escape being included in the feudal system. Since the Vikings were equal opportunity raiders, they had no qualms whatever about breaking into churches, convents and monasteries, putting priests and monks to the sword, raping nuns, and absconding with church treasures. This meant the Church turned to local lords for protection as well. Bishops and abbots also became vassals, receiving from the lord a specific region over which their authority lay. In return, they had to provide some service to the Lord. Monasteries produced different goods which they paid as tribute, and priests were often made the special private clergy for the noble’s family. This became a problem when loyalty to the lord conflicted with a ruling from or mission assigned by the Church. Who were the abbots, priest and bishops to obey, the duke 10 minutes from here, or the Pope weeks away in Rome? In the 10th and early 11th Cs the popes were in no position to challenge anyone. The office fell into decay after becoming a prize sought by the Roman nobility.
What made the latter Middle Ages so complex was the massive intrigue that took place between Nobles and Church officials who learned how to play the feudal game. Society was governed by strict rules. But there were always ways to get around them. And when one couldn’t get around them, if you had enough money or a big enough army, why bother with rules when you can write your own, or pay the rule-interpreters to interpret them in your favor. We know how complex political maneuvering can be today. Compared to Europe of the High Middle Ages, we’re infants in a nursery. Don’t forget, it was that era and system that produced Machiavelli.
On a positive note; while there were a few corrupt Church officials who saw religious office as just another way to gain political power, most bishops, priests and abbots sought to influence for the better the behavior of the feudal nobles so their vassals would be taken care of in an ethical manner. In time, their work added the Christian virtues to a code of knightly conduct that came to be called Chivalry. Now, to be clear, chivalry ended up being more an ideal than a practice. A few knights and members of the nobility embraced the Chivalric ideals but others just took advantage of those who sought to live by them.
Knights in shining armor, riding off on dangerous quests to rescue fair maidens makes for fun stories, but it’s not the way Chivalry played out in history. It was an ideal the Church worked hard to instill in the increasingly brutal Feudal Age. Bishops tried to impose limitations on warfare. In the 11th C they inaugurated a couple initiatives called the Peace of God and the Truce of God. The Peace of God banned anyone who pillaged sacred places or refused to spare noncombatants from being able to participate at Communion or receiving any of the other sacraments. The Truce of God set up periods of time when no fighting was allowed. For instance, no combat could be conducted from sunset Wednesday to sunrise Monday and during other special seasons, such as Lent. Good ideas, but both rules were conveniently set aside when they worked contrary to some knights desires.
During the 11th C, the controversy between Church and State centered on the problem of what’s called Investiture. And this goes back now to something that had been in tension for centuries, and was renewed in the crowning of Charlemagne.
It was supposed to be that bishops and abbots were appointed to their office by the Church. Their spiritual authority was invested in them by a Church official. But because bishops and abbots had taken on certain feudal responsibilities, they were invested with civil authority by the local noble; sometimes by the king himself. Problems arose when a king refused to invest a bishop because said bishop was more interested in the Church’s cause than the king’s. He wanted someone more compliant to his agenda, while the Church wanted leaders who would look out for her interests. It was a constant game of brinkmanship, in which whatever institution held most influence, had the say in who lead the churches and monasteries. In places like Germany where the king was strong, bishops and abbots were his men. Where the Church had greater influence, it was the bishops and abbots who dominated political affairs.
But that was the controversy of the 11th C. The Church of the 10th could see the way things were headed in its affiliation with the Throne and knew it was not prepared to challenge kings and emperors. It needed to set its own house in order because things had slipped badly for a couple hundred years. Moral corruption had infected large portions of the clergy and learning had sunk to a low. Many of the clergy were illiterate and marked by grave superstitions. It was time for renewal and reform. This was led by the Benedictine order of Cluny, founded in 910. From their original monastery in Eastern France, the Benedictines exerted a powerful impulse of reform within the feudal Church. The Cluniac program began as monastic reform movement, but spread to the European Church as a whole. It enforced the celibacy of priests and abolished the purchase of church offices; a corrupt practice called Simony.
The goal of the Clunaic reformers was to free the Church from secular control and return it to the Pope’s authority. Nearly 300 monasteries were freed from control by the nobles, and in 1059 the papacy itself was delivered from secular interference. This came about by the creation of the College of Cardinals, which from then on selected the Pope.
The man who led the much-needed reform of the papacy was an arch-deacon named Hildebrand. He was elected pope in 1073 and given the title Gregory VII. He claimed more power for the papal office than had been known before and worked for the creation of a Christian Empire under the Pope’s control. Rather than equality between Church and State, Gregory said spiritual power was supreme and therefore trumped the temporal power of nobles and kings. In 1075 he banned investiture by civil officials and threatened to excommunicate anyone who performed it as well as any clergy who submitted to it. This was a virtual declaration of war on Europe’s rulers since most of them practiced lay investiture.
The climax to the struggle between Pope Gregory and Europe’s nobility took place in his clash with the emperor Henry IV. The pope accused Henry of Simony in appointing his own choice to be the archbishop of Milan. Gregory summoned Henry to Rome to explain his conduct. Henry refused to go but convened a synod of German bishops in 1076 that declared Gregory a usurper and unfit to be Pope. The synod declared, “Wherefore henceforth we renounce, now and for the future, all obedience to you.” In retaliation, Gregory excommunicated Henry and deposed him, absolving his subjects from their oaths of allegiance.
Now, remember how sacred and firm those feudal oaths between lord and vassal were! The Pope, who was supposed to be God’s representative on Earth, sent a message to all Henry’s subjects saying not only was Henry booted out of the Church, and so destined to the eternal flames of hell, he was no longer king or emperor; their bonds to him were dissolved. Furthermore, to continue to give allegiance to Henry was to defy the Pope who opens and closes the door to heaven. Uhh, do you really want to do that? Can you see where this is going? Henry may have an army, but that army has to eat and if the peasants and serfs won’t work, the army falls apart.
Henry was convinced by the German nobles who revolted against him to make peace with Pope Gregory. He appeared before the Pope in January of 1077. Dressed as a penitent, the emperor stood barefoot in the snow for 3 days and begged forgiveness until, in Gregory’s words “We loosed the chain of the anathema and at length received him … into the lap of the Holy Mother Church.”
This dramatic humiliation of an emperor did not forever end the contest between the throne and the pope. But the Church made progress toward freeing itself from interference by nobles. The problem of investiture was settled in 1122 by a compromise known as the Concordat of Worms. The Church kept the right to appoint the holder of a church office, then the nobles endorsed him.
The Popes who followed Gregory added little to the authority of the papacy. They also insisted society was organized under the pope as its visible head, and he was guarded against all possibility of error by the Apostle Peter perpetually-present in his successors.
During the Middle Ages, for the first time, Europe became conscious of itself as a unity. It was the Church that facilitated that identity. Though it struggled with the challenge of how to wield power without being corrupted by it, the Church gained a level of influence over the lives of men and women that for the most part it used to benefit society.
We’re used to seeing priests and bishops of the medieval era as modern literature and movies cast them. It’s far more interesting to make them out to be villains and scoundrels, instead of godly servants of Christ who lived virtuous lives. A survey of movies and novels written about the Middle Ages shows that churchmen are nearly always cast in 1 of 2 ways; the best are naïve but illiterate bumblers, while the worst are conniving criminals who hide their wickedness behind a cross. While there was certainly a handful of each of these 2 type-casts; the vast majority of priests and monks were simply godly lovers of Jesus who worked tirelessly to bring His love and truth to the people of their day. Guys like that just don’t make for very interesting characters in a murder mystery set in a medieval monastery.
by Lance Ralston | Jul 27, 2014 | English |
The title of this 48th episode of CS is “Charlemagne – Part 1.”
The political landscape of our time is dominated by the idea that nation-states are autonomous, sovereign societies in which religion at best plays a minor role. Religion may be an influence in shaping some aspects of culture, but affiliation with a religious group is voluntary and distinct from the rest of society.
What we need to understand if we’re going to be objective in our study of history is that, that idea simply did not exist in Europe during the Middle Ages.
In the 9th C, the Frank king Charles the Great, better known as Charlemagne, sought to makes Augustine’s vision of society in his magnum opus, The City of God, a reality. He merged Church and State, fusing a new political-religious alliance. His was a conscious effort to merge the Roman Catholic Church with what was left of the old Roman political house, creating a hybrid Holy Roman Empire. The product became what’s called Medieval European Christendom.
How did it come about that Jesus’ statement that His kingdom was not of this world, could be so massively reworked? Let’s find out.
300 years after the Fall of the Western Empire to the Goths, the idea and ideal of Empire continued to fire the imaginations of the people of Europe. Though the barbarians were divided into several groups and remained at constant war with each other, the longing for peace and unity that marked the region under the Roman Eagle held a powerful attraction. Many looked forward to the day when a new Empire would appear. Just as the Eastern Empire centered at Constantinople saw itself as Rome-still, the vestiges of the Western Empire along with their German neighbors hoped the Empire would (insert Star Wars reference) strike back and rise again.
By merging the Roman and Germanic religions, customs and peoples, the Franks under Clovis became the odds on favorite to accomplish what many hoped for. But Clovis’ dynasty began to fall apart not long after he passed from the scene. His descendants were at odds with each other, vying for pre-eminence. They became adept at intrigue and treachery.
The power vacuum created by their squabbles gave room for wealthy aristocrats to gain power. Like 2 dogs fighting over a scrap of food, while they’re busy snarling and snapping at each other, the cat comes and quietly steals away what they’re fighting over. So it was with Clovis’ descendants, the Merovingians. While they fought each other, the landed nobility quietly stole more and more of their authority. Among these emerging aristocrats was one who worked his way into the heart of power to become the most influential figure in the kingdom. He was called the “majordomo” or “mayor of the palace.”
The majordomo was the real power behind the throne. He ran the kingdom while the king served as little more than a ceremonial figurehead. The idea was that the son of the previous king wasn’t necessarily the one most fit to rule just because of his birth. So while the title went legally to him, the day-to-day business of running the realm was better served by another with the skills to get the job done.
In 680, Pepin II became majordomo for the Franks. He made no pretense of his desire to supplant the Merovingian line with his own as the de-facto rulers. He took the title of Duke and Prince of the Franks and made moves to ensure his line would eventually sit the throne.
His son, Charles Martel, became majordomo in 715. Charles allowed the Merovingian kings to retain their title but as little more than figureheads. What catapulted Charles to the throne was his defeat of the Muslims in 732.
In 711 a Muslim army from North Africa called the Moors invaded Spain and rolled back the weak kingdom of the Visigoths by 718. With the Iberian Peninsula under their control, the Moors began raiding across the Pyrenees into Southern Gaul. Until this time, the Muslims had advanced at a steady pace out of the Middle East, across North Africa, then into Europe. It seemed no one in the West could stop them and the fear of the infidel hordes running amuck throughout the lands of Christendom was a terror.
In 732 Charles led the Franks against a Moor raiding party near Tours, deep inside the Frank’s land. He inflicted such heavy losses the Moors retreated to Spain and were never again a major threat to Western Europe. For this and his other conquests, Charles was called Martell – “the Hammer.”
Martel’s son, Pepin III, also known as Pepin the Short, considered it time to make the power of the Frank majordomo more official. Why not give the title of “king” to the guy who was actually ruling, instead of some royal spoiled brat who thought armies were just large toys to play with? Pepin III asked Pope Zachary for a ruling saying whoever actually wielded power was the legal ruler. He got what he wanted, promptly deposed the last Merovingian King, Childeric III, and was crowned the first of the Carolingian kings by the bishop of Mainz in 751. Childeric was quietly shuffled off to a monastery where he was told to mind his manners or he’d wake up dead one day. Then, 3 years after Pepin’s coronation, Pope Stephen II himself blessed him by making the trip from Rome to Paris and personally anointing Pepin as the “Chosen of the Lord.”
Both Popes Zachary and Stephen were eager to shore up the alliance with the Franks begun with Clovis because of the emerging problem with the Lombards. They’d already conquered Ravenna, the center of Byzantine power in Italy. The Lombards demanded tribute from the pope and threatened to take Rome if it wasn’t paid. With Pepin’s coronation, the Church at Rome secured his promise of protection and his pledge to give the pope the territory of Ravenna once it was recovered. In 756, the Franks forced the Lombards to surrender several of their Italian conquests, and Pepin kept his promise to give Ravenna to the Pope. This was known as the “Donation of Pepin,” and came to be called the Papal States. This made the Pope a temporal ruler over a strip of land cutting across Italy.
This alliance between the Franks and the Church at Rome, or more properly, between the Carolingian kings and the Popes, had a dramatic impact on the course of European politics for centuries to come. It sped up the separation of the Latin and Greek Church by giving the Popes an ally to replace the Byzantines. And it created the Papal States which will play a major role in Italian politics all the way up to the late 19th C.
But one of the most significant issues was that with the Popes taking a hand in anointing kings, it set the stage for the eventual vying for power between Church and State, between Pope and Emperor. The question became: Who was really in charge? The Pope—who by reason of setting the crown on the king’s head, sanctioned his rule, or the King—whose armies were the enforcement end of the Pope’s staff and protected him from enemies? Do popes make kings, or do kings make popes? Fire up the medieval merry-go-round.
It was Pepin III’s son who took all that his father and grandfather had done and put the cap on it. His name also was Charles; Charles the Great; known to us as Charlemagne.
When Charlemagne succeeded his father in 768 he had a far-reaching vision of making Central Europe into a new Empire, similar to the Golden Age of Rome, but this time enlightened by Christianity.
To accomplish this vision he had 3 objectives:
1) Boost the Franks military might so they could dominate Europe,
2) Secure an alliance with the Church to unite Europe under one faith,
3) Make this European base an intellectual center.
Charlemagne’s success, if we can call it that, set the course for Europe for the next thousand years.
Charles the Great was a big man. At 6’3” he was a full foot taller than average at that time. But to those who met him he seemed even bigger because he was one of those people who had an extra dose of gravitas. He was skilled at arms and was always at the head of the army when they went into battle, which he led the Franks in every year.
The Merovingians had wasted the strength of the Franks in incessant civil wars. Charlemagne united the Franks and set them on the task of conquest. He took advantage of feuds among the Muslims Moors in Spain and in 778 crossed the Pyrenees in an attempt to reclaim the Iberian Peninsula. His first campaign was met with minor success but later expeditions drove the Moors back to the Ebro River and established a frontier known as the Spanish March centered at Barcelona.
Then Charlemagne conquered the Bavarians and Saxons, last of the independent Germanic tribes. He ruthlessly attempted to stamp out the residue of Germanic paganism by passing harsh laws, such as saying eating meat during Lent, cremating the dead, and pretending to be baptized, were offenses punishable by death.
The kingdom’s eastern frontier was continually threatened by Asiatic nomads related to the Huns known as the Slavs and Avars. Charlemagne decimated the Avars and set up his own military province in the Danube valley to guard against future plundering. He called this the East March, later called Austria.
Then, like his father before him, Charlemagne sought to take a hand in Italian politics. The Lombards invaded that territory Pepin had given the Church. So, in 774 at the Pope’s urging, Charlemagne once again defeated the Lombards and proclaimed himself their king.
The Lombard’s campaigns and conquests made it clear the Popes needed protection. Only one military and political power had that ability, the Frank king. Charlemagne, on the other hand, needed divine sanction to accomplish his goal of uniting Europe. Only one authority possessed the religious mojo to do that – the Pope. Can you see where this is headed?
April 25, 799 was St. Mark’s Day, a day set aside for repentance and prayer. It seemed the right thing to do since Italy had been stricken by numerous problems, including plague and pestilence. So Pope Leo III led a procession thru Rome beseeching God’s forgiveness and blessing.
The procession wound thru the middle of the city to St. Peter’s. As it turned a corner, armed men rushed at the pope. They drove off his attendants, and pulled Leo off his horse, carting him off to a monastery favorable to their cause. That being that they were officials and dignitaries loyal to the previous pope, Adrian I. Perjury and adultery were the charges leveled at Leo. The pope’s supporters tracked him down and rescued him.
This created a furor that sparked on-going riots that could not be quelled. So Pope Leo once again sent for Charlemagne. He crossed the Alps with an army, determined to settle the pope’s problem once and for all. He put down the unrest and in December presided over a large assembly of bishops, nobles, diplomats and malcontents. In other words, anyone who considered themselves someone and held a hand in the political game was in attendance. Then, the pope, wielding a Bible, took an oath swearing innocence in all charges against him. That brought the mutiny against him to an effective end. But it set the stage for a far more momentous development.
2 days later, Christmas Day AD 800, Charlemagne arrived at St. Peter’s with a large retinue for the Christmas service. Pope Leo sang the mass and the king knelt in prayer in front of Peter’s crypt. The pope approached the kneeling monarch carrying a golden crown. Leo placed it on Charlemagne’s head as the congregation cried: “To Charles, the most pious, crowned Augustus by God, to the great peace-making Emperor, long life and victory!” The pope then prostrated himself. Charlemagne, King of the Franks, had just become the first king of the Holy Roman Empire.
We’ll conclude Charlemagne’s story next time.
by Lance Ralston | Jul 20, 2014 | English |
This week’s episode is titled – “Challenge.”
We’ve tracked the development and growth of the Church in the East over a few episodes. To be clear, we’re talking about the Church which made its headquarters in the city of Seleucia, twin city to the Persian capital of Ctesiphon, in the region known as Mesopotamia. What today historians refer to as The Church in the East called itself the Assyrian Church. But it was known by the Catholic Church in the West with its twin centers at Rome and Constantinople, by the disparaging title of the Nestorian Church because it continued on in the theological tradition of Bishop Nestorius, declared heretical by the Councils of Ephesus in 431 and Chalcedon 20 years later. As we’ve seen, it’s doubtful what Nestorius taught about the nature of Christ was truly errant. But Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, more for political reasons than from a concern for theological purity, convinced his peers Nestorius was a heretic and had him and his followers banished. They moved East and formed the core of the Church in the East.
While that branch of the Church thrived during the European Middle Ages, the Western Catholic Church coalesced around 2 centers; Rome and Constantinople. Though they’d reached agreement over the doctrinal issues regarding the nature of Christ and expelled both the Nestorians to the East and the Monophysite Jacobites to their enclaves in Syria and Egypt, the Western and Eastern halves of the Roman Church drifted apart.
The Council of Constantinople in 692 marked one of several turning points in the eventual rift between Rome and Constantinople. Called by the Emperor, the Council was attended only by Eastern Bishops. It dealt with no real doctrinal matters but set down rules for how the Church was to be organized and worship conducted. The problem is that several of the decisions went contrary to the long-held practice in Rome and the churches in Western Europe that looked to it. The Pope rejected the Council. à And the gulf between Rome and Constantinople widened.
This gap between the Eastern and Western halves of the Church mirrored what was happening in the Empire at large. As we’ve seen, Justinian I tried to revive the gory of the Roman Empire in the 6th C, but after his death, the Empire quickly reverted to its path toward disintegration. What helped this dissolution was the emergence of Islam from the southeast corner of the Empire.
Historically, the Arabs were a people of multiple tribes who shared both a common culture and distrust of one another which fueled endless conflict. But the early 7th C saw them united by a new and militant religion. The endless struggles that had kept them at each other’s throats, were merged into a shared mission of setting them at everyone else’s. Why steal from each other in generations of just transferring the same loot back and forth when they could unite and grab new plunder from their neighbors?
And so much the better when those neighbors who used to be too strong to attack, were now in decline and under-defended?
It was a Perfect Storm. The emergence of the Muslim armies in the early 7th C, bursting forth from the furnace that forged them, came right at the time when the once unstoppable might of the Roman Empire was finally a relic of a bygone age. Constantinople was able to hold the invaders at bay for another 700 years, but Islam spread quickly over other lands of the once great Empire; into the Middle East, North Africa, and was even able to get a foothold in Europe when they jumped the Straits of Gibraltar and landed in Spain. In the East, the Muslims swept up into Rome’s ancient nemesis, Persia, and quickly subdued it as well.
It all began with the birth of an Arab named Muhammad in 570.
Since this is a podcast on the history of Christianity rather than Islam, I’ll be brief in this review of the new religion that moved the Arabs out of their peninsula during the 7th C.
Islam marks its beginning to the Hegira, Muhammad’s move from his hometown of Mecca to the city of Medina in AD 622. This began the successful phase of his preaching. Muhammad built a theology that included elements of Judaism, Christianity, and Arabian polytheism.
While there’s much talk today about Islam’s place with Judaism and Christianity as a monotheistic religion, a little research reveals Muhammad really only elevated one of the Arab’s gods over the others – that is Il-Allah, or as it is known today – Allah. Allah was the moon god and patron deity of Muhammad’s Quraysh tribe. The enduring proof of this is the symbol of the crescent moon that adorns the top of every Muslim mosque and minaret and is the universal symbol of Islam.
Muhammad’s new religion included elements of both Judaism and Christianity because he hoped to include both groups in his new movement. The Jews refused his efforts while several Christians joined the new movement. It’s understandable why. The church Muhammad was familiar with was one that had been co-opted by Arab superstition. It hardly resembled Biblical Christianity. It was ripe pickings for the emergent faith. When Islam later ran into more orthodox Christian communities, they refused the new faith. Muhammad was incensed at the Jews and Christians refusal to join, so they became the object of his wrath.
Part of Muhammad’s genius was that he sanctified the Arabic penchant for war by uniting the tribes and sending them on the mission of taking Islam to the rest of the world thru the power of the sword. Loot was made over as a religious bonus, evidence of divine favor.
Islam’s rapid spread across Western Asia and North Africa was facilitated by the vacuum left from the chronic wars between Rome and Persia. Just prior to the Arab conquests, the old combatants had concluded yet another round in their long contest and were exhausted!
In the 2nd decade of the 7th C, the Persians conquered Syria and Palestine from the Romans, took Antioch, pillaged Jerusalem, then conquered Alexandria in Egypt. That means the Persians ruled what had been the 2nd and 3rd most populous cities of the Roman Empire. They conquered most of Asia Minor and set-up camp just across the Bosporus from Constantinople.
Then, in one of the great reversals of history, Emperor Heraclius rallied the Eastern Empire and launched a Holy War to reclaim the lands lost to the Persians. They retook Syria, Palestine, Egypt and invaded deep into Persia. You can well imagine what all this war did politically, environmentally and economically to the region. It left it exhausted. Like a body whose defenses are down, the Eastern Empire was ripe for a new invasion. And look; Oh goodie à Here come the Arabs swinging their scimitars. The Arab advance was nothing less than spectacular.
Muhammad died in 632 and was followed by a series of associates known as caliphs. In 635 the Arabs took Damascus, in 638 they captured Jerusalem. Alexandria fell in 642. Then the Muslim armies turned north and swept up into the demoralized region of Persia. By 650 it was theirs, as were parts of Asia Minor and a large part of North Africa.
The Muslims realized conquering the Mediterranean would require they become a naval power. They did and began taking strategic islands in the Eastern and Central sea. In the 670s with their new navy, they began taking shots at Constantinople but were chased off by a new invention – Greek Fire.
They conquered Carthage in 697, the center of Byzantine might in North Africa. Then in 715, they hopped the Straits of Gibraltar and landed in Spain, bringing the Visigothic rule there to an end. They then crossed the Pyrenees and laid claim to Southwestern Gaul. It wasn’t ill the Battle of Tours in 732 that the Franks under Charles Martel were able to put a halt to the Muslim advance. That also marks the beginning of the ever so slow roll-back of Muslim domination in the Iberian Peninsula.
But what territory Islam lost in the far western reach of their holdings was made up for by their advances in the East. During the 8th C, they reached into Punjab in India and deep into Central Asia.
The major islands of the Mediterranean became coins that flipped from Byzantine to Muslim, then back again. The Muslims even managed to settle a couple of colonies on the coast of Italy. They raided Rome.
These conquests tapered off as the old tendency toward animosity between the Arabic tribes returned. The thing that had united them, Islam, became one more thing to fight over. The main point of contention was over who was supposed to lead the Umma – the Muslim community. Islam fractured into different camps who turned their scimitars on each other, and the rest of the world breathed a collective sigh of relief.
The Church in those lands that now lay under the Crescent moon suffered. Islam was supposed to hold a certain respect for what they called “The People of the Book” – meaning Christians and Jews. Moses and Jesus were considered great prophets in Islam. While pagans had to convert to Islam, Christians and Jews were allowed to continue in their faith, as long as they paid a penalty tax. The treatment of Christians varied widely across Muslims lands. Their fate was determined by the intensity of the rulers’ faith and adherence to Islam. This was largely due to the conflicting instructions found in the Koran about how to treat people of other faiths.
In Islam, later revelation supersedes earlier pronouncements. Early in Muhammad’s career, he hoped to win Christians by persuasion to his cause so he called for kindly treatment of them. Later, when he had some power and Christians proved intractable, he spoke more stridently and urged their forced compliance. Conversion FROM Islam to any other religion was to be punished by execution. But the Koran isn’t set down in a chronological sequence and readers don’t always know which was an earlier and which a later revelation. Some Muslims rulers were stern and read the harsh passages as being the rule. They persecuted Christian and tried to eradicate the Church. Others believed the call to a more merciful relationship with Christians was a higher morality and followed that. Churches were allowed to meet under such rulers, but public demonstrations of faith were banned and no new church building was permitted.
Interestingly, there was a flowering of Arabic culture that took place due to rule by benevolent Muslims. Because Christian scholarship was allowed, the Classics of Greek and Roman civilization were translated into Arabic BY CHRISTIAN CLERGY and SCHOLARS. It was this that led to the emergence of the Arabic Golden Age modern historians make so much of. That such a Golden Age was sparked and enabled by Christian scholars giving Muslims access to the works of classical antiquity is rarely mentioned.
The severe limits placed on the Faith by even lenient Muslim rulers, combined with the harsh treatment of the Church in other places led to widespread loses by the Church in terms of population and influence. Catholic Christians living in North Africa fled north to Europe where they were welcomed by those of similar faith. But the Jacobite Monophysite community was left behind to languish, and the vibrant church culture that had once dominated the region was nearly lost. The resurgent radical Islam of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is now putting the final nails in the coffin of the Coptic Church, the spiritual heirs to that once vibrant history.
Nearly everywhere Islam spread, it was accompanied by mass defections of marginal Christians to the new faith. Pragmatism isn’t such a modern philosophy after all. Many nominal Christians assumed the single God of Islam was the same as the one God of Christianity and He must favor the Muslims – I mean > look at how successful they are in spreading their religion. Might makes right – Right? // Well, maybe it doesn’t . . . Shhh! Not so loud, the mullahs might hear and their scimitars are sharp.
As many had converted to the newly emergent Christianity under the auspices of Constantine in the early 4th Century, now many converted to Islam under the caliphates in the 7th.
Along with the restrictions placed on those Christians who refused to convert to Islam was added a practice the Muslims picked up from the Zoroastrian rulers of Persia. They required Christians to wear a distinctive badge and prohibited them from serving in the army. That was probably for the best since the army was used specifically to spread the Faith by the sword – the Muslim practice of jihad. But being banned from the military meant they were prohibited the use of arms, and forced to wear distinctive clothing meant easy identification for those hostile elements who saw the presence of Christians as contrary to the will of Allah. Christians became targets of public shame and often, violence. Since conversions FROM Islam were punishable by death, while conversion TO Islam was rewarded, even in the most lenient realms under the banner of Crescent Moon, the church experienced a steady decline.
As Islam settled in and became the dominant cultural force throughout its domains, most of the Christian communities that remained became tradition-bound. They reacted strongly against any innovations, fearing they were dangerous deviations from the Faith they’d held to so tenaciously in spite of persecution. Another reason they rejected change was for fear it might lead to success and the church would grow. Growth meant the Muslim authorities paying closer attention, and that was something they wanted to avoid at all costs. For that reason, to this day the Church in Muslim lands tends to be archaic and bound to traditions practiced for hundreds of years.
by Lance Ralston | Jul 6, 2014 | English |
This episode of Communio Sanctorum is titled, “Liturgy.”
What comes to mind when you hear that word – “Liturgy.”
Most likely—it brings up various associations for different people. Some find great comfort in what the word connotes because it recalls a time in their life of close connection to God. Others think of empty rituals that obscure, rather than bring closer a sense of the sacred.
The following is by no means meant as a comprehensive study of Christian liturgy. Far from it. That would take hours. This is just a thumbnail sketch of the genesis of some of the liturgical traditions of the Church.
First off, using a broad-brush the word ‘liturgy’ refers to the order and parts of a service held in a church. Even though most non-denominational, Evangelical churches like the one I’m a part of doesn’t call our order of service on a Sunday morning a “liturgy” – that’s in fact what it is. Technically, the word “Liturgy” means “service.” But it’s come to refer to all the various parts of a church service, that is, when a local church community gathers for worship. It includes the order the various events occur, how they’re conducted, what scripts are recited, what music is used, which rituals are performed, even what physical objects are employed to conduct them; things like special clothes, furniture, & implements.
Even within the same church, there may be different liturgies for different events and seasons of the year.
For convenience sake, churches tend to get put into 2 broad categories; liturgical & non-liturgical. Liturgical churches are often also called “high-church” meaning they have a set tradition for the order of the service that includes special vestments for priests & officiants; and follow a pattern for their service that’s been conducted the same way for many years. Certain portions of the Bible are read, then a reading from another treasured tome of that denomination, people sit, stand and kneel at designated times, and clergy follows a set route through the sanctuary.
In a non-liturgical church, while they may follow a regular order of service, there’s little of the formalism and ritual used in a high-church service. In many liturgical churches, the message a pastor or priest is to share each week is spelled out by the denominational hierarchy in a manual sent out annually. In a non-liturgical church, the pastor is typically free to pick what he wants to speak on.
The great liturgies arose in the 4th to 6th Cs then codified in the 6th & 7th. They were much more elaborate than the order of service practiced in the churches of the 2nd & 3rd Cs.
Several factors led to the creation of liturgies à
First: There’s a tendency to settle on a standard way to say things when it comes to the beliefs & practices of a group. When someone states something well, or does something in an impressive way, it tends to get repeated.
Second: Bishops & elders tended to take what they learned in one place and transplanted it wherever they went.
Third: A written liturgy made the services more orderly.
Fourth: The desire to hold on to what was thought to be passed down by the Apostles became a priority. This worked against any desire for change.
Fifth: A devotion to orthodoxy, combined for a concern about heresy tended to sanctify what was old and opposed innovation. Changes in a liturgy sparked controversy.
The main liturgies that emerged during the 5th & 6th Cs bear similarities in structure & theme; even in wording, while also having distinct features.
The main liturgical traditions can be listed as . . .
In the East
The Alexandrian or sometimes called Egyptian liturgies.
The West Syrian family includes the Jerusalem, Clementine, & Constantinoplitan liturgies.
The East Syrian family includes the liturgies that were used in the Nestorian churches of the East.
In the West, the principal liturgical families were Roman, Gallican, Ambrosian, Mozarbic & Celtic.
As we saw in Epsidoe 41, Pope Gregory the Great in the 7th C embellished the liturgy & ritual practiced in the Western Roman Church. Elaborate rituals were already a long-time tradition in the Eastern Church, influenced as it was by the court of Constantinople.
If Augustine laid down the theological base for the Medieval church, Pope Gregory can be credited with its liturgical foundation. But no one should assume Gregory created things out of a vacuum. There was already extensive liturgical fodder for him to draw from.
And this brings us to a 4th C document called The Pilgrimage of Etheria – or The Travels of Egeria.
We’re not sure who she was but can narrow it down to either a nun or a well-to-do woman of self-sufficient means from Northern Spain.
She toured the Middle East at the end of the 4th C, then wrote a long letter to some women she call her sisters & friends, chronicling her 3 year adventure. While the beginning and end of the letter are missing, the main body gives a detailed account of her trip, made from extensive notes.
The first part describes her journey from Egypt to Sinai, ending at Constantinople. She visited Edessa, and travelled extensively in Palestine. The second and much longer section is a detailed account of the services and observances of the church in Jerusalem, centered on what the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.
What’s remarkable in reading her account is the tremendous sense of freedom and safety Egeria seems to have had as she travelled over long distances in hostile environs. She was accompanied for a time by some soldiers, and no doubt these provided a measure of security. But that she felt safe WITH THEM, is remarkable and speaks to the impact the Faith was already having on the morality of the ancient world.
Remarkable as well was the large number of Christian communes, monks & bishops she met on her travels. Every place mentioned in the Bible already had a shrine or church. As she visited each, using her Bible as a guide, she was shown dozens of places where this or that Biblical event was supposed to have occurred.
I’ve been to the Holy Land several times. I know the many sites today that claim to be the place where this or that Bible story unfolded. Most of the sites are at best a guess. What I found fascinating about Egeria’s account is that already, by the end of the 4th C, most of these sites were already boasting to be the very place. I have to wonder if the obligatory souvenir shop was also hawking wares at each location.
You can’t read Egeria’s chronicle without being impressed with how thoroughly the Church had covered the Middle East in just 300 years, even in isolated locations; places mentioned in passing in the account of the Exodus. Every little town & village mentioned in the Old and New Testaments had a church or memorial and a group of monks ready to tell the story of what happened there. 300 years may seem like a long time, but remember that almost ALL that time was marked by persecution of Jesus’ followers.
Egeria’s account of the liturgy of the church in Jerusalem, occupying the bulk of her record, is interesting because it reveals a pretty elaborate tradition for both daily services & special days like the Holy Week. They observed the hours and Holy Service marking off the day in different periods of devotion led by the Bishop.
Accepted history tells us that the idea of a liturgical year was only just beginning in Egeria’s time. Her description of the practices of the Jerusalem Church community make clear many aspects of the liturgical year were already well along, and had been for some time.
If you’re interested in reading Egeria’s account yourself, you can find it on the net. I’ll put a link in the show notes.
http://www.ccel.org/m/mcclure/etheria/etheria.htm
by Lance Ralston | Jun 29, 2014 | English |
This episode of Communio Sanctorum is titled, “Look Who’s Driving the Bus Now.”
As noted in a previous episode, it’s difficult in recounting Church History to follow a straight narrative timeline. The expansion of the Faith into different regions means many storylines. So it’s necessary to do a certain amount of backtracking as we follow the spread of the Gospel from region to region. The problem with that though in an audio series, it can be confusing as we bounce back & forth in time. We’ve already followed Christianity’s expansion to the Far East & went from the 4th C thru about the 6th, then did a quick little jaunt all the way to the 17th C. Then in the next episode we’re back in Italy talking about the 3rd C.
This week’s episode is a case in point. We’re going to take a look at 2 interesting & important individuals in the history; not only of the Faith, but of the world. It’s a couple men we’ve already looked at – Bishop Ambrose of Milan and Emperor Theodosius I. The reason we’re considering these 2 is because their relationship was instrumental in setting the tie between Church & State that becomes one of the defining realities of Europe in the Middle Ages.
I know some of this is a repeat of earlier material. Hang with me because we need to consider the background of the players here.
Ambrose was born into the powerful Roman family of Aurelius about 340 in the German city of Trier, which served at the time as the capital of the Roman province of Gaul. Both his parents were Christians. His father held the important position of praetorian prefect. His mother was a woman of great intellect & virtue.
His father died while he was still young & as was typical for wealthy Romans of the time, Ambrose followed his father into the political arena. He was educated in Rome where he studied law, literature, & as we’d expect of someone going into politics – rhetoric. In 372 he was made the governor of the region of Liguria, its capital being Milan, the 2nd capital of Italy after Rome. In fact, in the later 4th C, Milan was the new Imperial Capital. The Western Emperors deemed Rome as both in need of major repairs & too far removed from where all the action was. For decades the Emperors in Rome were too distant from the constant campaigns against the Germanic tribes. They wanted to be closer to the action, so imperial HQs shifted to Milan.
Not long after he became governor, the famous controversy between the Arians & Catholics heated up. In 374 the Arian bishop of Milan, Auxentius, died. Of course, the Arians expected an Arian would be named to replace him. But the Catholics saw this as an opportunity to install one of their own. The ensuing controversy threatened to destroy the peace of the City, so Governor Ambrose attended the church meeting called to appoint a new bishop. He thought his presence as the chief civil magistrate would forestall rioting. Imagine that! The Christians had a reputation for getting unruly when they didn’t get their way. Sounds like LA when the Lakers win.
Yep è Those Christian in Milan! Running amok in the streets, overturning chariots & looting street vendors selling fish tacos – Shameful!
Anyway, Ambrose attended the election, hoping his presence would remind the crowd à Rioting would be forcefully suppressed. He gave a speech to those gathered about the need to show restraint & that violence would dishonor God. His message was so reasonable, his tone so honorable, when it came time to nominate candidates for the bishop’s chair, a voice called out “Ambrose for bishop!” There was a brief silence, then another voice said, “Yes, Ambrose.” Soon a whole chorus was chanting, “Ambrose for bishop. à Bishop Ambrose.”
The governor was known to be Catholic in belief, but had always shown the Arians respect in his dealing. They saw the way the political winds were blowing and knew in a straight vote, a Catholic bishop was sure to be elected. They realized Ambrose, though of the other theological camp, wouldn’t be a bad choice. So they added their voices to the call for his investiture as bishop of Milan.
At first, Ambrose vehemently refused. He was a politician, not a religious leader. He knew he was in no way prepared to lead the Church. He hadn’t even been baptized yet and had no formal training in theology. None of this mattered to the crowd who’d not take his refusal as the last word. They said he was bishop whether he liked it or not.
He fled to a colleague’s house to hide. His host received a letter from the Emperor Gratian saying it was entirely proper for the civil government to appoint qualified individuals to church leadership positions since the Church served an important role in providing social stability. If there were people serving in the political realm who’d be more effective in the religious sphere, then by all means, let them transfer to the Church. Ambrose’s friend showed him the letter & tried to reason with him but Ambrose wouldn’t budge. So the friend went to Church officials and told them where Ambrose was hiding. When they showed up at the door intent on seeing him take the seat they’d given him, he relented. Within a week he was baptized, ordained & consecrated as Bishop of Milan.
He immediately adopted the ascetic lifestyle shared by the monks. He appointed relief for the poor, donated all of his land, & committed the care of his family to his brother.
Once Ambrose became bishop, the religious toleration that had marked his posture as a political figure went out the window. A bishop must defend the Faith against error. So Ambrose took the Arians to task. He wrote several works against them and limited their access to Church life in Milan, which at the time was arguably the most influential church in the West since Milan was the seat of imperial power.
In response to Ambrose’s moves to squelch them, the Arians appealed to high-level leaders in both the civil & religious spheres at both sides of the Empire. The western Emperor Gratian was catholic while his younger successor & augustus, Valentinian II was an Arian. Ambrose tried, but was unsuccessful in swaying Valentinian to the Nicene-catholic position.
The Arian leaders felt there were enough of them in positions of influence that if they held a council, they might be able to win the day for Arianism and asked the Emperor for permission to hold one. Of course, they hid their real motive from Gratian, who thought a council during his reign a great idea and consented. Ambrose knew the real reason for the council and urged Gratian to stack the meeting with Western, pro-Nicene catholic bishops. In the council held the next year in 381 at Aquileia, Ambrose was elected to preside & the leading Arian bishops dropped out. They were then deposed by the council.
This wasn’t the end of troubles with the Arians however. Valentinian’s mother, the dynamic Justina, knew the Arians were well represented among the generals & got them to rally behind her son. They demanded 2 churches to hold Arian services in; a basilica in Milan, the other in a suburb. Saying “No” to the Emperor & his mother is usually not so good for one’s health & most students of history would assume this would be the end, not only of Ambrose’s career, but of his life. But that’s not the way this story ends.
When Ambrose denied the Arian demands, he was summoned to appear before a hastily convened court to answer for himself. His defense of the Nicene position & the necessity as bishop to defend the Faith was so eloquent the judges sat amazed. They realized there was nothing they could do to censure him w/o setting themselves in opposition to the truth & risking another riot. They released him and affirmed his right to forbid the use of the churches by the Arians.
The next day, as he performed services in the basilica, the governor of Milan tried to persuade him to compromise & give up the church in the suburb for use by the Emperor & his mother. After all, Ambrose had made his point and his concession now would be seen as an act of grace & good will. It’s precisely the kind of thing Ambrose would have urged when he was governor. But as bishop, it was a no-go. The governor wasn’t accustomed to being denied & gave orders that BOTH churches were to be turned over to the Arians for their use at Easter. Instead of being cowed, Bishop Ambrose declared:
If you demand my person, I am ready to submit: carry me to prison or to death, I will not resist; but I will never betray the Church of Christ. I will not call upon the people to [support] me; I will die at the foot of the altar rather than desert it. The rioting of the people I will not encourage: but God alone can appease it.
Ambrose & his congregation then barricaded themselves inside the church in a kind of religious filibuster. When Valentinian & his mother Justina realized the only way to gain access was to forcefully evict them & how violently the people of Milan were likely to react, the order was rescinded.
Trained in rhetoric and law, well-versed in the Greek classics, Ambrose was known as a learned scholar, familiar with both Christian & pagan sources. His sermons were marked by references to the great thinkers, not only of the past but his own day. When he was elected bishop, he embarked on a kind of crash-course in theology. His teacher was an elder from Rome named Simplician. His knowledge of Greek, rare in the West, allowed him to study the NT in its original language. He also learned Hebrew so he could deepen his understanding of the OT. He quickly gained a reputation as an excellent preacher.
As noted in a previous episode, it was under his ministry that the brilliant Augustine of Hippo was converted. Prior to moving to Milan, Augustine was unimpressed by the quality of Christian scholarship. To be blunt, he thought Christians were for the most part an uneducated rabble. Ambrose shattered that opinion. Augustine found himself drawn to his sermons and sat rapt as he heard the Gospel explained.
Ambrose’s sermons often promoted an ascetic lifestyle. He was so persuasive, several noble families forbade their daughters listening to him, fearing they’d chose celibacy over marriage. Since marrying off a daughter to another noble family was a way to advance socially, they feared their girls would become nuns, and thwart their plans.
Ambrose introduced, or I should say re-introduced congregational singing to church services. Not afraid to innovate, when he included Eastern melodies in the hymns he wrote, and they proved to be wildly popular, some accused him of casting a spell on the people of Milan. Due to Ambrose, hymn singing became an important part of the liturgy of the Western Church.
Ambrose’s most important contribution was in the area of church-state relations. He contended, not with just 1, but 3 emperors; & prevailed in each encounter. His relationship with Theodosius, the first emperor to make Rome a Christian state, is the best known. And the tale is one of those moments in history that would make a great miniseries.
In 388 the local bishop & several monks led a mob in the Mesopotamian city of Callinicum to destroy the city’s synagogue. Why isn’t clear – but there was much ill will between Christians & Jews because the later had been one of the main informants on Christians during the persecutions of the previous century. Now that the Christians were buddied up to civil power, it didn’t take much to ignite a little payback, even though it was utterly contrary to the love Jesus called His followers to show. Be that as it may, the Emperor Theodosius ordered the rebuilding of the synagogue at the expense of the rioters, including the bishop. When Ambrose heard of the decision, he immediately shot off a fierce protest. The glory of God was at stake, so he couldn’t remain silent. He wrote, “Shall a bishop be compelled to re-erect a synagogue? Can he do this thing that ought not be done? If he obeys the Emperor, he’d become a traitor to his faith; if he disobeys the Emperor, he becomes a martyr. What real wrong is there, after all, in destroying a synagogue, a home of perfidy, a home of impiety, in which Christ is daily blasphemed?” Ambrose went on to say he was no less guilty than the bishop of Callinicum since he made no secret of his wish that all synagogues be destroyed, that no such places of blasphemy be allowed to exist.
In a surprise move, Theodosius revoked his earlier decision. The Christians didn’t have to rebuild the synagogue they’d destroyed. Well, you might imagine what message that sent—it was open season on Jews & their meeting places.
All this makes Ambrose appear a rabid anti-Semite. It’s confusing then to read of his high regard for their moral purity & devotion to learning.
So ends Round 1 in the wrestling match between the Bishop of Milan & the Emperor Theodosius. Before we look at Round 2, let’s take a closer look at Theodosius.
Blond & elegant, Theodosius began his imperial career the usual way for emperors of this era. He was born in northwest Spain, to a father who was a talented military commander. Theodosius learned his military lessons by campaigning with his father’s staff in Britain.
After being crowned emperor in the East in 379, he battled the ever-troubling Germanic tribes in the North. The incessant war did little but wearing out both sides, so Theodosius offered the tribes an option. In exchange for land and supplies, Germans would provide soldiers for the legions. These Germans would serve under a Roman banner & generals. It was a novel idea for the time, an arrangement that later emperors increasingly depended on.
To fund this expanded army, Theodosius raised taxes to a new high. His enforcement of collection of the new taxes was carried out harshly. Any official neglecting to collect was flogged.
During a serious illness early in his reign, Theodosius was baptized. In 380 he proclaimed himself a Nicene Christian & called a council at Constantinople to put an end to the Arian heresy.
Having won that victory, Theodosius tried to get his choice for the patriarch of Constantinople approved but the bishops demanded he appoint someone from their list. They prevailed. It was the first of several instances where Theodosius yielded to church leaders.
And this brings us to Round 2 between Theodosius & Ambrose.
Chariot-racing was THE big sport of the Greco-Roman world for hundreds of years. Merge baseball, basketball, football, & soccer into a single sport & you get the idea of just how huge chariot-racing was. Many of the larger cities had 4 to 6 teams, designated by a color. These teams often represented a neighborhood or social class, so rivalries were sectarian & fierce. Fans formed clubs around their teams and attacked each other. A band of thugs for the Reds might rampage through the Purple neighborhood, leading to a riot of retribution a couple days later. The point is, supporters were fanatically loyal to their team.
In 390, local authorities imprisoned a charioteer in Thessalonica for homosexual rape. This charioteer happened to be one of the city’s favorites, and riots broke out when the governor refused to release him. That governor and several of his staff were killed, the charioteer busted out of jail by his fans.
Thessalonica was no out-of-the-way village; it was a major city and the riot couldn’t go without being answered. The Emperor needed to do something, but the something he did was all wrong. He announced another chariot race. When the crowd arrived, the gates to the arena were locked and they were massacred by imperial troops. In a 3 hour horror show, 7000 were executed!
Later records showed that after the initial order was sent by Theodosius with this plan, he realized it was a grave injustice & sent another message to rescind the first. It got there too late.
Many across the empire were stunned at the news of the massacre. Bishop Ambrose was horrified. He shot off another angry letter to Theodosius demanding repentance. He wrote, “I exhort, I beg, I entreat, I admonish you, because it is grief to me that the perishing of so many innocent is no grief to you. And now I call on you to repent.” Then Ambrose did something that proved the turning point in Church-State affairs.
When Theodosius visited Milan & attend a church service, he expected Bishop Ambrose to serve him Communion. Ambrose refused! He said until Theodosius repented for what he’d done at Thessalonica, no elements would cross his lips.
Now, remember—It was believed the celebration of Communion was essential for maintaining salvation. It renewed and refreshed God’s grace. Barring the Emperor from Communion put his soul at risk.
So when Theodosius professed repentance, Ambrose in effect replied, “Hold on pal; not so fast. Your repentance must be marked by penance – & a very public version.’ He told Theodosius to set aside his royal garments, put on a simple shroud, and publicly plead for God’s mercy where any & everyone could see & hear him. There’s some debate as to how long this went on but one source says it lasted 8 months before Ambrose finally relented & consented to serve the Emperor Communion.
As stated, Theodosius’ capitulation to Ambrose marks a major turning point in Church-State relations. The Bishop’s treatment of the Emperor introduced the medieval concept of a Christian Emperor as a dutiful “son of the Church serving under orders from Christ.” For the next thousand years, secular and religious rulers struggled to determine who was sovereign in the various spheres of life.
Lest the previous events I’ve just shared make Ambrose & Theodosius appear as rivals, understand that the Bishop of Milan was in fact the Emperor’s friend, confidant & counselor, in both religious & political matters. Theodosius is supposed to have said, “I know no bishop worthy of the title, except Ambrose.” When the emperor died, Ambrose was at his side.
Two years after the showdown, Ambrose himself fell ill. And his impending death caused far more concern on the part of people than the passing of a dozen emperors. One wrote: “When Ambrose dies, we shall see the ruin of Italy.” On the eve of Easter, 397, the man who’d been bishop of Milan for 23 years finally closed his eyes for the last time.
by Lance Ralston | Jun 22, 2014 | English |
This Episode’s title is – “Expansion ”.
We’re going to spend a little time now tracking the expansion of the Faith into different areas during the Early Middle Ages.
We ended last time with the story of the conversion of the Frank king Clovis in 496. When he was baptized on Christmas Day by Bishop Remigius of Rheims {Reems}, 3,000 of his warriors joined him. It was the first of several mass baptism that took place during the Middle Ages in Europe. And it raises the issue of the paganizing of Christianity.
The task of Missions usually proceeds in 1 of 2 ways.
The first & more common route is that of individual conversion. Though in the NT we find converts being called into immediate baptism, it wasn’t long before conversion was followed by a period of instruction before baptism. That time for instruction in the basics of the Faith could be either short or long, depending on the standards of the bishop or community of believers. This form of missions, that of individual conversion & baptism was the method used by the Church for the first 3 Cs, & by most Protestant missions from the 19th C to today. That’s because of the emphasis on an individual change of heart in Evangelicalism. While this certainly finds support in Scripture, it can miss an important dynamic when people convert to Christ out of a pagan culture. Their change in faith almost certainly means being uprooted from that culture; sometimes leading to the need to physically relocate to an area where their faith will not endanger their life or the lives of their family.
For that reason, another method of Missions has sometimes been used; that of mass conversion, where an entire group of people make a communal decision to forsake their old religion in favor of Christianity.
Now, I suspect some of those listening will respond to this idea of mass conversion with distaste. Evangelicalism has placed such an emphasis on personal salvation that the idea of the conversion of an entire community at once is highly suspect. We often talk of receiving Christ as one’s PERSONAL Savior. So the idea that an entire village or tribe would turn to faith in Christ at once seems disingenuous.
But consider this: The idea of personal, individual freedom is in many ways a distinctly modern, western & democratic concept. Even in our own time, much of the world has little concept of personal or individual freedom. They understand themselves as part of a family, village, or tribe; as a member of a community of people where autonomous individuality is regarded as dangerous & a threat to the survival of the group. For much of history and a good part of the world, the idea that you would change your religion all on your own while everyone else believed in other gods was simply unthinkable. Conversion would enrage the old gods & so endanger your family & neighbors. This was something several Roman Emperors used as a reason for opposing Christianity.
Some Christian missionaries realized the key to the conversion of these communal pagan peoples was to win the leader. Because his choice was nearly always adopted by the entire tribe. To be sure, these missionaries understood salvation was an individual issue. But they knew the key to being able to work for individual salvations was to win the leader, who would in turn lead his people in a mass conversion. Then they could be free to work the faith into the lives of the people in a more intimate & personal way.
The downside to mass conversion is obvious. Many who formally converted by being baptized, never went on to a real faith in Christ. They took the label of Christian without ever being genuinely converted. What made this especially troublesome was when it was the ruler who feigned conversion. Some did for purely pragmatic ends. Submitting to baptism often brought them political & economic gain. Mass conversions might make it easier for genuine converts to practice a new worldview, but it also imperiled the Faith because the unconverted brought with them old superstitions, blending them into Christianity in a syncretistic religious amalgam.
This was the case with the Frank king Clovis. He went through the motions of conversion, but Jesus remained little more for him than a divine warlord.
Gregory of Tours, who lived a century after Clovis, was his main biographer. Gregory says even after his conversion, Clovis used deceit, cunning, & treachery to expand his kingdom. He sent bribes to nobles and those responsible for protecting a rival king to betray him. He told another king’s son if he killed his father, Clovis would support the son’s ascent to the throne & make an alliance with him. The son did as Clovis hoped & killed his father. Clovis them promptly announced the son guilty of the heinous crimes of patricide & regicide & took over his realm.
As Dan Carlin likes to point out in his Hardcore History podcast-episode, Thor’s Angels, when you think of the Goths & the Franks of this time, think of a modern criminal biker gang. You’re not far off the mark in what these Germanic barbarians were like; in both mindset & appearance. When Clovis submitted to baptism, all he did was trade in his black leather vest for a navy blue one.
Among the barely converted Franks & other Germanic tribes, long-dead saints stepped in to replace their numerous deities. Each saint adopted a role the old gods had performed. St. Anthony took care of pigs, St. Gaul looked after hens, Apollonia cured toothaches, Genevieve cured fever, and St. Blaise soothed sore throats. For every human need the Germans posted a saint to take care of it.
Many tales circulated about the miraculous powers of these saints. One told of 2 beggars, 1 lame, the other blind. They got caught up in a procession of the devoted who carried the relics of St. Martin. But these 2 beggars made their living off the alms of the pious & didn’t want to be healed. Fearful lest they be cured by their proximity to the relics, they quickly struck a deal. The 1 who could see but not walk mounted the shoulders of the 1 who could walk but not see & they tried to exit the procession. They weren’t able to get away quickly enough; both were healed. è Such stories were plentiful.
As with Constantine the Great in the early 4th C, we can’t be certain if Clovis’ conversion was real or feigned. Certainly much of his behavior after his baptism is doubtful. But the political benefits of conversion were certainly not lost on him. Clovis was a man of huge ambition. He wanted to be more than a chieftain of the Franks. He wanted to be king, a chief of chiefs. He knew he needed to distinguish himself among the many competing power centers in Western Europe. By joining the Roman Church he set himself apart from the other Germanic kings who were all Arian. This move secured the support of the Gaelic-Roman nobility throughout Gaul.
Clovis was the first leader of the Franks to unite the tribes under one ruler, changing the leadership from a group of chieftains to rule by kings, ensuring the royal line was held by his heirs, known as the Merovingians.
Not long after his baptism and the quick following by 3000 of his warriors, Clovis pressed other Frank nobles to convert & join the Roman church. He understood the religious unity of the kingdom was crucial in staving off assault, and to further campaigns to enlarge their borders. Wars of conquest became a means of “liberating other people from the error of Arianism.” And the church at Rome was not at all averse to having an armed force on its side.
Clovis wasn’t all that successful in expanding his borders south & east into the region of the Burgundians, but he was able to push the Visigoths out of Gaul, confining them in Spain. In the Battle of Vouille {Voo-yay}, the Visigothc King Alaric II was killed. In appreciation for his service in defeating the Visigoths, the Eastern Emperor Anastasius I declared Clovis Consul, a provocative title as it was reminiscent of ancient Roman leaders.
Clovis made Paris the new capital of the Frank kingdom & built an abbey dedicated to Sts. Peter & Paul.
Not long before he died, Clovis called the First Council of Orléans, a synod of 33 Gallic bishops. The goal was to reform the Church & forge an enduring link between the Crown and Church. The Council passed a little over 30 decrees that brought equality between the Frank conquerors and their Gallic subjects.
Clovis died in the Fall of 511, leaving the kingdom to his 4 sons. Unlike Alexander the Great who made no provision for dividing his empire among his 4 generals, Clovis carved up Gaul into 4 regions, one for each son; Rheims, Orléans, Paris & Soissons. Clovis naively thought this would keep them content & result in peace. In truth, it ushered in a period of disunity which lasted to the end of the Merovingian dynasty in the mid-8th C.
In Episode 37 we looked at the 5th C Irish missionary Patrick. The Irish had never been a part of the Roman Empire. Though they had frequent contact with Roman Britain, the Irish Celts were culturally, economically, & politically different. When the Roman army abandoned Britain as too costly & difficult to defend, the Church filled the vacuum. The spiritual outreach to Ireland was primarily the work of Patrick, who though British, planted a church in Ireland that remained independent of the Roman Catholic Church.
Patrick understood the evangelistic dynamic of the Christian faith & discerned that it alone offered what the native Druids could not: Peace to a land troubled by constant tribal warfare. Patrick’s strategy was to win the tribal leaders to Christ. Many local lords became Christians. Because of the way Celtic society was arranged, when rulers converted, so did those they ruled.
Ireland was ripe for the message & offer of the Gospel. The religion practiced by the Druids was a brutal, demonic, religious terrorism that many of the common people were eager to cast off. The Gospel was about as OPPOSITE a message & offer from Druidism as one can imagine. There are estimates of as many as 100,000 genuine converts to Patrick’s ministry.
On the foundation of faith & church life Patrick laid, Finnian of Clonard built a pattern for Irish monasticism in the early 6th C. Monasteries were founded all over Ireland. As they rose in number and prestige, the ecclesiastical organization Patrick established withered away. By the end of the 6th C the Irish church had become a church of monks. Abbots replaced bishops as the leaders of the Church. From the outset, Irish monks valued scholarship & an energetic spread of the Gospel.
Interestingly, there’s evidence that the missionary fervor that stands as one of Celtic Christianity’s major traits may have been due to their system of penance. In an earlier episode we saw how the early church developed a view of repentance that included penance. The idea was that repentance needed to be demonstrated by some act showing contrition. The theology went like this: Repentance was a heart issue only God could see. But John the Baptist had said, “Bring forth fruit worthy of repentance.” So, when people repented, their account before God was cleared. But how about restoring them to the Community of faith – fellowship in the Church? While man can’t see the heart, he can see the actions that flow from that heart. Penance became a system of works people could perform that would mark repentance. It didn’t take long before lists were made of what penance was due for what sins. One of the forms of penance Celtic Christians practiced was exile, banishment from their homes. Some of the intense missionary activity of the Celtic Christians was motivated by this form of penance.
Irish scholar-monks ranged far and wide across Europe during the 6th & 7th Cs. This aggressive missionary activity of the Celtic Church eventually caused trouble since it remained independent from Rome. Churches started by Irish missionaries were often located in regions that later came under the control of Rome.
In 636, south Ireland decided to fold their church community into the Roman Church. Then in 697, the church in Northern Ireland decided to follow suit. Though most of Celtic Christianity was eventually folded into Roman Catholicism, isolated communities scattered across Scotland, Wales & the British Isles continued their independence for many years.
One of the Celtic-English missionaries who had a huge impact in Northern Europe was Boniface.
Born Winfrid in the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Wessex in the early 670’s, his family was prosperous and sent him to school at a monastery in Exeter. The life of the monks appealed to Winfrid & against his father’s wishes, he decided to pursue a religious career. He showed a mastery of the Scriptures & great skill in teaching & organization, traits sought after in monastic life. For further training he moved to a Benedictine monastery in Hampshire. This monastery was led by a brilliant abbot who’d made it an industrious center of scholarship. Winfrid soon became a teacher in the monastery school & at the age of 30 was ordained as a priest. When the abbot died in 716, the logical choice to replace him was Winfrid. In a surprise move, he declined, and left for the region of Frisia, what today we know as The Netherlands.
Winfrid had a passion to take the Gospel of Christ were it was yet to be planted. He’d heard of a similarly-minded missionary named Willibrord who worked in Frisia & needed help. They spent a year together but when war broke, both returned home.
A year later, Winfrid went to Rome seeking an audience with Pope Gregory II. He shared his vision of seeing the Germanic tribes delivered from their Arian heresy into the Catholic faith. Gregory replied, “You glow with the salvation-bringing fire which our Lord came to send upon the earth.”
The Pope renamed him ‘Boniface’ after the 4th C martyr Boniface of Tarsus, & appointed him as the missionary bishop for Germania. This meant Boniface was a bishop without a diocese. The realm of his ministry had no churches. It was up to him to carry the light of Christ to the superstitious Germanic tribes. Boniface never returned to England.
He focused his work in the regions of Hesse & Thuringia, leading thousands to Christ. He planted scores of churches.
While the Germans were nominally Arian, entire regions were in reality still pagan, worshiping the ancient German gods and practicing superstitious rites. Boniface found some supposedly Christian missionaries as he made his way through Germany but they espoused heresy. It was little wonder they’d had little impact. When he confronted them, they resisted. So Boniface had them arrested & confined. He soon gained a reputation for being stern & determined.
One story from Boniface’s career is legendary. Whether or not it’s factual is unknown. It’s certainly not difficult to believe that a man who would go to Rome & ask for permission to single-handedly carry the Gospel to heretics & pagans might do something like what we’re about to hear.
The story goes that Boniface went to Geismar in Hesse where the Donar or Thor’s Oak stood. As was common for Germans, they considered trees and forests to hold great spiritual power. Thor, god of thunder, was the chief deity in their pantheon. The Donar Oak was dedicated to his power and glory. Boniface knew there was no Thor & that there’d be no backlash if he chopped down a tree. Some Germans might protest & take it on themselves to defend Thor’s honor. So Boniface called them to gather round, then set them this challenge—let Thor, that mighty god of thunder, defend his tree himself. Certainly a god as great as the god of thunder could deal with a puny little Christian priest. Unless, à there was no Thor & the Christian faith was true. Boniface lifted his axe and began to strike. No lightening followed. No thunder shook the ground. But according to his early biographer Willibald, after Boniface had taken a dozen or so swings at the oak, a strong wind kicked up that knocked it over. It fell & broke into 4 pieces, revealing that it was in fact rotten. The message was clear; the old ways were like that rotten oak. The people were stunned and as though being released from a prison in which they’d long been held, renounced their belief in the old gods & in-mass converted to Christianity. Boniface used the wood from Donar’s Oak to build a church.
His skill in administration brought a remarkable level of organization to the now rapidly growing German church. In 732 he was made archbishop over Germany. He worked for an educated, disciplined, & pure clergy; something he knew in other part of the Europe was not the case. He tolerated neither laziness nor incompetency among clerics & purged the lingering rites of German paganism from church rituals. The syncretism that had been adopted in many other places, whereby pagans rites were absorbed into church traditions, was not something Boniface allowed. Using missionary volunteers from England, many of whom were women, he advanced organization and structure in the German church and filled it with zeal for obedience, service, and outreach.
Along with his administrative and missionary work, Boniface built monasteries throughout Germany. The most influential was at Fulda, the geographical center of Germany.
No church councils had been held in the Frankish realm for decades before his arrival. Boniface convened 5 of them between 742 and 747. At his urging these Councils adopted strict regulations for clergy and condemned local heretics.
Boniface was a Benedictine monk. The Benedictines emphasized poverty, moral purity, & obedience to Christ. Benedict’s Rule was the norm for monasteries throughout Europe at that time. They were places of worship, devotion, prayer, & scholarship—oases of culture & civilization in the midst of godlessness. Monks copied Scriptures and early Christian literature. Monasteries were about the only educational centers during the medieval period. Had it not been for them, there would have been no Renaissance. The monasteries are where all the learning was kept that formed the intellectual base the Renaissance came from. Sadly, over the centuries, many monasteries forsook their spiritual roots & became places of immorality & corruption. Those Boniface founded for the most part remained places of education, hospitality, & missionary outreach.
Boniface understood all his work could turn to naught if war came. So he worked to nurture peaceful relations between the Franks, Germanic tribes & the Church. He was crucial in negotiating a treaty between the Pope & the Frank king Pepin that would eventually grow into a powerful church-state alliance later in the Middle Ages.
After years of ministry in Central Germany, Boniface again felt Frisia in the North calling him. This was the place where he’d first tried his hand in missionary work. Now, in his late 70’s, he resigned his post as the archbishop of Mainz [Mines] to head north once again. He and his followers roamed the countryside destroying pagan shrines, building churches, & baptizing thousands.
A group of new converts was supposed to meet Boniface & his 52 companions at Dorkum. While Boniface waited for them, a band of outlaws arrived. In his earlier travels, Boniface went with an armed guard commissioned by the Frank ruler. Now he was in a realm beyond Frank control. At the first council he’d called years before, he’d pressed to disallow the clergy from carrying arms. All he had to defend himself was the large wood-covered book he was reading. He wielded it as a shield. As he batted away the thrusts of the outlaws trying to stab him, I wonder if he regretted his previous position. A book makes a poor shield, even if its cover is quarter-inch thick. Boniface & his entire party were slaughtered there on the shore of a river. When the converts arrived to meet up with him, they found his body, & next to it lay a copy of Ambrose’s à The Advantage of Death, with deep slashes in it. The book is on display in Fulda.
by Lance Ralston | Jun 15, 2014 | English |
This episode of Communion Sanctorum is titled – “Into the Middle”
Justinian I’s reconquest of Italy and liberating it from its brief stint under barbarian control was even briefer. Soon after Justinian’s eastern forces regained control of portions of the peninsula and put them back under the Empire’s dominion, yet another Germanic group invaded and put most of Italy under their jurisdiction.
The Lombards were a Scandinavian group who’d emerged as the dominant Germanic tribe. In 568, they conquered Byzantine Italy and formed what is known as the Kingdom of Italy, which lasted to the late 8th C when it was brought down by the Franks, though Lombard nobles continued to rule portions of the peninsula until the 11th C.
The Lombards conquered Italy during Gregory the Great’s term as pope. As the Lombards advanced on the city of Rome, with not a whit of hope of help from the Imperial ruler sitting in Ravenna, Gregory took control in Rome. He secured supplies for the coming siege though both famine and plague were decimating the land. He bolstered Rome’s defenses and commissioned new military leaders to lead an army into the field to meet the Lombards. Once these plans were underway, Gregory opened negotiations with the enemy and finalized a peace with them, though made without the Emperor’s approval.
It’s difficult for the modern student of history to understand how the Roman popes managed to wield such political power as they did during the Middle Ages. We tend to layer back onto history the current state of affairs. And as Europe is now firmly ensconced in a post-Christian era where the Pope has little political power, it’s difficult to see how he could have been the single most powerful political force for hundreds of years.
While the influence of the Pope grew ever since the days of Leo the Great, it was under Gregory the Great that the office of the Pope became a defining role in the History of Europe.
Though Gregory was in his senior years and increasingly frail, what he accomplished was simply astounding! At the same time, he was dealing with the Lombards and the daily needs of the city of Rome, he administered the Church. He oversaw its estates, cared for the needs of his flock, provided leaders for the churches of Gaul and Spain, dealt with the ever-present challenge of the church at Constantinople which vied with Rome for pre-eminence, and on top of all that, as we’ve seen, planned for the expansion of the Faith into new realms like England.
Gregory’s term as pope marks the transition from the ancient world where Imperial Rome ruled, to the medieval world united by the Roman Catholic Church.
The Church played a major, maybe even the most important role, in the shift to the medieval world. It was the one institution that survived and transmitted Roman culture into the Middle Ages.
Though altered to fit its unique spiritual emphasis, the Roman church drew its organizational and administrative structure from the old Imperial form. Each city had its own bishop and each region an archbishop. Within each bishop’s realm of oversight, called a diocese, there was a staff of assistants that closely resembled Roman civil administration.
Church rules, called “Canon Law” were parallel to Roman Civil law. At first Canon Law was defined by Church Councils that met to decide both practical and doctrinal issues. Eventually, Canon Law came to include decisions of the Pope, a form of Imperial edict.
Latin became the common tongue, and Roman forms of literature and education spread wherever the Church took hold. Whenever a new church was built, its form was that of the old Roman meeting-hall; a basilica.
As we saw at the end of the previous episode, though the Germanic barbarians conquered the Western Empire, it wasn’t long until the Church conquered them. While most of the Germanic tribes were Arian, when they moved south into areas controlled by the Roman church, they converted to Catholic Christianity. The Lombards were the last of the Germanic tribes to invade Italy. Part of Pope Gregory’s strategy in negotiating with them was to convert them; turning them into brothers in Christ. They too began as Arians, but he supported the Lombard Queen Theodelinda, a Catholic. It didn’t take long before the Lombards were firmly planted in the Catholic Faith.
Gregory appealed to other Germanic leaders in Western Europe and they shed their Arianism as well. The Visigoths of Spain became Catholic when Gregory’s letter reached their leader Reccared.
There was only one Germanic tribe to enter the Empire as pagans rather than as Arians – the Franks. They occupied an area near the Rhine River. When their king died in 481, he was succeeded by his 15-year-old son: Clovis. 5 yrs later Clovis led his warriors southwest against other Frank tribes. He extended his rule all the way to the Seine. Throughout this time he worshipped and gave credit to the ancient Frankish gods.
Clovis’ victories moved the rulers of neighboring tribes to attempt negotiations. One of Clovis’ envoys returned from a trip to the court of Burgundy, describing his beautiful grand-daughter Clotilda. Clovis sent another envoy to the Burgundian king asking for Clotilda’s hand in marriage. The Burgundians were worried what Clovis would do if they balked so they consented and the two were wed.
Clotilda was Catholic and shared her faith with her husband but he remained committed to the old gods for the next 3 years. He thought his distrust in the Christian God warranted. After all, hadn’t the Roman Empire converted to the new faith over a century before? Why hadn’t He protected them from the barbarians? Then a more personal trial struck. Clotilda baptized their first-born child, who died a week later. While Clotilda’s faith was unshaken, Clovis was enraged.
Despite his suspicion of baptism, Clovis allowed Clotilda to have their 2nd child baptized. When this son also sickened, Clovis was furious. But the boy recovered at Clotilda’s urgent requests to Christ. With all of this freshly before him, Clovis went out to meet what was the Frank’s biggest challenge to date, a fierce Germanic tribe called the Alemanni. The battle took place near the city of Bonn. The Franks were losing badly so Clovis called upon his old gods. No help came. In desperation, staring defeat in the face, Clovis cried out to the Christian God saying something like, “Jesus, if you really are the Son of God as my wife tells me, grant me victory and I will believe in you.” Certainly, a dubious request and God doesn’t bargain with humans. But the fact is, the Franks turned things around and defeated the Alemanni.
That day in 496 turned out to be a dramatic turning point for the history of Europe. Clovis was good to his promise. He invited Bishop Remigius of Reims to instruct him in the Faith. Then on Christmas night, he was baptized.
Remigius continued to instruct Clovis in the Faith but his understanding lacked something. When Remigius told the story of how Jesus was arrested, tortured and executed, Clovis jumped up and shouted, “If I’d been there with my Franks, I would have avenged Him!”
A few thousand of his warriors soon followed their king in baptism. One anecdotal story that comes from this time was that there were so many troops wanting to be baptized they had to do so in mass-baptisms at a river. A dozen of them would enter the water at a time as a priest stood on the shore and blessed them. As they lowered themselves under the surface they lifted their right hands above their heads so they never went under the water. When the priest asked why, the warriors explained; they didn’t want to baptize their sword hand. They wanted to continue to make war and didn’t want to submit the hand that held the sword to the rule of Christ. Now, to be clear, this story, while attributed to Clovis’ troops, is also assigned to other periods of history, especially the Crusaders. Whether it’s true or not is in dispute.
Clovis was one of the first of the line of French kings known as Merovingians.
What this story illustrates is an important feature of medieval society; Adoption of Christianity was, in essence, a royal policy. The ruler’s religion decided the religion of his subjects. And queens did much to bring about the conversion of their husbands.
Clovis’ conversion paved the way for an important alliance between the papacy and the Franks. But it took decades before that alliance altered the way the Franks treated the Church. Throughout most of the 6th and 7th Cs, the Merovingian court-appointed their own bishops to the churches of Gaul.
At the end of the 6th C, Pope Gregory began to work with them to alter this but it wasn’t until the 8th C that Rome was able to regain control over church appointments.
After Gregory, the West entered a difficult period as we chronicled in Episode 34 – The Great Recession. The Western Church suffered abuse from the Lombards and Byzantine rulers. In Gaul, the Merovingians treated the Church as a political tool and the quality of church leaders declined dramatically as church offices were sold to the highest bidder.
Until this period, the clergy were men of great learning and intellectual skill. A list of the great thinkers of the 1st thru 6th Cs is dominated by monks and priests. But the political corruption that followed hard on the heels of the demise of the Western Empire led to a decline in the intellectual prowess of the clergy. That decline was slow at first but escalated as the decades passed. That’s what happens when church offices are filled by political appointment paying favors rather than gifted and called servants.
Bishop Gregory of Tours lived in the late 6th C and is the main source of information about the Merovingians. He describes the sorry state European society had fallen to. He wrote that it was a period when women stood almost alone in maintaining what was left of morality and virtue. Monasteries and convents became lonely islands of true religion set in a sea of moral debauchery and spiritual corruption that included many, if not most churches.
This state of affairs continued all the way to the 8th C when revival took root at the instigation of Celtic missionaries from Ireland. Other factors that led to this revival was a renewed papacy and a new Frank dynasty.
Celtic missionaries had been at work in Europe since the last half of the 6th C. Most notable of these was Columba. He was born to a noble family in Donegal, Ireland. After schooling, he was ordained a priest and planted churches and monasteries in Ireland. Then, in 563, Columba left his homeland. Why he left is a mystery but it seems it was a kind of self-imposed exile. Columba helped spark a civil war between his and the king’s clans. As penance, he left – setting himself to go where ever the winds blew.
He was accompanied by a dozen friends. They landed on the tiny island of Iona on the west coast of Scotland where, against all expectations, they established a thriving monastery. Many an objective observer would assume Columba and his companions would have died within in a year due to the harsh conditions. On the contrary, while life was tough, they thrived and the monastery became the focal point for a new movement of God that would reach out to thousands of miles.
Missionaries were soon being sent out to found monasteries along the coast of Scotland, back in Ireland, and along the northern coast of Europe from Gaul all the way to Scandinavia.
Columba himself was war-like in the way he went about spreading the faith. At his preaching, King Brude of the Picts was converted. Columba’s spiritually aggressive posture was necessary because he was dealing with a determined and overtly evil enemy in the form of the Druids who only understood force. A weak and timid brand of Faith would only have provoked them to acts of hideous grotesquerie.
Columba’s blend of mystic spirituality w/a tough-minded application of the faith in a political and social context, all shaped by a commitment to scholarship and a love of nature, marked him as that rare individual who was the right man at the right time doing the right thing for the right reason. He’s the proto-typical example of Celtic Christianity. Columba was the mold the Celtic Christian missionaries were cut from as they sailed across the sea to land in Gaul, carrying the sparks of revival that united to bring Europe out of the Great Recession.
by Lance Ralston | Jun 8, 2014 | English |
This episode of Communio Sanctorum is titled, “Living It.”
For generations, scholars have debated the cause of the Fall of Rome in the West. In his monumental work, The Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire historian Edward Gibbon laid a large part of the blame on Christianity. And for decades that view dominated the popular view of the history of 5th C Europe.
Christianity certainly played a role in the course of events in Europe during that time, and I’m loath to contend with such an eminent & erudite scholar as Mr. Gibbon, but The Roman Empire did not fall in the 5th C when barbarians overran the West. As we’ve seen in previous episodes, the Empire continued on quite nicely, thank you very much, in the East for another thousand years. What we see in Gibbons is the western provincialism typical of an 18th C European. He largely disregards the Eastern Empire once the West fell; this despite the fact the Eastern Empire continued to identify itself as Roman for hundreds of years.
And as for Christianity being the most significant cause for the West’s fall? Wait – Christianity was no less in place in the East as the West. We can make a case for saying it was even more so ensconced in the seat of power. After all, while Church and State remained largely separate in the West, in the East they merged. So why didn’t the Eastern Empire fall to the no less frequent and concerted attacks by so-called barbarians?
The reasons the West fell while the East continued are numerous and far more complex than we have the time to deal with here. Besides, this is a church history, not a history of the Roman Empire podcast. For that, you want to listen to Mike Duncan’s excellent The History of Rome.
Gibbon’s justifies his position by saying the Christian faith encouraged chastity and abstinence, resulting in a population decline within the Empire. That meant fewer men for the army. And those men who did enlist were influenced by a passivism taught by the Church that didn’t want to fight. They were all a bunch of 5th Century hippies. “Make love, not war, broh.” Gibbon’s assumption is that at the same time, the Barbarians popped out warriors like rabid attack-rabbits amped to go to war as soon as they could swing a sword.
Hold on Mr. Gibbon, those barbarians, weren’t they Christians too? Arian Christians to be sure, but weren’t they of the same general moral stripe as the Romans you claim were getting soften up and ready for the slaughter by a milk-toast brand of religion? So why were the barbarians different?
A far better cause to look for on why the barbarians took down the West was the pressure they faced from other barbarians invading their territory. It was easier, and quite frankly far more tempting, to just vacate territory being invaded by blood-thirsty savages from distant lands, and move toward the rich pickings of a decadent and largely under-defended Empire. An Empire where the quality of governing officials had so declined the people would rather be ruled by barbarians than the rapacious, brutal and corrupt officials sent by Rome, or Milan, or Ravenna – where ever the Western capital now sat.
So, did Christianity contribute to the fall of the Empire in the West?
Some of Gibbon’s criticisms may have merit. But whatever factors the Church contributed to weakening the Empire were offset by the benefits the Faith brought. As we’ve already seen, had it not been for the Church and its very capable bishops, entire regions would have gone without any governance.
What would have happened to Rome if Pope Leo hadn’t convinced Attila & his Hunnish hordes to turn back? What would have happened to the City had he not convinced the Vandals to limit their deprivations to looting?
To be sure, the percentage of genuine believers in the Empire was small. But their influence was growing. And Christianity began to alter the culture of the Empire in both the East and West.
In the mid 5th C, an elder of the church at Marseilles named Salvian wrote a book titled The Government of God. He wanted to answer the same question the great Augustine of Hippo wrestled with, “Why did Rome fall? Why would God bring suffering on a Christian people?” You’ll remember Augustine’s answer to that perplexing problem everyone was talking about was the book The City of God.
Salvian said the suffering of Christians in Gaul at the hands of invaders was not a measure of God’s just rule; it was His judgment on the wicked aristocrats and greedy officials who’d mercilessly oppressed the poor.
Salvian is unique because, until that time, writers tended to denigrate the common man in favor of the rich and powerful. After all, who bought books in those days? Salvian wrote for fellow believers, to help make sense of what they saw every day at the hands of barbarian invaders. He said God had let them in because the rich landowners and civil officials were corrupt and abused the common people.
While the case he makes is simplistic, it did contain a measure of truth others thought but feared to voice. Contrary to Salvian’s picture, the common man wasn’t all a mass of innocence, nor were all officials corrupt. There were exceptions on both sides. But a new note had been stuck in the old question of why Rome fell. And from that point on, the Church began to take an increasingly larger role in being the voice of the common people. The Church had always put a priority on charity and taking care of the poor, but rarely had it spoken out against the unjust policies of civil officials that deprived people of their rights and property. Now it began to.
The City of Rome was in the habit of evicting non-citizens in time of famine but Bishop Ambrose worked to change the policy so they’d be provided for. A similar policy was adopted at Edessa in Greece as well as a 300-bed hospital – all at the urging and with the assistance of believers in the city.
This is not to say in some places the Church was part of the problem rather than the solution. In Sicily for instance, church officials were oppressive in the way they exacted taxes from the commoners who worked church lands. But when Pope Gregory found out, he moved quickly to correct the problem.
Historians have long debated the efficacy of the Christian faith on the morality of the Empire. The tendency among advocates of the Faith is to attribute too much influence to the Church while critics scoff and say the Church had no impact on morals. The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in between.
We know it was the influence of Christianity that brought an end to gladiatorial combats. But the ever-popular chariot racing, wild animal hunts, and the incredibly immoral theaters carried on despite regularly sermons preached against them. The theater was so bawdy, some Emperors banned them. But they carried on in secret, knowing that the next Emperor might very well lift the ban.
One realm of morality that experienced a major overhaul was sexual ethics. The modern and popular conception of the late Roman Empire is that it was marked by lax sexual mores. TV miniseries on Rome have played this up to boost ratings. While the Imperial palace and homes of the wealthy were occasionally the scenes of moral debauchery, the common people were not given over to rampant sexual license. Society then was much like society now. What Christianity did was to elevate marriage and the status of women. Also, for the first time, virginity for both men and women was valued as a virtue. While marriage was held as sacred, the idea of staying single and choosing a life of celibacy so that a man or woman could devote themselves wholly to Christ became a regular part of the Christian Community.
Pagans considered this odd and another mark that set Christians apart.
Sexual intercourse outside of marriage was forbidden and violators were excluded from the Church. When the number of those excluded grew, it was decided to allow them back into fellowship after they’d demonstrated public repentance and done the required penance. As time passed and the idea of celibacy grew, even sex within marriage was edited. It was thought it should only be engaged in to produce children. Finding pleasure in marital sex was deemed by some church leaders, themselves celibate, as sinful. Sex between a husband and wife was to be endured to produce children, not enjoyed to build intimacy. Too bad they didn’t take the Song of Solomon at face value or apply what the Apostle Paul says in 1 Cor. 7.
The Christian view of marriage had a significant impact of Roman customs. Because it was considered a sacred covenant, divorce was forbidden except in the case of adultery. By Roman law, a woman was not allowed to marry a man beneath her social rank. If she did, her status was lowered to her husband’s level, he was never elevated to hers. In the early 3rd C, Pope Callistus not only eased the rule for sexual offenses, he declared as legal the marriage of men and women from any social level.
Under the Roman law of paterfamilias, the male head of household had absolute authority over his family and estate to do as he pleased. Technically, he had the power to beat and even execute his wife, children, and servants. I say ‘technically,’ because while the rule of paterfamilias did grant a father that right, being an abusive brute and killing family members was certainly frowned on. What paterfamilias did was to denigrate the value of women and children.
Christianity fundamentally altered that. Not only were women elevated as co-heirs of Christ with men, but children were also valued as parents were charged with the stewardship of raising them to the glory of God. The practice of exposing unwanted infants on a hillside, a common Roman and Greek custom, was forbidden for Christians, as was abortion. It’s said when non-Christians went to the hillside to leave their unwanted offspring, Christians came out from nearby hiding places to rescue them before the wild beasts could take them. They were then raised in Christian homes.
As the Church grew and more people came to faith in Christ from all occupations and levels of society, the impact of the Faith began to be felt across a wider spectrum. Many believers found it difficult to live in a secular world. When a civil magistrate came to faith, how was he to order the torture or execution of someone who before his conversion he wouldn’t have thought twice for? Some thought to solve this problem by saying Christians couldn’t serve in public office. Meaning those who DID serve in that capacity weren’t followers of Christ and so were void of the virtues of a believer. This had to have contributed to the decline in morality that marked the late Empire, especially the morality of governmental administrators; who became rapacious and brutal tyrants.
We think of men like Ambrose and Gregory who’d been magistrates before they left office to become leaders in the Church. The Church attracted the best and brightest who before would have gone into public office. Men like Athanasius and Augustine. There were hundreds who became bishops rather than governors and prefects. It was an ancient form of brain-drain that weakened the civil order of the Empire. These church leaders were more concerned to build Augustine’s City of God than to help shore up the sagging walls of the City of Man. And the barbarians were waiting just outside those walls to tear them down.
This, more than anything else is what contributed to the Fall of the Western Empire.
During the 3rd and 4th Cs, government policies saw a massive shift of people from being producers to consumers. By the dawn of the 5th C, the imbalance was unsupportable. The army had doubled in size to deal with the barbarian threat. As is the nature of government bureaucracy, it had mushroomed drastically. But producers like farmers and manufacturers had dropped significantly. The costs of doing business rose steeply consuming profits, and farmland was either threatened by invasion or stolen by elites who knew how to work the system to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
All of this burdened the government at the same time as impoverishing it. And wouldn’t you know it, it was right at that time that new barbarian groups decided have a go at the old girl called Rome.
Many of the commoners of the Western Empire weren’t really all that worried about the barbarians. They were ready for change since their Roman overlords had become brutal and rapacious. A change in regime sounds kinda’ good. Out of frustration with the civil authorities in Rome, Pope Gregory negotiated with the Lombards. The Christians submitted to barbarian political rule, then promptly converted those barbarians to the Faith.
So, Christianity may indeed have contributed in a small way to the fall of the Western Empire, but the question is – was it really worth saving? Was history set back by Rome’s demise? If Rome’s fall was Christianity’s fault, how then did the Church become the repository of culture and the treasury of civilization and emerge as one of the dominant institutions in the centuries that followed? The barbarians may have conquered the Western Empire, but the Church soon conquered them.
by Lance Ralston | Jun 1, 2014 | English |
This week’s episode of Communio Sanctorum is titled, “God’s Consul .”
One of the Roman Emperor Diocletian’s most important contributions to the Empire was to divide the top-tier leadership up so that it could rule more efficiently. The Empire had grown too large to be governed by a single Emperor, so he selected a co-Augustus & divided their regions of oversight between Western & Eastern realms. Since the issue of succession had also been a cause for unrest in previous generations, Diocletian also provided for that by assigning junior Caesars for both himself & his co-Augustus. When they stepped down, there would be someone waiting in the wings, pre-designated to take control. The idea was then that when their successors stepped into the role of being co-Augusti – they’d appoint new junior Caesars to follow after them. It was a solid plan and worked well while Diocletian was the senior Augustus. When he retired to raise prize-winning cabbages, the other rulers decided they liked power & didn’t want to relinquish it.
Over the years that followed, rule of the Empire alternated between a single Emperor & Diocletian’s idea of shared rule. The general trend was for shared rule with the senior Augustus making his capital in the East at Constantinople. This left the weaker & subordinate ruler in the west with increasingly less power at the same time Germanic tribes pressed in from the North.
What eventually spelled doom for the Western Empire was that Rome had forged treaties with some of those Germanic tribes; turning them into mercenaries who were armed & trained in the Roman style of war. When Rome stopped paying them to fight FOR Rome against their Germanic brothers & the Goths, it was inevitable they’d join them to fight against the rich pickings of the decaying Empire who could no longer field armies against them.
We’ve seen previously, as the barbarians pressed into the Western Empire from the North & East, civil authorities had diminishing ability to do anything about them. People began looking to the Church to provide order. Because the Church was gifted with some remarkable leaders who genuinely cared about the welfare of the people, they managed to hold the decaying Empire together for a time. Pope Leo even managed to meet with the Hun leader Attila as he prepared to march on Rome. Leo persuaded the Huns to turn around, leaving the City intact. But Leo didn’t have as much luck with the Vandals who arrived a few years later. He did manage to persuade them to limit their sack to plunder & pillage. The population was saved from death & rape. After a 2 week loot-fest, the Vandals boarded their ships & sailed away – leaving the city otherwise unmolested.
Historians mark the year 476 as the date when the Western Empire fell. It was then that the Goth leader Odoacer deposed the last Western Emperor, Romulus Augustulus. Odoacer is called a barbarian, but he was, in fact, a military leader in the Roman army; a mercenary who led a revolt against the very people he’d once fought FOR. While historians mark 476 as the year of Rome’s fall, for the people living at that time, they would not have seen much if any difference between the reign of Augustulus & Odoacer. Things carried on much as they had from the previous decades. Which is to say – it was a mess!
With the Fall of Rome, the Western Empire moved into what we know as the Middle Ages. This was a time when the Church played an ever-increasing role in society. The form that influence took varied over the centuries; sometimes being more religious & spiritual in nature, at other times being predominantly political. But there’s no denying that in Europe during the Middle Ages, the Church played a major role.
During the 5th & early 6th Centuries, as civil society disintegrated, people looked to alternatives. Some found an answer in monastic communities. There’d been communes of Christians since the 3rd Century, but the number of monasteries began to grow during the 5th. Some were highly structured while others were more loosely organized.
The monastic movement took off due to the leadership of Benedict of Nursia whom we’ve already talked about. Benedict’s early attempts at being the leader or abbot of a monastery didn’t go so well; the monks tried to poison him. But as he matured, Benedict applied the lessons learned from his previous mistakes & founded a monastery on Monte Cassino in Italy that became the proto-typical monastery for years to come.
Benedict was a genius for administration and organization. He formulated a simple plan for monastic living that was easily transferred to other communes. Known as the Rule of St. Benedict, it became the organizing & governing principle for monastic life & under it, hundreds more monasteries were begun. The Rule held forth a daily routine of Bible reading, prayer, and work. Benedict’s sister Scholastica adopted a similar formula for convents.
Monasteries became repositories & treasuries of the learning and scholarship of Greece and Rome. As the rest of Europe plunged into what some refer to as The Dark Ages, many monasteries remained places of scholarship. The monks read, studied and spent considerable time copying ancient texts of both scripture and classical antiquity. The Renaissance would eventually be fed by the work of those monks and their hundreds of years of work.
What we know about Benedict comes from his biographer, Gregory, known to us as Pope Gregory I, or Gregory the Great, a title conferred on him by the Church shortly after his death.
Gregory was born into a wealthy and ancient Roman senatorial family around 540. Following family tradition, he was trained for civil service. But the political landscape was uncertain. During his childhood, the rule of Rome passed through several different regimes. While in his mid-teens, control of Southern Italy was wrested from the Visigoths by the re-conquest of the Eastern Emperor Justinian. But it was only a few years till the Lombards began their campaign of terror. They burned churches, murdered bishops, plundered monasteries, and turned the verdant fields of Italy into a weed-strewn wilderness.
When he was 33, Justinian appointed Gregory as the Prefect of Rome, the highest political position in the territory. Gregory was responsible for the economy, food provisions, welfare of the poor, reconstruction of the now ancient and badly decayed infrastructure; things like baths, sewers, and streets. His appointment came in the same year both the pope and Imperial governor of Italy died.
A few years later Gregory resigned his office. It’s rare when someone who wields great power walks away from it – but that’s what Gregory did. The death of his father seemed to be the turning point. One wonders if it wasn’t his father’s dreams FOR his son that had moved Gregory into a political career to begin with. Once the father was gone, there was nothing holding him to his position and Gregory followed his heart, which was to become a monk. With his considerable fortune, he founded seven monasteries and gave what was left to the poor. He then turned his family’s home into a monastery. As Bruce Shelly puts it, “He exchanged the purple toga for the coarse robe of a monk.” He embraced the austere life of a monk with full devotion to the Rule of St. Benedict.
As much as Gregory desired to dissolve into obscurity and live a life of humble devotion to God, his outstanding gifts as an administrator had fixed a reputation to him he was unable to dodge. In 579, Pope Pelagius II made him one of seven deacons for the church at Rome. He was then sent as an ambassador for the Pope to the imperial court in Constantinople. He returned to Rome in 585 and was appointed abbot of the convent that had once been his house.
Gregory was quite content to be an abbot and would aspire to no higher office, content to finish his sojourn on earth right there. But The Plague swept thru Rome, killing thousands, including the Pope. Unlike most monks who hid behind their commune’s walls, Gregory went into the city to help the sick. This earned him great admiration. After Pope Pelagius died, it took church leaders six months to settle on Gregory to replace him. He balked and fled Rome to hide in the countryside. When he was eventually located they persuaded him to return and take up the Bishop’s seat.
Gregory seemed ill-suited to the task. He was 50 and frail. 50 would be young for a pope today, but when the average life span was a mere 40 years, 50 was already an advanced age. Gregory’s physical condition had been made worse by his extreme austerity as a monk. Drastic fasting had enfeebled him and contributed to the weakening of his heart. But what some might assume his main disqualification, was Gregory’s lack of ambition for power. He simply did not want to be Pope. Coming to the belief it was God’s will that he take up the task, it didn’t take long for him to learn how to wield the influence his office. He began his term by calling for public demonstrations of humility of what was left of Rome’s plague-decimated populace. His hope was to avert more disaster. And indeed, after a while the plague abated.
Gregory hadn’t been Pope long when the Lombards laid siege to Rome. This was a time of chaos throughout Western Europe. Many otherwise cool heads thought it was the end times; Gregory was one of them. In a sermon he said,
Everywhere we see tribulation, everywhere we hear lamentation. The cities are destroyed, the castles torn down, the fields laid waste, the land made desolate. Villages are empty, few inhabitants remain in the cities, and even these poor remnants of humanity are daily cut down. The scourge of celestial justice does not cease, because no repentance takes place under the scourge. We see how some are carried into captivity, others mutilated, others slain. What is it, brethren, that can make us contented with this life? If we love such a world, we love not our joys, but our wounds.
It seemed every aspect of civilization was being shaken to ruins. The church at Rome was one of a few that survived the ordeals that came like hammer blows. Though Gregory saw his promotion to the papacy as punishment, he surrendered himself whole-heartedly to the task of keeping things together while everything else fell apart.
Pope Gregory I was a tireless leader. He accomplished the work of ten. His volume of work is all the more remarkable in that he was often confined to bed because of sickness brought on by his frailty and overwork. Seeing himself as genuinely the first among equals with the other bishops, he kept up a vast correspondence, making sure the lines of communication between the churches kept everyone abreast of Church affairs. That alone would have been a full-time pursuit. But Gregory did more.
He knew from both his time as a monk and in watching his brothers in the monastery, that the quality of one’s work FOR God, is directly proportional to the heart’s devotion TO Him. So in his book Pastoral Care, Gregory reminded spiritual leaders to never be so preoccupied with work that they forgot their own soul. But there was a much-needed counterpoint to that; they must also not become so internally focused that they neglected practical work. This was a point of balance rarely glimpsed in the Christianity of that age.
Gregory was also concerned for the quality of worship in the church and encouraged the use of music. Though he did not invent what is called plainsong or plainchant, he greatly encouraged its use. In honor of his patronage of this form of worship, it’s known as Gregorian chant. Plainsong is a single melodic line without instrumental accompaniment. While a single singer may sing, it was usually sung by a chorus of voices in unison.
Gregory took seriously his call to be the standard-bearer of the Faith. His contribution to theology was remarkable. He wrote more on theology than any previous and most subsequent popes. His main influences were Augustine, Ambrose & Jerome. He leaned heavily on Augustine’s work, even at times drawing inspiration from casual comments he’d made.
Remember back several episodes to when we noted how the church believed baptism washed away all sins, up to that point. Well, what happened to those sins committed after baptism that were not confessed before death and had not been expiated by penance? Augustine mused on how God might, maybe, possibly — remove these sins after believers died. It was from this speculative musing that Gregory developed the idea God purged them in a “purge-atory;” so the doctrine of purgatory was added to church doctrine.
Gregory’s theology encapsulated not only the creeds of the councils and teachings of the Fathers, it also included some of the superstitious accretions of a Christianized paganism.
I understand there are not a few Roman Catholics who subscribe to this podcast. I’ve been mightily encouraged by their kind remarks, and the occasional suggestions they’ve made. Even at points of disagreement, most have been courteous & used a heavy dose of tact when dialoging. I say that because in what follows, I suspect some will think I’m needlessly tweaking the sensitivities of our RC family. I hope I’m not, but am presenting an accurate view of the history here.
To illustrate that, let me pose this question: How do we get from the picture of Christian Fellowship & the kind of church service we find in the NT and the earliest descriptions of them, to the elaborate, formal, highly-structured & stylized services of the Medieval & later Church? There’s an obvious discontinuity between them. When did pastors begin wearing elaborate robes and head-gear and start carrying gilded & bejeweled croziers? To put it bluntly – whence all the complex ritual? I don’t think anyone imagines Jesus conducting such a service, or even Peter. So it’s a legitimate question to ask when these things were adopted and became a part of church liturgy. The answer is, as the Western Roman Empire folded and church leaders became increasingly looked to, to provide governance, they also began to affect some of the trappings of political office. As Christianity became the favored, and then approved religion of the Empire, an all-too-common syncretism began to blend pagan and Christian practices. All Gregory did was standardize this syncretistic blend and bequeath it to the Church of the Middle Ages.
He endorsed an earlier practice of appealing to past martyrs and saints for help in securing God’s aid. The idea was that a penitent sinner could never know if he/she had done enough penance to atone for sin. By appealing to those believers who’d died and gone to heaven for help, they might be able, through their special standing with God, to find assistance in having their sin discharged, kind of like spiritual brokers who negotiated a better deal for the Earth-bound.
Gregory encouraged the collection and veneration of relics; strands of hair, fingernails, toe bones, or pieces of clothing from past saints and martyrs; as well as paraphernalia supposedly connected to the Bible; pieces of the cross, the spear that pierced Jesus’ side, a towel used to wipe Christ’s brow. It was assumed these relics possessed special power to heal and give the armies that venerated them favor in battle.
Gregory taught that the body and blood of Christ were really present in the elements of Communion, the bread & wine. He claimed partaking of them nourished and strengthened one’s spirit, just as literal bread and wine nourished the physical body. But Gregory took it further. The real power of the Communion elements, the Eucharist, was in its renewing of the sacrifice of Christ’s death. The Eucharist didn’t just remember Jesus’ substitutionary atonement, it was a fresh enactment of it. During Communion, in the Mass, offered by a priest, sins were forgiven. What Jesus’ death on the cross did potentially for all people, the Mass applied to specific people who partook of it. So celebrating Mass replaced the need for some forms of penance. Certain sins required both attending Mass and penance. But for the average run of the mill kind of pedantic sins, Mass replaced penance. Then people reasoned, if dead saints could assist them by intercession with God, why couldn’t living believers attend extra masses for departed loved ones to lessen their time in purgatory. Light a candle, say a prayer, attend an extra Mass and you might shorten Uncle Giacomo’s sentence by a week. This theological base fashioned by Gregory would be used hundreds of years later to sell indulgences, and Tetzel’s clever fund-raising ditty – “When in the offering box the coin rings, another soul from purgatory springs.”
Gregory’s realm of oversight wasn’t limited to the spiritual affairs of the Church. During his tenure, the Church owned huge tracts of land in Southern Italy & Sicily; some 1,800 square miles in all. When the Lombards invaded, sweeping away the last vestiges of civil authority, it was church leaders & their representatives who had to step in to provide governance. They took over the infrastructure of providing food and the necessary collection of taxes to maintain some semblance of civil affairs. Later arm-chair historians lament the blurring of the line between church and state. They fail to realize, had it not been for church officials stepping in following the Lombard incursions, tens of thousands would have perished. Gregory was the one who set up and oversaw this new tax and public assistance system. As the Lombards drew closer to Rome, Gregory took charge of the defense of central Italy. He appointed the military governor and arranged for a peace with the enemy leaders.
Think of this now à Gregory was trained from youth for political office and had served well in that capacity until his father’s death when he resigned to seek the quiet life of a monk. When the Plague gutted both the church and civil sphere of capable leaders, Gregory was drafted to take the reins of the Church. The Lombards hammered the last nails into the coffin of Roman civil government, requiring for the sake of public welfare, that Gregory mobilize the leadership of the church to step up and follow his lead of taking on the task of civil authority. Though Gregory greatly expanded papal influence so that from his day on, the Pope was a central figure in European politics, his motive for all he did is seen in his simple concern for the welfare of the needy, as demonstrated by his refusal to stay safely behind the walls of his monastery when the plague ravaged Rome.
The tension between the Eastern & Western church that had begun over a hundred years before as Rome and Constantinople vied for supremacy, grew during Gregory’s term, but certainly not because of Gregory’s personal ambition for power. His criticism of the Eastern Patriarch was due to his belief in Rome’s primacy and his resistance to the kind of pride on full display in the East. The Eastern Patriarch John IV had taken the title “universal bishop,” an honorific granted the Patriarch by emperors like Leo and Justinian. The title was confirmed in an Eastern synod in 588. But Gregory considered the title a usurpation of Rome’s primacy and a blatant arrogance God would not allow. He did all he could to have the title revoked and called down mighty anathemas on it. He threatened to break off all connection with the Patriarch and demanded the Emperor rescind the title. When someone applied the same title to him, Gregory’s reaction was immediate and vehement – no one was to be called a “universal pope”! He said, “I have said that neither to me nor to anyone else ought you to write anything of the kind. Away with words which inflate pride and wound charity!” He preferred to be known as simply – “the servant of the servants of God.”
What appears a contradiction to historians is that while Gregory eschewed pretentious titles, he claimed and exercised authority over the entire Church. While in his case, that oversight was due to his scrupulous sense of duty to serve God by serving his people, later popes would accept the grand titles and use the power of the papacy to less altruistic ends.
Gregory is an important name in the list of Popes because it was under his term that a great wave of missionary outreach began. If Leo the Great had sought to expand the power & influence of the office of Pope, Gregory the Great expanded the influence of the Gospel to new lands beyond the borders of the Empire. Being the first monk to become a pope, Gregory realized monasteries were like spiritual barracks that could send out an army of evangelists. If Rome couldn’t field military legions to repel the barbarians, why not send out legions of missionaries to convert those barbarians, then appeal to their faith to forestall attack? Convert war-like barbarians into daring peace-loving, then peace-spreading missionaries who instead of invading Europe would carry the cross North & East.
Good plan. And Gregory implemented it well.
When Gregory was a youngster, he’d watched as slave ships were unloaded at the docks. The slaves were Angles, from Angle-land, which later becomes England. The name Angle sounded like ‘Angel’ to the young Gregory and set within him the idea that where these barbarians came from needed the Gospel.
Besides his interest in missions to Britain, Gregory also promoted missionary activity among the Germanic tribes. But it wasn’t until about a hundred years later that missionary work among the Germanic tribes would really take off. We’ll cover that in a future episode.
If you’ve been following along with the podcast, a question may have risen that we turn to now. When did the western church, centered in Rome under the overall leadership of the Roman Bishop who’d come to be known as the Pope, really become what today we know as Roman Catholicism?
There was no one day the Church transitioned from being the Apostolic church into the Roman Catholic Church. It was a slow, steady series of events that saw the Roman bishop be looked at as the mostly undisputed leader of the western church. I say “mostly undisputed” because while the eastern church centered in Constantinople, Antioch & Alexandria honored Rome’s bishop as first among equals, there were always a handful of western bishops who esteemed the lead pastor at Rome in much the same way. They didn’t see their role as the bishop of their city as in any way under a Roman pope’s authority.
And don’t forget that the term catholic; which technically just means “universal” carried none of the denominational freight it does today. The word simply meant the Faith that followed the creeds set out by the ecumenical councils – those gatherings attended by a wide cross-section of the leaders of the church so they could define a Biblically faithful position on doctrines being mucked up by aberrant teachers & groups.
An ultra-simple definition then of Roman Catholicism is that branch of the Christian Faith that embodies the early creeds of the church, as it coalesced in Europe, led by the church at & Bishop of Rome. As the generations passed, Roman Catholicism would take on much additional doctrine to that embodied in the early creeds. That doctrine was most often decided by the Roman bishop, whose power and authority grew so that he replaced the Councils.
So while it’s difficult to name a date when Roman Catholicism became, you know – Roman Catholic, many church historians suggest Gregory’s appointment as bishop of Rome in 590 is as good a place as any to drive that stake into the church history timeline. Though Gregory refused the title “Pope,” he set up the system of church government that framed the entire medieval period & is called today the papal system. Gregory set a uniform liturgy to be used in the churches and did much to ensure all the churches walked lock-step with Rome.
When he died in 604, worn out after 30 years of hard work, his epitaph proclaimed him “God’s Consul.” An appropriate description of the man who’ spent his life and career wholly in God’s service but wielding both secular and spiritual power like one of the ancient Roman rulers.
by Lance Ralston | May 25, 2014 | English |
This episode is titled – The Divide.
I begin with a quote from a man known to scholars as Pseudo Dionysius the Areopagite. In a commentary on the names of God he wrote . . .
The One is a Unity which is the unifying Source of all unity and a Super-Essential Essence, a Mind beyond the reach of mind and a Word beyond utterance, eluding Discourse, Intuition, Name, and every kind of being. It is the Universal Cause of existence while Itself existing not, for It is beyond all Being and such that It alone could give a revelation of Itself.
If that sounds more like something an Eastern guru would come up with, don’t worry, you’re right. Dionysius isn’t called Pseudo for nothing.
We’ll get to him a bit deeper into this episode.
The late 5th & 6th Cs saw important developments in the Eastern church. It’s the time of the premier Byzantine Emperor, Justinian. But 2 contemporaries of his also made important contributions to the most important institutions of the medieval church in the West. One of them we’ve already mentioned in brief, the other we’ll devote an episode to; Benedict of Nursia & Pope Gregory the Great.
By the end of the 6th C, the unique characteristics of the Eastern and Western churches had coalesced in two different traditions. While the West remained loyal to the pattern held at Rome, the East emerged in 3 directions.
The major Councils held at Ephesus & Chalcedon to decide the issue raised by the debate between Cyril of Alexandria & Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, over the nature of Christ, produced a 3-way split in the Eastern church. That split continues to this day and is seen in what’s called the . . .
(1) Chalcedonian or Byzantine Orthodox church
(2) Those called Monophysites or Oriental Orthodox, which follows the theological line of Cyril &
(3) The Nestorian Church of the East.
Without going into all the intricate details of the debates, suffice it to say the Eastern Church wasn’t satisfied with the Western-inspired formula describing the nature of Jesus adopted at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. In a scenario reminiscent of what had happened all the way back at the first council at Nicaea in 325, while they concluded the council at Chalcedon with an agreed creed, some bishops later hemmed & hawed over the verbiage. To those Eastern bishops beholden to Cyril, Chalcedon sounded too Nestorian to swallow. Chalcedon said Jesus was “1 person in 2 natures.” The balking bishops wanted to alter that to say he was “out of 2 natures” before the incarnation, but after he was 1 nature.
Now, for those listening to several of these podcasts in a row rather than spaced out over several weeks, I know this is repetitious. In a brief summary let me recap Cyril’s & Nestorius’ views. Regarding how to understand who Jesus is; that is, how His identities as both God & Man related to each other . . .
Cyril said he was both God & Man, but that the divine so overwhelmed the human it became virtually meaningless. The analogy was that his humanity was a drop of ink in the ocean of His divinity. Therefore, Mary was the Theotokos – the mother of God.
Nestorius, balked at that title, saying Mary was Jesus human mother who became the means by which Jesus was human but that she should not be called the mother of God. Nestorius said Jesus was both human & divine and emphasized his humanity and the role it played in the redemption of lost sinners.
Because Nestorius reacted to what he considered the aberrant position of Cyril, and because he lacked tact and a knew when to shut up, his opponents claimed he taught Jesus wasn’t just of 2 natures but was 2 persons living in the same body. For this, he was branded a heretic.
But when the Council of Chalcedon finally issued its official stand on what compromised Christian orthodoxy regarding the person & natures of Christ, Nestorius said they’d only articulated what he’d always taught.
So it’s little wonder post-Chalcedon bishops of the Cyrillian slant rejected Chalcedon. Their view left the humanity of Christ as an abstract and impersonal dimension of His nature. Because they SO emphasized His deity, at the cost of his humanity, they were branded as “Monophysites” or sometimes you’ll hear it pronounced as “muh-noph–uh-sites.” Sadly, just as those labeled Nestorian weren’t heretical as the name came to mean, the term Monophysite is also inaccurate because they did not DENY Jesus’ humanity.
The Greek prefix mono implies “only one” nature. A better descriptor is monophysite. Hen- is the Greek prefix meaning one, but without the “only” limiter.
But the Eastern push-back on Chalcedon wasn’t just theological; it was also nationalistic. The church in Egypt went into revolt after the Council because their patriarch Dioscorus was deposed!
Then in Canon 28 of the Council’s creed, Constantinople was elevated as 2nd only to Rome in terms of prestige, so both Alexandria & Antioch got their togas in a bunch. Those bishops who supported Chalcedon were labeled “Melchites,” meaning royalists because they supported the Imperial church.
We’ve noted that while the Western Emperor was out of the picture by this time, so that the Roman pope stood as a kind of lone figure leading the West, the Eastern Emperor at Constantinople still wielded tremendous authority in the Church. We might wonder therefore why they didn’t step in to settle the issue about the nature of Christ. They wanted to. Several of them would have liked to repudiate Chalcedon, but their hands were tied, because there was one part of the Council they wanted to keep – Canon 28, setting up Constantinople as technically Rome’s second, but in reality, her equal.
Now, as I studied the material that follows the debates between the Henophysites & Chalcedonians I found myself at a loss on how to relate it without boring the bejeebers out of you. I spent quite a bit of time working, editing, re-editing, deleting, restoring, and deleting again before deciding to just say that in the East during the 5th & 6th Cs, just about everybody was caught up in this thing. Emperors, bishops, patriarchs, metropolitans, monks, priests, & the common people. There are technical words like Encyclion, Henoticon, Severan, Acacian that are employed to define the different sides taken in the debate, and those who tried to forge a compromise. And let me tell you – THOSE guys failed miserably in working a compromise. They got hammered by BOTH sides.
Regarding the long debate over the natures of Christ in the East, Everett Ferguson says that the irony is that the Chalcedonians, Henophysites, and the Church of the East were really trying to say the same thing about Jesus. He was somehow at the same time 2 somethings, but a single individual. Their different starting points gave different formulations their opponents couldn’t accept for theological reasons and wouldn’t for political reasons.
Switching gears: Around 500 one of the most influential thinkers in Greek Orthodox spirituality made his mark, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. His real name is unknown. He claimed to be Dionysius, one of Paul’s Athenian converts mentioned in Acts 17. His contemporaries accepted his writings as legit. We know now they weren’t.
Pseudo-Dionysius combined Christianity & Neoplatonism into a mish-mash slap-dash theology that appealed to both Chalcedonians and Henophysites. Probably because when you read it you inwardly say, “What?” but had to nod your head saying how amazing it was so you wouldn’t appear stupid. Like when I read or listen to Stephen Hawking waxing eloquent on some tangent of astrophysics; I say, “Wow! That guy’s brilliant!” But don’t ask me to explain what I just heard. He speaks English, but it might as well be ancient Akkadian.
Besides being a Neoplatonist, Pseudo-Dionysius was also a mystic, meaning someone who claimed to have had an experience of union with God, not just a deep sense of connection to Him, but an actual uniting with the essence of deity. Pseudo-Dionysius became the author of a branch of Christian mysticism that was hugely influential in Eastern Christianity. When his work was translated into Latin in the 9th C, he became influential in the West as well.
Pseudo-Dionysius writings stressed a tendency already found in Greek Christian authors like Origen, Athanasius, and Gregory of Nyssa who said the goal of human salvation was a kind of making humans divine.
We need to be careful here, because as soon as I say that, all the Western Christians say, “Wait! What?!!?!? Back the truck up Billy Bob. I think we just ran over something.”
There is in Eastern Orthodoxy a different understanding of salvation from that of Roman Catholicism & Classic Protestantism.
Eastern Orthodoxy understands that the saved are destined to a level of glory in heaven that is on an order of existence that can only properly be described as divine.
No; humans don’t become gods; not like the one true and only Creator God. But they were created in His image and will be restored to & completed in that image so that they will be as much LIKE God as a created being can be and still not be God.
This quasi-deification is attained by purification, illumination, and perfection, meaning union with God, which became the three stages of enlightenment espoused by classic mysticism.
Okay, hang with me as we go deep. Pseudo-Dionysius identified three stages in how someone seeking the fullness of salvation can describe God:
1) Giving Him a name was affirmative theology.
2) Denying that name was negative theology. And …
3) Then reconciling the contradiction by looking beyond language was superlative theology.
The way of negation led to the contemplation that marks mystical theology, which was considered a simpler and purer way to understand God. In other words, it’s easier to know who and what God is by concentrating on what He’s not. And if that seems backward and nonsensical – welcome to the club of those who aren’t mystics and just scratch their heads when the mystics start talking.
Pseudo-Dionysius’ arrangement of angels into nine levels became the basis for the medieval doctrine of angels.
Reading Pseudo-Dionysius can be frustrating for those who try to parse out his logic and seek to discern in his words some profound truths. While all very spiritual sounding, they’re typical of many such mystical tomes; a cascade of words that defy interpreting. The mind is set in a place of trying to reconcile competing, and ultimately contradictory ideas. This tension causes the reader to mentally shut down, and it’s in that state of suspended reason that the soul is supposed to be able to connect to God. It’s the same effect as repeated mantras and eastern style meditation.
Still, Pseudo-Dionysius was extremely influential in shaping how countless Christians of the 6th through 10th Cs went about seeking to grow in their relationship with God. Today, we dismiss him by calling him Pseudo-, Fake-, Fraud-, Poser-Dionysius.
by Lance Ralston | May 18, 2014 | English |
This episode is titled – Popes.
We begin with a quote from Pope Leo I and his Sermon 5 …
It is true that all bishops taken singly preside each with his proper solicitude over his own flock, and know that they will have to give account for the sheep committed to them. To us [that is: the Popes], however, is committed the common care of all; and no single bishop’s administration is other than a part of our task.
The history of the Popes, AKA the bishops of Rome, could easily constitute its own study & podcast. Low & behold there IS a podcast by Stephen Guerra on this very subject. You can access it via iTunes or the History podcasters website.
(more…)
