It kind of lost all formatting in it's transfer, but here are all my notes. For some reason I don't have distinct notes for week 1/2 but Nick has provided notes on that. Additionally I lack notes on Francescas weeks because I got lost and unbelieving at time!
Hope these are ok and the best of luck!
xx
Monday, 14 May 2007
Schism and Concilliarism
Schism and Conciliarism
Review - some of the major issues raised by this course related to what we’re looking at this week.
Christianity’s transition from being a prescribed religion to becoming the favored religion of the roman emperors and then the religion of the whole european society as well as a few countries beyond e.g. Ethiopia.
Christians welcomed this but it also created some difficulties for them, when it was prescribed it was still quite easy to distinguish between the earthly and heavenly kingdoms, christians knew where there loyalties lay. Christians knew that they were part of heaven, in this world but not of it. It becomes a lot more difficult when the kingdom of this world embraces the kingdom of christ, declaring itself a christian empire. What to make of it if your christian?
a) heaven has now become earth - the end of the world has arrived. Christ will return and put the final seal on the system.
But as we’re also seen when the system began to collapse with things like the barbarian invasion, this view was no longer possible. So there’s still this nagging sense that the church still doesn’t quite belong here, that’s its not comfortable in this world, but because the earth is still embracing it, the church has not to reach some kind of working system with the world.
The way they reach this mode is to establish two spheres of influence, of governance. ONe sphere is the sphere of the christian ruler, the government, his job is protect peoples bodies. To ensure physical safety. The government of the church - the second sphere, is concerned with the soul, the body will eventually pass away but the soul is immortal, because its immortal it’s got to prepare itself for its immortal destiny either in heaven or hell. If the spiritual government doesn’t do its job the danger is hell - ahhhhh!!
Problem is the church is also responsible for the souls of the earthly kings, its often very hard for a christian king to conduct his life in the way that Jesus demanded - turn the other cheek, love and pray for your enemies - what happens when you’re invaded? Can you turn your cheek on behalf of your people?
What if heresy arises amongst your people. heresy doesn’t exactly put bodies in danger but it does put souls in danger, if you do nothing about it as a Christian ruler then you have allowed those in your care to go to hell.
What if the heretic is your brother? Your heir? The sherif? Which is more important the soul or the peace and protection of the people in the south?
What should a King do?
This is all part of a very long process of secularization slowly over the centuries form 313 europeans have attempted to establish christian states, but even while christianity is at it’s height its beginning to fall apart under the strain of the rivalry between the claims of this world and the next. the latin world for age/world saeculum its here that we get our world secular. There are two ages/saecula the world now and the world to come. But when the mediaeval talk of the saecula there are increasingly talking of this world rather than the world to come. Gradually we see the lords/kings etc asserting themselves more and more, they find that the churches view of the next world is interfering with there ability to get on in this world, so we see ourselves asserting themselves in this world and gradually taking over.
This is not a story of goodies and badies, both sides in this debate believe that they have the best interests of the church of Christendom at heart, neither side pulls it off entirely. al i want you to see and think about is how each sides struggled for what they thought would be best.
This framed in the language of the two swords - the sword of the king ( a real one!) and the sword of the spirit (which is yielded by the church) the 13th century church developed saying to describe this.
Pope Gelasius 494
‘There are two powers...’ again the idea that the king looks after the body etc.
Dictatus papae (1087) Gregory VII - a series of rules trying to state the churches position e.g.
‘That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal’
‘That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops...’
‘That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors....’
‘That he himself may be judged by none.’
Basically Popes are saying to the Kings that the Kings need to act as they should but Christian rules, if they don’t they loose the support of the church.
Three principles
i) the Pope holds Plenituda potestastis: fullness of power (i.e. over the whole church)
ii) ludex ordinaritus: right to reach judgments at all levels of the church - this is where it gets really dodgy, the popes also claim that the power of kings at least in europe is also delegated to them by the papacy. There’s a legend that constantine made a will, giving his authority to pope Sylvester I, because he had cured him of leprosy, this document didn’t appear to the 8th century, but at least in the early mediaeval ages everyone accepted it as genuine, the popes used it to say that under Sylvester the popes had taken that power then given it conditionally. The popes aren’t trying to claim political power - except in the papal states - but they do claim that they have it in theory. One of the basis to there claim that they can take it back. A very heavily contested claim by the time you get to the reformation
iii)They are the ordinary judge - basically it’s like the european court - you can appeal right up to the level of the papacy. He can step into any diocese over the head of the local bishop and interfere.
iv) Vicarius Christi: Christ’’s delegate to the whole church - until now they had been the vicar of Peter, they had said they could be Christ’s rep in Rome, now they are saying they are Christ’s rep to the whole kingdom. This has some very practical implications e.g. Innocent III (1198-1216), the Lateran council declared that any ruler who tried to tax the church without asking the pope using legitimate purposes then they are instantly excommunicated - taxes for crusades is fine, but not for warring families.
Rulers were not allowed to employ Jews in public office.
This is the height of papal self assertion in the 13th century it all goes downhill from now on, epitomized in a struggle involving Philip IV the Fair) and Bonfire VIII.
Philip was at war with Edward I, (as was Scotland) Edward was invading France, so Philip began taxing the church. Boniface issued a Bull condemning all taxation of the church - Clerics Iaicos (1294) . Boniface is treating Philip like a stroppy teenager and tries to slap an ASBO on him. But Boniface was in a very weak position at home, for most of the 13th century had been the platy thing of 3 noble Roman families, Boniface was a member of one of these families, his family would have supported him but would have come with ready made enemies, who are ready to ally themselves with anyone who hates boniface, so Philip had ready made enemies in Italy. He also succeeded a very strange pope, who wasn’t a member of any of these families, he was a hermit. Who had actually resigned, it was fearful of him so put him under a kind of house arrest, Celestone (the hermit pope) soon died under fairly suspicious circumstances.
In 1294, France and Scotland sign an alliance. Edward was also taxing the English church, Clerics laicos was also directed at the English.
The French and their Italian allies: The first tactic they take is to accuse Boniface as having improperly deposed his predecessor Celestone V and having murdered him (which he probably did. So they called a council to try and get rid of Boniface. Drawing up a whole list of crimes.
Boniface responded with another Bull - Unam Sanctum (1302) which is considered the strongest claim of the age - very hard line pinnacle of papal claims. Basically it’s to do with one holy catholic etc. It starts with a list of claims/statements ‘we declare, state, define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for very human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.’
In a way the louder the Pope shouts and rants the weaker they are, there must be a reason to try and state there authority. What this claim doesn’t mean that the pope wants to be ruler of the world, it’s purely authority of salvation. There’s one church and no salvation out with the church. In relation to the position in France, he’s saying that he must accept the church’s authority or loose his salvation.
Philip wasn’t taking this and called a council in the Louvre, and repeated the list of claims against Boniface. However this time it was before a general council, so they were attempting to go over the popes head. So the French got together an army of Italian mercenaries and invaded his home town where he had his papal palace and came within an ace of killing him. He was half hoping that he would make a Thomas Becket of him. But they held back from killing him and eventually retreated, Boniface went back to Rome and died a few months later, probably of shock.
This conflict represents a kind of tipping point, form this point on the papacy starts going on a bumpy ride down hill, the secular begin to gain the upper hand, it really take the reformation fro the papacy to once again gain the upper hand. The reformation could happen because the papacy was on a whole new low, after the papacy can redefine itself in a new Europe.
The Great Schism
The Popes in Avignon: The papacy in Babylon?
i) rulers spent a lot of time away from there capitals mainly to ensure that there peripherals did not rise up against them. They did a lot of time touring, for example in Scotland there were many capitals that the king divided his time. During the 12th century the popes spent about 60% of there time outside Rome. Certainly during the summer Rome is so hot anywhere that popes would generally go to cooler climbs.
Yes Avignon was different, the Popes spent 70 years there, but Avignon is not a bad alternative.
1. It’s on the river Rhone - very useful for transport - the rivers were like super highways. The super powerfully political families in England and France were all largely accessible by sea and river. For access to places of power Avignon is much more accessible and convenient place for the papacy to be. Eventually the popes also bought Avignon off its temporal rulers and it became part of the papal states.
After Boniface Philip was keen to get a Frenchman in the papacy, this happened in 1305 - Clement V, he was crowned pope in Lyon and decided for the time being the most convenient place for him was in France for he wanted to secure peace between england and france, the district he was from was actually English, so he was and English Frenchman, so wanted to do quite a bit of touring. He got ill and was nursed by the dominicans in Avignon. He died near them.
His successor John XXII was from Avignon decided to stay there and made Avignon his capital and began extending the bishops palace.
None of the following popes were french and were generally all sympathetic to French policy and would generally favor French policy against the English.
The list of Avignon popes show that they’re there for about 70 years, throughout this time the popes are making pious statements about there return to Rome, they know they should be there but they never quite make it. One of the things that is holding them back is the complete political anarchy in the papal states and in Italy in general, it’s a period of particularly bitter civil war, between cities, families etc. It’s very much a war zone. For example Urban V in 1367, did return to Rome very briefly the the rioting in Rome and the continuation of the civil war/mafia turf war, made it unbearable and after 3 years he headed back to Avignon, things gradually began to claim down in the papal states, so in 1376, decided to return to Rome. Part of his reasoning would have been now that the states were settled they’d be easier to tax so would’ve wanted to be there. The papacy certainly did not frame it that way. It was shown to be much more of as response to begging acts so he would seem pious. But shortly after his time in Rome he died.
The cardinals came together in the conclave to decide on a new pope, the Roman mobs were very keen to have a pope that would stay in Rome. Many of the families also saw it as an opportunity to claim the throne as there own, so put people in the mob to stir things up. The cry went up in the crowd ‘a Roman, a Roman.’ eventually the mob breaks in the cardinals panic, dress the oldest guy up in the popes robes and stuck him on the throne which seemed to claimed things down! A few days later they elected the Arch bishop of Bari once things were claimed down, he was crowned Urban VI. But Urban turns out to not be what they expect, he starts trying to kick the cardinals into shape.
As a result they try to get rid of him.... he’s crraaazzy!
On the 20th Sept 1378 they elected Robert of Geneva - Clement VII - often referred to as the anti-pope. Even at the time it was very unclear as to who actually was pope.
Clement failed to take Rome from Urban so headed back to
PAPAL schism - not GREAT WESTERN
For the ordinary people, particularly the monarchs, the schism was largely seen as a political interruption rather then anything theological. It didn’t really matter where the pope was to them, they used it was a court system more than anything else. So Europe divided between the two papacies or two obediences as they were called.
The French obviously followed Avignon so England followed Rome and Scotland also followed Avignon. Italy of course stuck with Rome.
The theological crisis arose in the Universities, all of them were discussing the legal, political and theological implications and ways it might be solved. the possible ways of ending the schism can be summed up in 5 ways...
1) Via facti: By military means (tried by both sides) had reached a kind of impass
2) Via cessionis: by resignation
3) Via compromisst: by arbitration
4) Via concilli: by decision of a general council
5) Via discussionis: by discussion between rival popes
A few worries, if you pick the wrong pope and die while there’s still schism then you might go to hell. Additionally there was a degree of admiration toward the pope (bowing to him etc.) if one of the popes was false then one of the popes was treated as an idol, as a result the theologians didn’t want to show either pope as popes so that was 5) cut down.
3 + 4 was cancelled out because they both involve someone or some group sitting in judgement of the pope, and as we already have seen by the legislation laid down by the
popes that no one but God sits in judgement of the pope.
So number 2 becomes the firm favorite - they want BOTH popes to resign. we’ll forget anything ever happened and just elect a new pope.
So from the 1390’s tremendous pressure is being placed on the popes by various monarchy to resign. Cardinals are beginning to say that if they are elected pope they will accept the office on the understanding that if the other pope resigns they automatically will too. So for example on the 28th Sept 1398 a new pope was elected in Avignon, a Spaniard renamed Benedict the XIII, he had taken an oath that he would do all he could to end the schism and on the death or resignation of the other pope he would resign. But as soon as he was elected he got cold feet, he was worried about the problem of idolatry and believed that one of the popes needed to be shown false but he wanted a clear judgement of the rights and wrongs of the schism. It wasn’t going to have some sort of flabby compromise. At this point the french church lost patience with Ben 13, they called a council in the same year and they undertook an act of subtraction - they withdrew there obedience from Ben 13 they placed the French church under the temporary obedience of the French monarchy - meaning that it can collect tax form it etc. they then declared Ben a schismatic. Medieval theology made a very interesting defining point - if someone was a persistent schismatic then they were also a heretic (reasoning from Augustine). So the council in Paris declared that he was both a schismatic and a heretic. Canon law allowed people to withdraw and depose the pope if he was a heretic, because if he was a heretic then ipso facto he was no longer pope anyway. Sets a very important precedent...
1) first time the church of a country had declared independence (important for Henry 8th)
2) a council has sat in judgement AND declared him a heretic.
3) they have a appealed over the head of the papacy to a council of a country (something Luther later does)
In 1406 the Roman pope died, the Cardinals went into conclave and swore the same oath as Avignon saying they’d resign etc etc. At this time the pressure was on for both popes to meet and come to a resolution. They both go to the region where they were meant to meet and basically circled each other both getting colder and colder feet.
In 1409 cardinals from both sides gave up in disgust assembled in council in Pisa and deposed BOTH popes, declaring they were schismatic, heretics, perjury, scandalous and stubborn in these respects. New pope John 23rd elected, but then both parties just go back and elect there own popes again!
The Pisa pope began to attract more and more european states, he seemed to have the legitimacy mainly because both the French and the English and a lot of Italy were on his side. John was able to take form and Gregory fled to the kingdom of Naples.
It was clear another council had to be called John 23 called one at Rome, it was very poorly attended and was quickly shut down. It became clear that a council had to take place outside both France and Italy. It became the task of the Holy Roman Emperor - Sigismund to organize a council in Germany. IN 1414 everyone goes to Constance in Switzerland. John 23rd arrives in full papal splendor but during the procession the wheel broke on his cart and he fell out - a sign of things to come?
It quickly became clear that the council was going to try and solve the schism as the council of Pisa had done by getting rid of the 3 popes and starting afresh. Pressure was put on John 23rd to resign, he just wasn’t interested in that. So his opponents begin to spread rumors about him - incest, sodomy etc. etc. He really wasn’t a saint to begin with so a lot of the mud, stuck.
Review - some of the major issues raised by this course related to what we’re looking at this week.
Christianity’s transition from being a prescribed religion to becoming the favored religion of the roman emperors and then the religion of the whole european society as well as a few countries beyond e.g. Ethiopia.
Christians welcomed this but it also created some difficulties for them, when it was prescribed it was still quite easy to distinguish between the earthly and heavenly kingdoms, christians knew where there loyalties lay. Christians knew that they were part of heaven, in this world but not of it. It becomes a lot more difficult when the kingdom of this world embraces the kingdom of christ, declaring itself a christian empire. What to make of it if your christian?
a) heaven has now become earth - the end of the world has arrived. Christ will return and put the final seal on the system.
But as we’re also seen when the system began to collapse with things like the barbarian invasion, this view was no longer possible. So there’s still this nagging sense that the church still doesn’t quite belong here, that’s its not comfortable in this world, but because the earth is still embracing it, the church has not to reach some kind of working system with the world.
The way they reach this mode is to establish two spheres of influence, of governance. ONe sphere is the sphere of the christian ruler, the government, his job is protect peoples bodies. To ensure physical safety. The government of the church - the second sphere, is concerned with the soul, the body will eventually pass away but the soul is immortal, because its immortal it’s got to prepare itself for its immortal destiny either in heaven or hell. If the spiritual government doesn’t do its job the danger is hell - ahhhhh!!
Problem is the church is also responsible for the souls of the earthly kings, its often very hard for a christian king to conduct his life in the way that Jesus demanded - turn the other cheek, love and pray for your enemies - what happens when you’re invaded? Can you turn your cheek on behalf of your people?
What if heresy arises amongst your people. heresy doesn’t exactly put bodies in danger but it does put souls in danger, if you do nothing about it as a Christian ruler then you have allowed those in your care to go to hell.
What if the heretic is your brother? Your heir? The sherif? Which is more important the soul or the peace and protection of the people in the south?
What should a King do?
This is all part of a very long process of secularization slowly over the centuries form 313 europeans have attempted to establish christian states, but even while christianity is at it’s height its beginning to fall apart under the strain of the rivalry between the claims of this world and the next. the latin world for age/world saeculum its here that we get our world secular. There are two ages/saecula the world now and the world to come. But when the mediaeval talk of the saecula there are increasingly talking of this world rather than the world to come. Gradually we see the lords/kings etc asserting themselves more and more, they find that the churches view of the next world is interfering with there ability to get on in this world, so we see ourselves asserting themselves in this world and gradually taking over.
This is not a story of goodies and badies, both sides in this debate believe that they have the best interests of the church of Christendom at heart, neither side pulls it off entirely. al i want you to see and think about is how each sides struggled for what they thought would be best.
This framed in the language of the two swords - the sword of the king ( a real one!) and the sword of the spirit (which is yielded by the church) the 13th century church developed saying to describe this.
Pope Gelasius 494
‘There are two powers...’ again the idea that the king looks after the body etc.
Dictatus papae (1087) Gregory VII - a series of rules trying to state the churches position e.g.
‘That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal’
‘That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops...’
‘That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors....’
‘That he himself may be judged by none.’
Basically Popes are saying to the Kings that the Kings need to act as they should but Christian rules, if they don’t they loose the support of the church.
Three principles
i) the Pope holds Plenituda potestastis: fullness of power (i.e. over the whole church)
ii) ludex ordinaritus: right to reach judgments at all levels of the church - this is where it gets really dodgy, the popes also claim that the power of kings at least in europe is also delegated to them by the papacy. There’s a legend that constantine made a will, giving his authority to pope Sylvester I, because he had cured him of leprosy, this document didn’t appear to the 8th century, but at least in the early mediaeval ages everyone accepted it as genuine, the popes used it to say that under Sylvester the popes had taken that power then given it conditionally. The popes aren’t trying to claim political power - except in the papal states - but they do claim that they have it in theory. One of the basis to there claim that they can take it back. A very heavily contested claim by the time you get to the reformation
iii)They are the ordinary judge - basically it’s like the european court - you can appeal right up to the level of the papacy. He can step into any diocese over the head of the local bishop and interfere.
iv) Vicarius Christi: Christ’’s delegate to the whole church - until now they had been the vicar of Peter, they had said they could be Christ’s rep in Rome, now they are saying they are Christ’s rep to the whole kingdom. This has some very practical implications e.g. Innocent III (1198-1216), the Lateran council declared that any ruler who tried to tax the church without asking the pope using legitimate purposes then they are instantly excommunicated - taxes for crusades is fine, but not for warring families.
Rulers were not allowed to employ Jews in public office.
This is the height of papal self assertion in the 13th century it all goes downhill from now on, epitomized in a struggle involving Philip IV the Fair) and Bonfire VIII.
Philip was at war with Edward I, (as was Scotland) Edward was invading France, so Philip began taxing the church. Boniface issued a Bull condemning all taxation of the church - Clerics Iaicos (1294) . Boniface is treating Philip like a stroppy teenager and tries to slap an ASBO on him. But Boniface was in a very weak position at home, for most of the 13th century had been the platy thing of 3 noble Roman families, Boniface was a member of one of these families, his family would have supported him but would have come with ready made enemies, who are ready to ally themselves with anyone who hates boniface, so Philip had ready made enemies in Italy. He also succeeded a very strange pope, who wasn’t a member of any of these families, he was a hermit. Who had actually resigned, it was fearful of him so put him under a kind of house arrest, Celestone (the hermit pope) soon died under fairly suspicious circumstances.
In 1294, France and Scotland sign an alliance. Edward was also taxing the English church, Clerics laicos was also directed at the English.
The French and their Italian allies: The first tactic they take is to accuse Boniface as having improperly deposed his predecessor Celestone V and having murdered him (which he probably did. So they called a council to try and get rid of Boniface. Drawing up a whole list of crimes.
Boniface responded with another Bull - Unam Sanctum (1302) which is considered the strongest claim of the age - very hard line pinnacle of papal claims. Basically it’s to do with one holy catholic etc. It starts with a list of claims/statements ‘we declare, state, define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for very human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.’
In a way the louder the Pope shouts and rants the weaker they are, there must be a reason to try and state there authority. What this claim doesn’t mean that the pope wants to be ruler of the world, it’s purely authority of salvation. There’s one church and no salvation out with the church. In relation to the position in France, he’s saying that he must accept the church’s authority or loose his salvation.
Philip wasn’t taking this and called a council in the Louvre, and repeated the list of claims against Boniface. However this time it was before a general council, so they were attempting to go over the popes head. So the French got together an army of Italian mercenaries and invaded his home town where he had his papal palace and came within an ace of killing him. He was half hoping that he would make a Thomas Becket of him. But they held back from killing him and eventually retreated, Boniface went back to Rome and died a few months later, probably of shock.
This conflict represents a kind of tipping point, form this point on the papacy starts going on a bumpy ride down hill, the secular begin to gain the upper hand, it really take the reformation fro the papacy to once again gain the upper hand. The reformation could happen because the papacy was on a whole new low, after the papacy can redefine itself in a new Europe.
The Great Schism
The Popes in Avignon: The papacy in Babylon?
i) rulers spent a lot of time away from there capitals mainly to ensure that there peripherals did not rise up against them. They did a lot of time touring, for example in Scotland there were many capitals that the king divided his time. During the 12th century the popes spent about 60% of there time outside Rome. Certainly during the summer Rome is so hot anywhere that popes would generally go to cooler climbs.
Yes Avignon was different, the Popes spent 70 years there, but Avignon is not a bad alternative.
1. It’s on the river Rhone - very useful for transport - the rivers were like super highways. The super powerfully political families in England and France were all largely accessible by sea and river. For access to places of power Avignon is much more accessible and convenient place for the papacy to be. Eventually the popes also bought Avignon off its temporal rulers and it became part of the papal states.
After Boniface Philip was keen to get a Frenchman in the papacy, this happened in 1305 - Clement V, he was crowned pope in Lyon and decided for the time being the most convenient place for him was in France for he wanted to secure peace between england and france, the district he was from was actually English, so he was and English Frenchman, so wanted to do quite a bit of touring. He got ill and was nursed by the dominicans in Avignon. He died near them.
His successor John XXII was from Avignon decided to stay there and made Avignon his capital and began extending the bishops palace.
None of the following popes were french and were generally all sympathetic to French policy and would generally favor French policy against the English.
The list of Avignon popes show that they’re there for about 70 years, throughout this time the popes are making pious statements about there return to Rome, they know they should be there but they never quite make it. One of the things that is holding them back is the complete political anarchy in the papal states and in Italy in general, it’s a period of particularly bitter civil war, between cities, families etc. It’s very much a war zone. For example Urban V in 1367, did return to Rome very briefly the the rioting in Rome and the continuation of the civil war/mafia turf war, made it unbearable and after 3 years he headed back to Avignon, things gradually began to claim down in the papal states, so in 1376, decided to return to Rome. Part of his reasoning would have been now that the states were settled they’d be easier to tax so would’ve wanted to be there. The papacy certainly did not frame it that way. It was shown to be much more of as response to begging acts so he would seem pious. But shortly after his time in Rome he died.
The cardinals came together in the conclave to decide on a new pope, the Roman mobs were very keen to have a pope that would stay in Rome. Many of the families also saw it as an opportunity to claim the throne as there own, so put people in the mob to stir things up. The cry went up in the crowd ‘a Roman, a Roman.’ eventually the mob breaks in the cardinals panic, dress the oldest guy up in the popes robes and stuck him on the throne which seemed to claimed things down! A few days later they elected the Arch bishop of Bari once things were claimed down, he was crowned Urban VI. But Urban turns out to not be what they expect, he starts trying to kick the cardinals into shape.
As a result they try to get rid of him.... he’s crraaazzy!
On the 20th Sept 1378 they elected Robert of Geneva - Clement VII - often referred to as the anti-pope. Even at the time it was very unclear as to who actually was pope.
Clement failed to take Rome from Urban so headed back to
PAPAL schism - not GREAT WESTERN
For the ordinary people, particularly the monarchs, the schism was largely seen as a political interruption rather then anything theological. It didn’t really matter where the pope was to them, they used it was a court system more than anything else. So Europe divided between the two papacies or two obediences as they were called.
The French obviously followed Avignon so England followed Rome and Scotland also followed Avignon. Italy of course stuck with Rome.
The theological crisis arose in the Universities, all of them were discussing the legal, political and theological implications and ways it might be solved. the possible ways of ending the schism can be summed up in 5 ways...
1) Via facti: By military means (tried by both sides) had reached a kind of impass
2) Via cessionis: by resignation
3) Via compromisst: by arbitration
4) Via concilli: by decision of a general council
5) Via discussionis: by discussion between rival popes
A few worries, if you pick the wrong pope and die while there’s still schism then you might go to hell. Additionally there was a degree of admiration toward the pope (bowing to him etc.) if one of the popes was false then one of the popes was treated as an idol, as a result the theologians didn’t want to show either pope as popes so that was 5) cut down.
3 + 4 was cancelled out because they both involve someone or some group sitting in judgement of the pope, and as we already have seen by the legislation laid down by the
popes that no one but God sits in judgement of the pope.
So number 2 becomes the firm favorite - they want BOTH popes to resign. we’ll forget anything ever happened and just elect a new pope.
So from the 1390’s tremendous pressure is being placed on the popes by various monarchy to resign. Cardinals are beginning to say that if they are elected pope they will accept the office on the understanding that if the other pope resigns they automatically will too. So for example on the 28th Sept 1398 a new pope was elected in Avignon, a Spaniard renamed Benedict the XIII, he had taken an oath that he would do all he could to end the schism and on the death or resignation of the other pope he would resign. But as soon as he was elected he got cold feet, he was worried about the problem of idolatry and believed that one of the popes needed to be shown false but he wanted a clear judgement of the rights and wrongs of the schism. It wasn’t going to have some sort of flabby compromise. At this point the french church lost patience with Ben 13, they called a council in the same year and they undertook an act of subtraction - they withdrew there obedience from Ben 13 they placed the French church under the temporary obedience of the French monarchy - meaning that it can collect tax form it etc. they then declared Ben a schismatic. Medieval theology made a very interesting defining point - if someone was a persistent schismatic then they were also a heretic (reasoning from Augustine). So the council in Paris declared that he was both a schismatic and a heretic. Canon law allowed people to withdraw and depose the pope if he was a heretic, because if he was a heretic then ipso facto he was no longer pope anyway. Sets a very important precedent...
1) first time the church of a country had declared independence (important for Henry 8th)
2) a council has sat in judgement AND declared him a heretic.
3) they have a appealed over the head of the papacy to a council of a country (something Luther later does)
In 1406 the Roman pope died, the Cardinals went into conclave and swore the same oath as Avignon saying they’d resign etc etc. At this time the pressure was on for both popes to meet and come to a resolution. They both go to the region where they were meant to meet and basically circled each other both getting colder and colder feet.
In 1409 cardinals from both sides gave up in disgust assembled in council in Pisa and deposed BOTH popes, declaring they were schismatic, heretics, perjury, scandalous and stubborn in these respects. New pope John 23rd elected, but then both parties just go back and elect there own popes again!
The Pisa pope began to attract more and more european states, he seemed to have the legitimacy mainly because both the French and the English and a lot of Italy were on his side. John was able to take form and Gregory fled to the kingdom of Naples.
It was clear another council had to be called John 23 called one at Rome, it was very poorly attended and was quickly shut down. It became clear that a council had to take place outside both France and Italy. It became the task of the Holy Roman Emperor - Sigismund to organize a council in Germany. IN 1414 everyone goes to Constance in Switzerland. John 23rd arrives in full papal splendor but during the procession the wheel broke on his cart and he fell out - a sign of things to come?
It quickly became clear that the council was going to try and solve the schism as the council of Pisa had done by getting rid of the 3 popes and starting afresh. Pressure was put on John 23rd to resign, he just wasn’t interested in that. So his opponents begin to spread rumors about him - incest, sodomy etc. etc. He really wasn’t a saint to begin with so a lot of the mud, stuck.
Medieval Cathedrals
Romanesque
In the middle ages painting and sculptures were made to fit into buildings e.g. churches, the ultimate goal was to be in a cathedral.
Medieval Christianity is a cosmic outlook, it’s not personal it;s cosmic. For the medievals, God is like the master builder. They feel the appropriate response is speak the language back to God.
Catacombs, christian art begins underground. Art is like the accessory to the building, themes such a jonah - deliverance, daniel - persecution, resurrection theme.
Church is a representation of heaven.
Idea that the church is heaven goes back to the temple of solomon,
Why do pilgrims like relics?
Peter Brown author of the cult of the saints noted differences between graeco-roman view of the dead and the Christians view.
the Romans didn’t like dead bodies, it revered the memory of the heroes but feared the dead they buried them outside the city walls - basic pagan impulse not to like ghost. Christians buried there dead within the city so the soul stayed near the body.
In the middle ages painting and sculptures were made to fit into buildings e.g. churches, the ultimate goal was to be in a cathedral.
Medieval Christianity is a cosmic outlook, it’s not personal it;s cosmic. For the medievals, God is like the master builder. They feel the appropriate response is speak the language back to God.
Catacombs, christian art begins underground. Art is like the accessory to the building, themes such a jonah - deliverance, daniel - persecution, resurrection theme.
Church is a representation of heaven.
Idea that the church is heaven goes back to the temple of solomon,
Why do pilgrims like relics?
Peter Brown author of the cult of the saints noted differences between graeco-roman view of the dead and the Christians view.
the Romans didn’t like dead bodies, it revered the memory of the heroes but feared the dead they buried them outside the city walls - basic pagan impulse not to like ghost. Christians buried there dead within the city so the soul stayed near the body.
The Cities
Guilds and the City
There’s a deep undergrowth of worker’s organizations - guilds. These guilds underlay the emergence of the autonomous cities in italy and the semi autonomous cities elsewhere.
1.
Christmas day 800, Charlemagne crowned emperor by the Pope. However he went on to have a lot of say over the spiritual realm. In between 800 and 1050, the emperors were having control of church, velvet glove on iron fist... they could choose bishops etc. Temporal above the spiritual. This is an era of territorial Christendom.
Most people in these societies there are not citizens with rights but serfs, servants who owed allegiance to the next guy up the feudal hierarchy.
What it general comes down to is the power of the sword.
The church managed to get itself out from under the emperor, it started with the monasteries and everyone followed, from the 11th century. By the 11th the monasteries seemed secularized, very rich liturgical life - more of a social club, so how to reform if the boss is just a baron. Starting at Cluny, a new monastery emerged, saying that they weren’t part of the hierarchy, they were answerable to the pope. With Gregory VII, reform emerged in order to refresh christianity, trying to pull clergy away from the secular. The spiritual is higher than the secular. because Mediaeval society saw itself as ONE society someone had to be the head, not two realms, so the pope had to talk in terms of higher sword.
In turn this unleashed things lower down.
From the 12th century the concept of sideways allegiance emerged... e.g. Dominicans, Benedictines. Other groups like clubs emerged, even travelers clubbed together, confraternities.
Gregorian reform meant a new religious spirit emerged.
It’s at this time the guilds arose, they were a voluntary group who would group together under a patron saint, and would follow a set of rules and would police who could join. It was a free allegiance. A guide for both secular and spiritual.
In Lombardy (a kingdom in Italy), the guilds merged together forming communes, dominating the religious and spiritual life. particularly in Italy and some of North Germany.
It basically cancels out the need for the baron - they all look after each other. They can take over things by policing themselves, by employing people for there own needs. In Lombardy it went so far that the cities declared independent from the feudal system and set about creating there own governments.
Where you had monasteries you had one allegiance to the pope and then to each other, once you had the precedent other movements emerged with this sideways allegiance. A mediaeval city was not unlike the monastery in its functioning. Additional linked to gregorian reform and additional the emergence of the mendicant friars.
Frederick III - Barbarossa (red beard) wanted to change the system and wanted his son to be emperor after him, before the pope would appoint the emperor of his choice. Barbarossa called himself Caesar, harking back to the old Roman empire. He tried to get his son appointed along side himself. This was not appreciated by the Pope, so Barbarossa set up anti-popes. He also really did not like the independent city states so waged war against them. He besezied them, he razed Milan to the ground. So a load of cities joined up, forming allegiance to give Barbarossa a bloody nose. The Lombard allegiance defeats Barbarossa at Legano in 1176.
From the 1200’s two people ran the city states, the captain of the people and a wealthy guy from another city, it was like having two mayors.
In England, guilds formed there own governments but not the cities, for example the universities formed there own governing bodies.
The guilds controlled membership of one craft, note: they could exclude.
Women, once universities emerged women could not be schooled in theology, there used to be very powerful abbesses etc.
They could also keep the jews out, before this they really weren’t particularly anti-Semitic, but to be a member of a guild you had to the a christian, so they were basically forced into money lending.
The guilds also prayed a lot, very pious putting on masses for the sick etc.
Additionally they put on mystery plays...
The first opera in Europe was put on in 1180 in a Benedictine monastery, basically it was the play on Daniel. It was meant to be funny. It didn’t have people walking round but different people playing the parts.
In 1150, a vernacular play was put on outside a church - they weren’t particularly welcome inside. Again it was meant to be a comedy.
There’s a deep undergrowth of worker’s organizations - guilds. These guilds underlay the emergence of the autonomous cities in italy and the semi autonomous cities elsewhere.
1.
Christmas day 800, Charlemagne crowned emperor by the Pope. However he went on to have a lot of say over the spiritual realm. In between 800 and 1050, the emperors were having control of church, velvet glove on iron fist... they could choose bishops etc. Temporal above the spiritual. This is an era of territorial Christendom.
Most people in these societies there are not citizens with rights but serfs, servants who owed allegiance to the next guy up the feudal hierarchy.
What it general comes down to is the power of the sword.
The church managed to get itself out from under the emperor, it started with the monasteries and everyone followed, from the 11th century. By the 11th the monasteries seemed secularized, very rich liturgical life - more of a social club, so how to reform if the boss is just a baron. Starting at Cluny, a new monastery emerged, saying that they weren’t part of the hierarchy, they were answerable to the pope. With Gregory VII, reform emerged in order to refresh christianity, trying to pull clergy away from the secular. The spiritual is higher than the secular. because Mediaeval society saw itself as ONE society someone had to be the head, not two realms, so the pope had to talk in terms of higher sword.
In turn this unleashed things lower down.
From the 12th century the concept of sideways allegiance emerged... e.g. Dominicans, Benedictines. Other groups like clubs emerged, even travelers clubbed together, confraternities.
Gregorian reform meant a new religious spirit emerged.
It’s at this time the guilds arose, they were a voluntary group who would group together under a patron saint, and would follow a set of rules and would police who could join. It was a free allegiance. A guide for both secular and spiritual.
In Lombardy (a kingdom in Italy), the guilds merged together forming communes, dominating the religious and spiritual life. particularly in Italy and some of North Germany.
It basically cancels out the need for the baron - they all look after each other. They can take over things by policing themselves, by employing people for there own needs. In Lombardy it went so far that the cities declared independent from the feudal system and set about creating there own governments.
Where you had monasteries you had one allegiance to the pope and then to each other, once you had the precedent other movements emerged with this sideways allegiance. A mediaeval city was not unlike the monastery in its functioning. Additional linked to gregorian reform and additional the emergence of the mendicant friars.
Frederick III - Barbarossa (red beard) wanted to change the system and wanted his son to be emperor after him, before the pope would appoint the emperor of his choice. Barbarossa called himself Caesar, harking back to the old Roman empire. He tried to get his son appointed along side himself. This was not appreciated by the Pope, so Barbarossa set up anti-popes. He also really did not like the independent city states so waged war against them. He besezied them, he razed Milan to the ground. So a load of cities joined up, forming allegiance to give Barbarossa a bloody nose. The Lombard allegiance defeats Barbarossa at Legano in 1176.
From the 1200’s two people ran the city states, the captain of the people and a wealthy guy from another city, it was like having two mayors.
In England, guilds formed there own governments but not the cities, for example the universities formed there own governing bodies.
The guilds controlled membership of one craft, note: they could exclude.
Women, once universities emerged women could not be schooled in theology, there used to be very powerful abbesses etc.
They could also keep the jews out, before this they really weren’t particularly anti-Semitic, but to be a member of a guild you had to the a christian, so they were basically forced into money lending.
The guilds also prayed a lot, very pious putting on masses for the sick etc.
Additionally they put on mystery plays...
The first opera in Europe was put on in 1180 in a Benedictine monastery, basically it was the play on Daniel. It was meant to be funny. It didn’t have people walking round but different people playing the parts.
In 1150, a vernacular play was put on outside a church - they weren’t particularly welcome inside. Again it was meant to be a comedy.
Mendicant Orders
The Mendicant Orders 1: The Big Picture
What are mendicant orders?
Cultural life between the 8th and 11th centuries largely came out of monastery. Most monks take vows of stability. Early in the 13th century, Francis and Dominic create a new type of monk - brothers. Friars are mobile. It does not have a physical basis but rather a legal basis. A friar takes vows to the constitution rather than a friar. A friar can move anywhere in the world. The Dominicans were created as a vision for preaching, Europe is being urbanized and there is a need for preaching. Monasteries are generally out in the sticks, not great for evangelizing. University theology eventually became dominated by the friars.
But what does mendicant mean? ALL monks take a vow of poverty, the monastery as a collective unit hasn’t taken a vow to be poor, it is on land and they can get a lot of money through various means, so collectively they’re quite wealthy. On the other hand a mendicant is a begger, coming from the latin word to beg. They depend on alms. With monks, you take individual the mendicants take a collective vow of poverty.
Founded
1206: Carmelites
1209: Franciscans
1215: Dominicans
They weren’t authorized until later.
1256: Augustians
1274: recognized by the council of Lyons II
Before Mendicant Orders...
Largely MOST were benedictines, in the dark ages it was the monasteries that kept literacy alive, preserving literature. They copied and copied loads of things, preserving the classics and biblical texts. Conservation attitude. Do not produce new ideas but rather
What are mendicant orders?
Cultural life between the 8th and 11th centuries largely came out of monastery. Most monks take vows of stability. Early in the 13th century, Francis and Dominic create a new type of monk - brothers. Friars are mobile. It does not have a physical basis but rather a legal basis. A friar takes vows to the constitution rather than a friar. A friar can move anywhere in the world. The Dominicans were created as a vision for preaching, Europe is being urbanized and there is a need for preaching. Monasteries are generally out in the sticks, not great for evangelizing. University theology eventually became dominated by the friars.
But what does mendicant mean? ALL monks take a vow of poverty, the monastery as a collective unit hasn’t taken a vow to be poor, it is on land and they can get a lot of money through various means, so collectively they’re quite wealthy. On the other hand a mendicant is a begger, coming from the latin word to beg. They depend on alms. With monks, you take individual the mendicants take a collective vow of poverty.
Founded
1206: Carmelites
1209: Franciscans
1215: Dominicans
They weren’t authorized until later.
1256: Augustians
1274: recognized by the council of Lyons II
Before Mendicant Orders...
Largely MOST were benedictines, in the dark ages it was the monasteries that kept literacy alive, preserving literature. They copied and copied loads of things, preserving the classics and biblical texts. Conservation attitude. Do not produce new ideas but rather
Dissent and Renewal
Dissent and Renewal: ‘Heresy’ and the Rise of the Mendicants
The religious movements of the Middle Ages
New fervor for religion. People were no longer happy at going to God via the church, the priest, they also wanted there own way. Some went in a quite orthodox direction others joined heretical cults.
Feeling that heretics are a constant danger/threat/presence due to Paul’s writing. If you see in the medieval text, there’s reference to Paul and Titus, and to the Songs of Solomon to the little foxes. Even if heretics were not actually an issue people were sure they were around. Exegetes assume from a very early age that there are heretics around trying to lead people astray. Augustine writing against the likes of the Donatists. Pelagians etc. did nothing but to fuel these ideas.
Theological basis for dealing with heretics was laid out by Augustine in his conflict with the Donatists.
1. Persuasion and isolation but they grew power
2. The use of force as a form of harsh love
Pricillian of Avila was burnt as the first heretic.
A group of duelist heretics were sent to the stake but they were more lynched than it was a state execution. They were burnt in a cottage rather than at a proper execution.
Why burn them?? Distant echo of roman practice to burn sorcerers. However most heretics weren’t actually killed, they were sent on pilgrimage, silenced etc.
These first heretics in the 11th century are generally mentioned in passing, in chronicles so not entirely sure what they were saying.
What constituted a heretic in the middle aged theologians.
Theology or distinctions were clarified in the 13th century from then on it was clear... someone within the church, relying on scripture but with a different interpretation.
Characteristics of a heretic
1. Pride - sets themselves in opposition to the church
2. Hypocrisy - piety not authentic but there to deceive others
3. Secrecy
4. Unlettered - inability to interpret the scriptures properly - this brings on some strange passages of orthodox theologians.
There were some incidents in the early medieval ages and when suspicions evolved the church reacted mildly, they didn’t really feel threatened. So despite applying ancient names, the early middle ages erased the heresies of the old church. There were no real heretics around.
IN the 11th century things were dramatically different, ecceleastiscal enthusiasm evoked all kind of wacked out living. Several reasons:
1. Anti clericalism, especially stimulated by gregorian reform.
Perfectly orthodox beginning - encouraged to live like the new testament but when people did some went OTT and were labelled heretics.
2. Economic boom, accompanied by the expansion of trade and opening up to ideas outside western europe. PLUS growing number of literate layman, particularly among merchants. Additionally there was also a quest for property so many went in other development.
The quest for the apostolic life
1. promotion of monastic lifestyle.
2. apocalyptic ideas about the end of the world
The religious movements of the Middle Ages
New fervor for religion. People were no longer happy at going to God via the church, the priest, they also wanted there own way. Some went in a quite orthodox direction others joined heretical cults.
Feeling that heretics are a constant danger/threat/presence due to Paul’s writing. If you see in the medieval text, there’s reference to Paul and Titus, and to the Songs of Solomon to the little foxes. Even if heretics were not actually an issue people were sure they were around. Exegetes assume from a very early age that there are heretics around trying to lead people astray. Augustine writing against the likes of the Donatists. Pelagians etc. did nothing but to fuel these ideas.
Theological basis for dealing with heretics was laid out by Augustine in his conflict with the Donatists.
1. Persuasion and isolation but they grew power
2. The use of force as a form of harsh love
Pricillian of Avila was burnt as the first heretic.
A group of duelist heretics were sent to the stake but they were more lynched than it was a state execution. They were burnt in a cottage rather than at a proper execution.
Why burn them?? Distant echo of roman practice to burn sorcerers. However most heretics weren’t actually killed, they were sent on pilgrimage, silenced etc.
These first heretics in the 11th century are generally mentioned in passing, in chronicles so not entirely sure what they were saying.
What constituted a heretic in the middle aged theologians.
Theology or distinctions were clarified in the 13th century from then on it was clear... someone within the church, relying on scripture but with a different interpretation.
Characteristics of a heretic
1. Pride - sets themselves in opposition to the church
2. Hypocrisy - piety not authentic but there to deceive others
3. Secrecy
4. Unlettered - inability to interpret the scriptures properly - this brings on some strange passages of orthodox theologians.
There were some incidents in the early medieval ages and when suspicions evolved the church reacted mildly, they didn’t really feel threatened. So despite applying ancient names, the early middle ages erased the heresies of the old church. There were no real heretics around.
IN the 11th century things were dramatically different, ecceleastiscal enthusiasm evoked all kind of wacked out living. Several reasons:
1. Anti clericalism, especially stimulated by gregorian reform.
Perfectly orthodox beginning - encouraged to live like the new testament but when people did some went OTT and were labelled heretics.
2. Economic boom, accompanied by the expansion of trade and opening up to ideas outside western europe. PLUS growing number of literate layman, particularly among merchants. Additionally there was also a quest for property so many went in other development.
The quest for the apostolic life
1. promotion of monastic lifestyle.
2. apocalyptic ideas about the end of the world
Pilgrimage
Pilgrimage
In Britain pilgrimage basically disappeared after the Reformation.
Communities were very close knit, everyone knew everyone’s business. Confession happened twice a year, basically everyone knew everyone else’s confession anyway. Everything was public - example of a Prostitute in the Loire valley getting sent on pilgrimage to chartes.
To evade nosiness one way was to go on pilgrimage, a surprising number would go to avoid the intrusion of the local priest and family and friends. They wanted to care for there spiritual lives but not in such a public way.
The quest for pilgrimage became a mass movement. Many people would go on several pilgrimages to try out new kinds of spirituality but very often in the background it was to avoid the narrow world from which they came.
A variety of spiritual reasons - some form choice, some as penitence, and some just wanted to experience something new - the clergy did not like this reason. The real experience was based on the internal experience not a external.
We’ll focus on those with series spiritual problems:
Pilgrimage is a journey made to a sacred place of religious importance. It was to be an act of religious piety/religious devotion and the pilgrimage does not start at the destination but rather it’s the journey, when you leave home and ends when you return.
A pilgrim is a person on a journey. A stranger, foreign, defenseless, traveller, alien. You are moving through the closely knit communities and quite often would not have even been able to speak the language.
Latin: pilgrious
Pilgrims sometimes even died on the way, they were not allowed to be buried in someone else’s parish so would have had to plan for provisions for there bodies to be taken back home.
Much planning was needed and hardships endured.
The penitential pilgrimage
THe early church knew neither penitential nor judicial pilgrimage, the sinner was excluded from his community and did public penance to be restored if that was possible, there was several crimes which was only forgiven at a death bed. Pilgrimage were not imposed until the 6th century, when the whole system of penitence was changed under gaelic monasticism, the monks thought it was a great idea, often imposing pilgrimage on clerics and monks, not so often layman. Think of St. Columbas. The Irish penitentials also introduced a distinction between public and solemn, this distinction was upheld through the middle ages. Henry had to go on pilgrimage following the murder of Thomas Becket. If he had no gone on solemn pilgrimage, his position as king would have been in danger. For those sins out of the public eye, it was your private sin e.g. Margery Kemp.
Thursday
Mont St Michel - angels have been venerated as relics, angelic shrines tend to be on mounts - higher to the sky.
Mary - attractive as Mother of Jesus, human aspects of Jesus’ life became a matter of speculation and contemplation. Blame Bernard of Clairveux. Allegedly bodily received into heaven so no bodily remains but other things are kicking around e.g. her veil, a painting done by Luke. Her veneration was universal, resembled Christ who was also everywhere! Other saints are generally bound to one place, it depended on how far the relics could be stretched. She was the queen of heaven and you could pray to her but you are not to worship her, veneration only!
The next group are the apostles and evangelists - James at santiago, Mark at Venice, Peter and Paul in Rome.
Next - the martyrs, these where venerated form very early times, people would pray for the the help of these martyrs. The city with the most = Rome.
Many saints and martyrs are not really that well known.
The idea of becoming a saint simply by acclamation e.g. people began venerating them at death or something. Pope Alexander came up with as system with formal procedures.
We have local saints, universal saints, all kind of saints! There’s loads of them.
Venerated NOT worship, what they could give or what people expected was protection. Children were given saints names to invoke the saints protection. Generally given the name of the saint whose day it was in the day of baptism. Churches also could take saints names for protection, also by having a little piece of there relics in the alter helped. The medieval view point saw saints as pretty invincible.
Relics - it was believed that the relics contained the spiritual powers of the deceased, so there remains were collected and venerated and often displayed in shrines. You could buy a necklace with a splinter of a saints bone or you could get something for home - ick. Numerous miracles were connected with saints. At the route of this was the idea that illness was brought about by sin, therefore it was logical that pilgrimage would cure sin that a saint could absolve. Some even thought saints had cursed them, so they would go ask forgiveness. It was thought that original sin had even satan there body and souls - illness a cause of the fall. Although baptism was a cure as soon as the person sinned again the body could be claimed by the devil. Relics could be placed on the ill parts of the body so the devil would be uncomfortable. Female fertility - divine gift, baroness - punishment.
These places were not places of silent contemplation. Many many pilgrims coming and going. Some would pray, others would see it as a great social occasion, singing songs, drinking wine etc.
Jerusalem
Holy Sepulchre - the most holy place. Jesus burial and place of resurrection. The other place was the place of his crucifixion, it’s actually in the same church as the burial, it’s a very big church, it was originally out of the city walls. pheasant
Rome
The main attraction had to be St. Peter, but he also had another relic - the napkin in which christ had wiped his head - the pope built some shrine or something. I’m lost!!
40 so called station - during lent, the pope would hold mass in a different church, it was possible to amass a huge number of indulgences. 7 major shrines.
Santiado de Compostela - St James the Greater
A new comer in relation to Rome and Jerusalem, was lifted by shrewd communication and excellent publication.
In Britain pilgrimage basically disappeared after the Reformation.
Communities were very close knit, everyone knew everyone’s business. Confession happened twice a year, basically everyone knew everyone else’s confession anyway. Everything was public - example of a Prostitute in the Loire valley getting sent on pilgrimage to chartes.
To evade nosiness one way was to go on pilgrimage, a surprising number would go to avoid the intrusion of the local priest and family and friends. They wanted to care for there spiritual lives but not in such a public way.
The quest for pilgrimage became a mass movement. Many people would go on several pilgrimages to try out new kinds of spirituality but very often in the background it was to avoid the narrow world from which they came.
A variety of spiritual reasons - some form choice, some as penitence, and some just wanted to experience something new - the clergy did not like this reason. The real experience was based on the internal experience not a external.
We’ll focus on those with series spiritual problems:
Pilgrimage is a journey made to a sacred place of religious importance. It was to be an act of religious piety/religious devotion and the pilgrimage does not start at the destination but rather it’s the journey, when you leave home and ends when you return.
A pilgrim is a person on a journey. A stranger, foreign, defenseless, traveller, alien. You are moving through the closely knit communities and quite often would not have even been able to speak the language.
Latin: pilgrious
Pilgrims sometimes even died on the way, they were not allowed to be buried in someone else’s parish so would have had to plan for provisions for there bodies to be taken back home.
Much planning was needed and hardships endured.
The penitential pilgrimage
THe early church knew neither penitential nor judicial pilgrimage, the sinner was excluded from his community and did public penance to be restored if that was possible, there was several crimes which was only forgiven at a death bed. Pilgrimage were not imposed until the 6th century, when the whole system of penitence was changed under gaelic monasticism, the monks thought it was a great idea, often imposing pilgrimage on clerics and monks, not so often layman. Think of St. Columbas. The Irish penitentials also introduced a distinction between public and solemn, this distinction was upheld through the middle ages. Henry had to go on pilgrimage following the murder of Thomas Becket. If he had no gone on solemn pilgrimage, his position as king would have been in danger. For those sins out of the public eye, it was your private sin e.g. Margery Kemp.
Thursday
Mont St Michel - angels have been venerated as relics, angelic shrines tend to be on mounts - higher to the sky.
Mary - attractive as Mother of Jesus, human aspects of Jesus’ life became a matter of speculation and contemplation. Blame Bernard of Clairveux. Allegedly bodily received into heaven so no bodily remains but other things are kicking around e.g. her veil, a painting done by Luke. Her veneration was universal, resembled Christ who was also everywhere! Other saints are generally bound to one place, it depended on how far the relics could be stretched. She was the queen of heaven and you could pray to her but you are not to worship her, veneration only!
The next group are the apostles and evangelists - James at santiago, Mark at Venice, Peter and Paul in Rome.
Next - the martyrs, these where venerated form very early times, people would pray for the the help of these martyrs. The city with the most = Rome.
Many saints and martyrs are not really that well known.
The idea of becoming a saint simply by acclamation e.g. people began venerating them at death or something. Pope Alexander came up with as system with formal procedures.
We have local saints, universal saints, all kind of saints! There’s loads of them.
Venerated NOT worship, what they could give or what people expected was protection. Children were given saints names to invoke the saints protection. Generally given the name of the saint whose day it was in the day of baptism. Churches also could take saints names for protection, also by having a little piece of there relics in the alter helped. The medieval view point saw saints as pretty invincible.
Relics - it was believed that the relics contained the spiritual powers of the deceased, so there remains were collected and venerated and often displayed in shrines. You could buy a necklace with a splinter of a saints bone or you could get something for home - ick. Numerous miracles were connected with saints. At the route of this was the idea that illness was brought about by sin, therefore it was logical that pilgrimage would cure sin that a saint could absolve. Some even thought saints had cursed them, so they would go ask forgiveness. It was thought that original sin had even satan there body and souls - illness a cause of the fall. Although baptism was a cure as soon as the person sinned again the body could be claimed by the devil. Relics could be placed on the ill parts of the body so the devil would be uncomfortable. Female fertility - divine gift, baroness - punishment.
These places were not places of silent contemplation. Many many pilgrims coming and going. Some would pray, others would see it as a great social occasion, singing songs, drinking wine etc.
Jerusalem
Holy Sepulchre - the most holy place. Jesus burial and place of resurrection. The other place was the place of his crucifixion, it’s actually in the same church as the burial, it’s a very big church, it was originally out of the city walls. pheasant
Rome
The main attraction had to be St. Peter, but he also had another relic - the napkin in which christ had wiped his head - the pope built some shrine or something. I’m lost!!
40 so called station - during lent, the pope would hold mass in a different church, it was possible to amass a huge number of indulgences. 7 major shrines.
Santiado de Compostela - St James the Greater
A new comer in relation to Rome and Jerusalem, was lifted by shrewd communication and excellent publication.
Christianity and Islam
First qualification between the relationship of christianity and islam, very unhelpful to refer to them in monolithic terms - ONE Christianity and ONE Islam. As we know Christianity was divided, East and West, various sects etc. There were also division within Islam. NOT religiously monolithic, very diverse religion. We even see muslim and christian alliances to fight off christians.
Both religions are also ethically diverse, sure initially muslims tend to be arab, but even the arabs are divided amongst themselves. Then we can add that the turks assume leadership of islam. Christianity is also ethnically divided - francs, goths etc.
Origins of Islam
By the 6th century, one of the things being traded is christianity, we’ve already looked at how the empire was surrounded by the client communities, like the goths, likewise on the eastern boarders, almost acting as a buffer between roman and persian empires, we see arab speaking communities, one of these empires was a christian arab kingdom, but even beyond this christianity was being taken by merchants but also by the heretics - the nestorians and the monophysists - some of this was deliberately missionary, down into places like modern day Iraq.
Arabia had many divinities, along side idols of Jesus and Mary.
Mohammed was born in Mecca in 570, into a tribe that already regarded itself as descended from Arab from Ismale and Hagar. HE was orphaned and raised by his uncle, at the age of 25 he married a business woman, who was already trading in her own right, Mohammed became a merchant. HE was known to retreat outside mecca for reflection, in 609, had a vision of angel gabriel being told to recite. HE had several over the years, he recited them to his community, communicated in oral form and were only gradually written down, after Mohammed’s lifetime, in the koran. Part of Mohammed’s revelation involved a rejection of what he consider the idolatry of his tribe and the people of mecca, because of these views he was driven from mecca in 622, this fleeing marks the beginning of the Muslim calendar, there version of 0AD.
The koran calls Jesus the word of God, talks of God confirming Jesus with the Holy Spirit, refers to Jesus raising the sick and the dead - miracles, very cryptic message of Jesus sending a table of food down for his disciples - from a christian perspective this could be the eucharist. Jesus is portrayed as having gone to heaven from whence he shall come to judge the living and the dead. Jesus has a very prominent role. BUT differences:
Jesus not divine.
Koran rigorously attacks the idea of the trinity
Mohammed did not believe Jesus had been crucified, a kind of a likeness of Jesus was crucified, he himself was not because it would be to shameful for one of God’s prophets.
`Miriam (Moses’ sister) and Mary (Mother) were converged.
The important point is that Islam at least pays Christianity the recognition as regarding it a monotheistic religion. Mohammed urges his followers to leave believers of whatever religion, unmolested.
Islam expanded.
632 Mohammed died
634 Followers take over Damascus - becomes capital
642 Alexandria had fallen
669 Constantinople almost fell, army was repulsed.
698 Carthage fell
711 Small army invaded Iberian peninsular, but were driven back in France.
Muslim territories religiously and politically divided.
Some of the important division:
661-750, Damascus was home to the Omayyad Caliphate, Caliph means successor. Even today some fringe muslims refers to a golden age when islam was united under a caliph. It was this period to which they were referring. However Islam became just as divided about leadership as Christianity would.
633 war between the Caliph and Mohammed’s son in law, Ali who briefly came the 4th caliph, beginning of a gradual division between those who regard the previous caliphs as the true successors and Ali’s supports - who start a faction. This the beginning of the schism between shia’ and sunni islam. Both groups in turn experience division.
762, capital moves to Bagdad following fight of some kind, remains there until 1068 until it was swept away by Gengus Khan.
A third caliph springs up around Egypt, most Shia’
The three caliphates break down into three minor religious kingdoms in the south of spain, divided amongst themselves often willing to form alliances with christian kingdoms in the north to have more power.
So from the 8th century the arab hold on the north of spain is gradually weakening, christian kingdoms establishing themselves on the north driving muslim kingdoms southward.
1212, the various muslim territories are effectively limited to the deep south around grenada. By 1492 he had shrunk to the far south east corner. Completely elimiated in the 16th century.
Two more groups....
The Seljuo sultanate which sprung up inside one of the caliphates, (the abbesisate?!) the seljuo’s were like the goths, settling around the caliphate and were invited in as soldiers. The caliphate was sick of the arabs who were often more loyal to there tribes. The turks, were dependent on the caliph for there money, hoped to have a loyal army. Enough turks came in that they were able to establish themselves as a separate political entity. There leaders was called the Sultan, who eventually became the political leader while the caliph became a puppet.
The ottoman were also turks, who gained enough power to take on pretty much everyone else, took over the seljuo and the eastern celiphate and began to take on the christians. They capturer the balkans in 1389, and Constantinople in 1453 and pushed up into Austria and Hungary, came close to taking the whole of western europe.
Christians living under muslim rule
A lot of those living in the now occupied territories regarded muslim occupancy as the punishment of God, the monophysits saw it was punishment for heresy, the calcedonian saw it in apocalyptic terms. Mohammed began to gain status as one of the apocalyptic figures - the anti-christ, the beast, an anti-christ. If you believe that muslim occupancy is the end of the world, it may be worth waiting things out, waiting for christ to come back and kick arse. Some Christians welcomed muslim occupation - the heretical groups like the monopysites in Egypt and Syria. Even Nestorian christians believed they were better treated. They actually would’ve seen very little change, they were still the religious majority, all they had to do was pay a poll tax to the minority rulers, usually less than the penalties that the monophysits had to pay to the calcedonians. Eventually though this increased. Churches were no longer allowed to look like churches, crosses were banned, any public displays were band. Christians and Jews were now expected to wear distinctive clothing, and any Christians showing contempt could be put to death. Muslim men were allowed to take Christian wives, in fact more than one wife, so Islam spread a lot this way. Peter Brown emphasizes this point, cultural they had a lot in common. There was syncrotism.
But also there were Christians who wanted to take Islam on, sometimes whacked out but sometimes seriously, with an attempt to convert.
As we’ve seen the boundaries between Christianity and Islam were not as clear as we may have expected, this is also expressed in the polemics against islam, many do not see it as a separate religion but rather a heretical christian sect - and why shouldn’t they? - it made claims about scripture. The idea emerged that Mohammed got things wrong because he hung out with the heretics to much!
John of Damascus - one of the first to attack Islam - forerunner of the anit-christ,
‘There is also the people - deceiving cult of the Ishmalites, the forerunner of the Antichrist, which prevails until now. It derives from Ishmael, who was born to Abraham from Hagar, wherefore they are called Hagarenes and Ishmaelites.’
But John isn’t really that threatened by them, he had drawn up a long list of heresies and Islam was 101, he wasn’t going to waste more energy than a few sentences on them.
Both religions are also ethically diverse, sure initially muslims tend to be arab, but even the arabs are divided amongst themselves. Then we can add that the turks assume leadership of islam. Christianity is also ethnically divided - francs, goths etc.
Origins of Islam
By the 6th century, one of the things being traded is christianity, we’ve already looked at how the empire was surrounded by the client communities, like the goths, likewise on the eastern boarders, almost acting as a buffer between roman and persian empires, we see arab speaking communities, one of these empires was a christian arab kingdom, but even beyond this christianity was being taken by merchants but also by the heretics - the nestorians and the monophysists - some of this was deliberately missionary, down into places like modern day Iraq.
Arabia had many divinities, along side idols of Jesus and Mary.
Mohammed was born in Mecca in 570, into a tribe that already regarded itself as descended from Arab from Ismale and Hagar. HE was orphaned and raised by his uncle, at the age of 25 he married a business woman, who was already trading in her own right, Mohammed became a merchant. HE was known to retreat outside mecca for reflection, in 609, had a vision of angel gabriel being told to recite. HE had several over the years, he recited them to his community, communicated in oral form and were only gradually written down, after Mohammed’s lifetime, in the koran. Part of Mohammed’s revelation involved a rejection of what he consider the idolatry of his tribe and the people of mecca, because of these views he was driven from mecca in 622, this fleeing marks the beginning of the Muslim calendar, there version of 0AD.
The koran calls Jesus the word of God, talks of God confirming Jesus with the Holy Spirit, refers to Jesus raising the sick and the dead - miracles, very cryptic message of Jesus sending a table of food down for his disciples - from a christian perspective this could be the eucharist. Jesus is portrayed as having gone to heaven from whence he shall come to judge the living and the dead. Jesus has a very prominent role. BUT differences:
Jesus not divine.
Koran rigorously attacks the idea of the trinity
Mohammed did not believe Jesus had been crucified, a kind of a likeness of Jesus was crucified, he himself was not because it would be to shameful for one of God’s prophets.
`Miriam (Moses’ sister) and Mary (Mother) were converged.
The important point is that Islam at least pays Christianity the recognition as regarding it a monotheistic religion. Mohammed urges his followers to leave believers of whatever religion, unmolested.
Islam expanded.
632 Mohammed died
634 Followers take over Damascus - becomes capital
642 Alexandria had fallen
669 Constantinople almost fell, army was repulsed.
698 Carthage fell
711 Small army invaded Iberian peninsular, but were driven back in France.
Muslim territories religiously and politically divided.
Some of the important division:
661-750, Damascus was home to the Omayyad Caliphate, Caliph means successor. Even today some fringe muslims refers to a golden age when islam was united under a caliph. It was this period to which they were referring. However Islam became just as divided about leadership as Christianity would.
633 war between the Caliph and Mohammed’s son in law, Ali who briefly came the 4th caliph, beginning of a gradual division between those who regard the previous caliphs as the true successors and Ali’s supports - who start a faction. This the beginning of the schism between shia’ and sunni islam. Both groups in turn experience division.
762, capital moves to Bagdad following fight of some kind, remains there until 1068 until it was swept away by Gengus Khan.
A third caliph springs up around Egypt, most Shia’
The three caliphates break down into three minor religious kingdoms in the south of spain, divided amongst themselves often willing to form alliances with christian kingdoms in the north to have more power.
So from the 8th century the arab hold on the north of spain is gradually weakening, christian kingdoms establishing themselves on the north driving muslim kingdoms southward.
1212, the various muslim territories are effectively limited to the deep south around grenada. By 1492 he had shrunk to the far south east corner. Completely elimiated in the 16th century.
Two more groups....
The Seljuo sultanate which sprung up inside one of the caliphates, (the abbesisate?!) the seljuo’s were like the goths, settling around the caliphate and were invited in as soldiers. The caliphate was sick of the arabs who were often more loyal to there tribes. The turks, were dependent on the caliph for there money, hoped to have a loyal army. Enough turks came in that they were able to establish themselves as a separate political entity. There leaders was called the Sultan, who eventually became the political leader while the caliph became a puppet.
The ottoman were also turks, who gained enough power to take on pretty much everyone else, took over the seljuo and the eastern celiphate and began to take on the christians. They capturer the balkans in 1389, and Constantinople in 1453 and pushed up into Austria and Hungary, came close to taking the whole of western europe.
Christians living under muslim rule
A lot of those living in the now occupied territories regarded muslim occupancy as the punishment of God, the monophysits saw it was punishment for heresy, the calcedonian saw it in apocalyptic terms. Mohammed began to gain status as one of the apocalyptic figures - the anti-christ, the beast, an anti-christ. If you believe that muslim occupancy is the end of the world, it may be worth waiting things out, waiting for christ to come back and kick arse. Some Christians welcomed muslim occupation - the heretical groups like the monopysites in Egypt and Syria. Even Nestorian christians believed they were better treated. They actually would’ve seen very little change, they were still the religious majority, all they had to do was pay a poll tax to the minority rulers, usually less than the penalties that the monophysits had to pay to the calcedonians. Eventually though this increased. Churches were no longer allowed to look like churches, crosses were banned, any public displays were band. Christians and Jews were now expected to wear distinctive clothing, and any Christians showing contempt could be put to death. Muslim men were allowed to take Christian wives, in fact more than one wife, so Islam spread a lot this way. Peter Brown emphasizes this point, cultural they had a lot in common. There was syncrotism.
But also there were Christians who wanted to take Islam on, sometimes whacked out but sometimes seriously, with an attempt to convert.
As we’ve seen the boundaries between Christianity and Islam were not as clear as we may have expected, this is also expressed in the polemics against islam, many do not see it as a separate religion but rather a heretical christian sect - and why shouldn’t they? - it made claims about scripture. The idea emerged that Mohammed got things wrong because he hung out with the heretics to much!
John of Damascus - one of the first to attack Islam - forerunner of the anit-christ,
‘There is also the people - deceiving cult of the Ishmalites, the forerunner of the Antichrist, which prevails until now. It derives from Ishmael, who was born to Abraham from Hagar, wherefore they are called Hagarenes and Ishmaelites.’
But John isn’t really that threatened by them, he had drawn up a long list of heresies and Islam was 101, he wasn’t going to waste more energy than a few sentences on them.
Gregorian reform week
AS we have already seen when we looked at Charlemagne church and secular administration were closely linked, the church rep often acted on behalf of there secular counterparts. The clergy of course were often more highly educated, with some of the clerks not even knowing how to write. The majority of people led a kind of desperate life, as a result of plague, destruction etc. whole of the west was thinly populated, towns had no more than a few thousand people. This was the early 10th century, everything after changed, trade opening, agriculture expanded, prosperity came to europe.
There was one stable element - the benedictine monasteries. Best lifestyle was to be a monk or to contribute to these communities.
Patronage and self interest of layman
Very early on it became in western europe and england as well, it became very popular to found monastery and to keep putting money into them. Often founded by families. The founding families remained closely linked to monasteries there families had founded, often interfering with monastic affairs. Although strictly owned by the church, the families continued to have an interest. Quite often families could redirect funds away from the monastery into there own secular homes. Monasteries eventually tried to get away from this interference.
Monasteries were also very useful to put surplus children into these communities, marriage dowries were more expensive than monastic dowries, if there were particularly minging it may be difficult to marry them off anyway. plus they would be able to act on behalf of the family within the monastic network, working in the interests of the family, by gaining extra land etc. These cannoness’ defending the interests of there families were also found in Europe.
Piety was also a driving force, monasteries had to pray for there benefactors, those afraid of the last judgement, the world at large etc. founding a monastery was very good in the eyes of God etc.
These people were well aware of there questionable behavior however, when it came to pleasing God. Pilgrimage again shows about the idea about pleasing God.
After 909, movements of reform started within monasteries. For example, Cluny and Gorze. Both abbeys accepted that the liturgy and the lifestyle had changed since the time of benedictine and modified the rule, more time was alloted to worship and prayer, and did not try to revive the manual labour of the early days, they were only prepared to teach oblates. But Cluny and Gorze differed in other ways as well. Despite the big libraries in Cluny because of the long hours of prayer, they did not have much time to read, no good theologians emerged from there. Gorze on the other side, had a shorted liturgy and were extremely important to the intellectual emergence.
William of Aquiten the founded of Cluny made his abbey free from any outside influence, in his founding charter he said they would be free from his family or any earthly power. He clearly saw the problem between having lay patrons and he monasteries they founded, so he made his free from even his own interference. This brought about many ideas about the independence of the church which we later see in gregorian reform. He appealed to the papacy and the secular authorities to protect the abbey. The pope also freed it from local jurisdiction of the bishop, making it directly answerable to Rome.
Cluny was absolutely huge, but it got bombed.
Great abbots of Cluny : Odilo 994-1048 and Hugh 1049-1109
Different names for the times reform:
the cluniac reform, gregorian reform, but the pope leo was better - Leonian reform. The best way to put it is called papal reform - a bit colorless but it avoids these wrong labeling. in any case the reforms of the following centuries are inspired from monastic ideas and had sprung up form the monasteries, popes were generally once monks.
The Papacy before reform...
papacy was dominated by local factions in Rome, trying to gain authority of the city and of the pope.
Benedictine the IX was rubbish, he wanted to marry and retire. he sold the papacy to someone who took papacy to gregory VI who was interested in reform but he had a competitor Sebastian III, so Benedict decided to not retire, so there was three popes, so the emperor stepped in deposed them all and appointed his friend and cousin, Leo IX in 1049. This marks the beginning of papal reform.
Up to this time papacy had always been a venerable institution despite some bizarre occupants, however the pope was still the vicar of st. peter, guarding his body and was the visible representation of peter on earth. this was the basis of the pope’s authority on earth, rome was the place of peter on earth, materially and spiritually. Hence it was a pilgrimage site. So comes the donation of constantine, which was actually a fake, saying that Rome had authority over all the other seats and all the other churches. Leo got rid of it (I THINK!)
Leo introduced the ideas of papal reform into the church.
Simony meant the purchase of ecclesiastical offices - a very widespread practice contrary to canon law, so some authorities had already condemned this practice. Because offices mean people would be administrating the sacrament, simony was seen as the sale of the holy spirit.
The people of cluny tried to get rid of the local bishops, and managed to eventually get exemption. Managing to be directly answerable to the pope. This was not a new thing but they were the first to use it extensively. This created an idea that there could be a problem, in this close link between church and state. So the reform started with Leo, it was also called Cluniac reform. Not only because of there action but many people involved in papal reform were originally monks. So many monastic ideas came into the church.
The issue of simony - which had always been forbidden but unofficially happened all the time - from Simon in Acts 8.
Another thing people fought against was Nicholaism (clerical celibacy). Monks had always been celibate, a mark of monasticism. Now it was spread church wide. In practice celibacy among clergy had never been enforced, clerical marriage was respected. But now with growing emphasis on the sacraments, things were coming into focus, importance to make clergy celibate.
Another problem, these priests who were married were so often proprietary churches, belonging to lords. Having clergy who had families, were much easier to control. A single man was not so easy to control.
Creation of papacy has a kind of monarchy was beginning to be shaped.
Papal reformers demanded:
libertas - freedom from secular control, so all clergy are free for spiritual issues.
Problem: leading figures of the church were very often administrators for there king, if you demand disengagement, they could no longer be involved in secular issues. This would rob the kings of there administrative elite, which they were not happy about and would rob the bishops of there high up secular posts, which they were unhappy about. Quite often these bishops were not holy.
The reforms were after an ideal, that did not exist.
Even though simony may not have been exactly happening, secular and church had become intertwined, the secular interfered with the church. To the reformers this was just as bad and in there writing, the meaning of simony was often inter changeable.
Gregory VII
Gregory VII came after Leo IV, perhaps more famous than Leo than he should be but other big reformer pope. Once called my holy satan because of the fervor he went about things. Very much a roman, a child of St Peter, he saw himself as his vicar in his papacy. His role models were the OT prophets who rebuked kings etc. loved Elijah. Very sure of God’s support so went around things head first. His will was Gods irrespective of other suffering. Though not academically inclined, he was educated. His letters, are full of biblical quotations from the OT, contemporaries likened him to Elijah, a military prophet. His favorite bit, Jeremiah 48v10, something about power of the sword!
The clash of Gregory and Henry IV, popes letter had often criticized the emperor but finally this antagonism finally erupted. At the route of the controversy lay the problem of separation of lay and spiritual power, state and church. The controversy was not to be solved in the middle ages - who has the upper hand.
The pope is not just his representative but Peter’s alter ego, therefore appointed by Christ, so had Christ’s authority. Before now all ministers were assumed to somehow be Christ’s vicars, now it’s quite clear that it’s not anyone who wields authority - princes had often claimed to be vicars of Christ. Now it was the popes claim alone.
We have all sorts of evidence that says that the emperors regulated the church so that there was peace, good will and order. The anti-papists were conservatives, there’s been order so far, why change it?
Anonymous of York: wrote in the interest of the anglo norman kings. He developed a vision of the the sacred nature of kingship, stressing the divine nature of kingly power symbolized by the anointing of kings. For him the king is more the vicar of christ than king. Both the clergy and the kings had been seen as vicars, anon sees the vicar, although he never actually mentioned the popes claims in his writing.
Third way is to see both powers as equal. Luther wrote something on this later.
The practice of lay intervention in the election of bishops, although this had come under criticism in several councils, finally in 1075 Gregory actually condemned the practice. King Henry on the other hand was not prepared to give up his legislative rights and got involved in the elections again, Gregory was furious and excommunicated the king.
The story: Henry, unlike his father did not have the sense to know what would excite the church, his father would never have invested a bishop there by simony. However, Henry had his followers, some bishops got together to depose the pope! Henry wrote saying he saw himself equal, Henry excommunicated the king, so he could no longer be king, so he was deposed.
The pope also now set about getting revenge on the bishops, so the bishops and german princes started to think again. They were afraid to loose there power, so they thought it was not good to support deposed king, but thought they could strengthen there own power so said that they would depose the king unless he asked for absolution. The princes thought they were on top because they thought this wouldn’t happen. However, Henry could go to meet the pope and ask for mercy. Various noble types tried to block the passes through the alps, however Henry slipped through. The pope however was trying to go north to meet with the german princes, fearing physical retaliation from the King. He went to a cathedral in Canossa, a monk describes how the king humiliated himself outside the castle for 2 days before being let in to see the pope. The pope relented and forgave him. The king’s humiliation made a great impression on his peers, papal supremacy had been seen. The pope won. However in the long run, the king won out. The pope lost the support of the nobles who had wanted the king deposed. The German princes did not welcome the lift, nor did they like the popes claim of supremacy. Civil war broke out. But in 1080, Henry solved the civil war and things claimed down. But Henry, still angry about Canossa, declare the pope deposed and kept electing his own popes. Eventually he lay siege to Rome, Gregory fled and Henry put his own pope in. Gregory called on the support of southern Italy, who did help. But Gregory died soon after.
Gregory’s claim gave up the claim of papal supremacy. The kings also gave up investiture. However the problem of lay investiture still remained, like in England. Compromise reached. Henry V gave up investiture by handing over ring and staff but was allowed to be present at election and was allowed to grant land, which he symbolized with a scepter - a symbol of worldly things, not spiritual.
The controversy was on ended and went on until the reformation came the conflict was totally out dated. One of the best known victims was St Thomas, he came from a wealthy merchant background, educated at the archbishop of Canterbury's school when Henry II came to throne, Thomas was made chancellor. He became a friend of Henry. So Henry made him arch bishop when the position became free. But the arch bishopric changed him, so the person who had loved good living, starting living an ascetic life. os when the king wanted a tighter grip on the english church, Henry did not want to stand up to his friend but in the time of papal reform, he rued his action and appealed to the pope that these things were not right, but appeals had been forbidden in some edict. Thomas was called to the kings presence but slipped out in the night, sensing danger and went to France for 6 years, eventually agreements were reached and Thomas returned, but the King was angry. One day, the king muttered, will no one rid me of this low born priest. four of his knights took this as a hint to go kill Thomas, who was then murdered in his own church. Although the king admitted in private that his words may have been taken as an order, the king was actually saddened by the death of his friend. Although the nobles did not like Thomas, the people really did and saw him as a good representative of the church. He soon became a saint.
The papal reform had brought with in a new interest in learning, in intellectual activities. The reform monasteries had assembled big libraries but since they only educated there own, they were not as important as the cathedral school, who educated young clerics who worked closer to the world than the monks. The most important thing, like in paris for example, where a number of schools were founded. These were centered around a teacher, and pupils came to a teacher to hear about theology etc. e.g. Avigala. Soon we get universities, bigger institutions of teachers and students who formed a legal body of it’s own e.g. Paris - theology, Bologna - law. Universities were based around the 7 Liberal arts - the quadrivium - geometry, astronomy, arithmetic and music and trivium - grammar, rhetoric and logic. But problems emerging, authorities were very often saying different things, disputations arising. Avigla, wrote book yes and no. He collected discordant authorities and his followers had to discuss which should be precedent, thus the scholastic method is started,
There was one stable element - the benedictine monasteries. Best lifestyle was to be a monk or to contribute to these communities.
Patronage and self interest of layman
Very early on it became in western europe and england as well, it became very popular to found monastery and to keep putting money into them. Often founded by families. The founding families remained closely linked to monasteries there families had founded, often interfering with monastic affairs. Although strictly owned by the church, the families continued to have an interest. Quite often families could redirect funds away from the monastery into there own secular homes. Monasteries eventually tried to get away from this interference.
Monasteries were also very useful to put surplus children into these communities, marriage dowries were more expensive than monastic dowries, if there were particularly minging it may be difficult to marry them off anyway. plus they would be able to act on behalf of the family within the monastic network, working in the interests of the family, by gaining extra land etc. These cannoness’ defending the interests of there families were also found in Europe.
Piety was also a driving force, monasteries had to pray for there benefactors, those afraid of the last judgement, the world at large etc. founding a monastery was very good in the eyes of God etc.
These people were well aware of there questionable behavior however, when it came to pleasing God. Pilgrimage again shows about the idea about pleasing God.
After 909, movements of reform started within monasteries. For example, Cluny and Gorze. Both abbeys accepted that the liturgy and the lifestyle had changed since the time of benedictine and modified the rule, more time was alloted to worship and prayer, and did not try to revive the manual labour of the early days, they were only prepared to teach oblates. But Cluny and Gorze differed in other ways as well. Despite the big libraries in Cluny because of the long hours of prayer, they did not have much time to read, no good theologians emerged from there. Gorze on the other side, had a shorted liturgy and were extremely important to the intellectual emergence.
William of Aquiten the founded of Cluny made his abbey free from any outside influence, in his founding charter he said they would be free from his family or any earthly power. He clearly saw the problem between having lay patrons and he monasteries they founded, so he made his free from even his own interference. This brought about many ideas about the independence of the church which we later see in gregorian reform. He appealed to the papacy and the secular authorities to protect the abbey. The pope also freed it from local jurisdiction of the bishop, making it directly answerable to Rome.
Cluny was absolutely huge, but it got bombed.
Great abbots of Cluny : Odilo 994-1048 and Hugh 1049-1109
Different names for the times reform:
the cluniac reform, gregorian reform, but the pope leo was better - Leonian reform. The best way to put it is called papal reform - a bit colorless but it avoids these wrong labeling. in any case the reforms of the following centuries are inspired from monastic ideas and had sprung up form the monasteries, popes were generally once monks.
The Papacy before reform...
papacy was dominated by local factions in Rome, trying to gain authority of the city and of the pope.
Benedictine the IX was rubbish, he wanted to marry and retire. he sold the papacy to someone who took papacy to gregory VI who was interested in reform but he had a competitor Sebastian III, so Benedict decided to not retire, so there was three popes, so the emperor stepped in deposed them all and appointed his friend and cousin, Leo IX in 1049. This marks the beginning of papal reform.
Up to this time papacy had always been a venerable institution despite some bizarre occupants, however the pope was still the vicar of st. peter, guarding his body and was the visible representation of peter on earth. this was the basis of the pope’s authority on earth, rome was the place of peter on earth, materially and spiritually. Hence it was a pilgrimage site. So comes the donation of constantine, which was actually a fake, saying that Rome had authority over all the other seats and all the other churches. Leo got rid of it (I THINK!)
Leo introduced the ideas of papal reform into the church.
Simony meant the purchase of ecclesiastical offices - a very widespread practice contrary to canon law, so some authorities had already condemned this practice. Because offices mean people would be administrating the sacrament, simony was seen as the sale of the holy spirit.
The people of cluny tried to get rid of the local bishops, and managed to eventually get exemption. Managing to be directly answerable to the pope. This was not a new thing but they were the first to use it extensively. This created an idea that there could be a problem, in this close link between church and state. So the reform started with Leo, it was also called Cluniac reform. Not only because of there action but many people involved in papal reform were originally monks. So many monastic ideas came into the church.
The issue of simony - which had always been forbidden but unofficially happened all the time - from Simon in Acts 8.
Another thing people fought against was Nicholaism (clerical celibacy). Monks had always been celibate, a mark of monasticism. Now it was spread church wide. In practice celibacy among clergy had never been enforced, clerical marriage was respected. But now with growing emphasis on the sacraments, things were coming into focus, importance to make clergy celibate.
Another problem, these priests who were married were so often proprietary churches, belonging to lords. Having clergy who had families, were much easier to control. A single man was not so easy to control.
Creation of papacy has a kind of monarchy was beginning to be shaped.
Papal reformers demanded:
libertas - freedom from secular control, so all clergy are free for spiritual issues.
Problem: leading figures of the church were very often administrators for there king, if you demand disengagement, they could no longer be involved in secular issues. This would rob the kings of there administrative elite, which they were not happy about and would rob the bishops of there high up secular posts, which they were unhappy about. Quite often these bishops were not holy.
The reforms were after an ideal, that did not exist.
Even though simony may not have been exactly happening, secular and church had become intertwined, the secular interfered with the church. To the reformers this was just as bad and in there writing, the meaning of simony was often inter changeable.
Gregory VII
Gregory VII came after Leo IV, perhaps more famous than Leo than he should be but other big reformer pope. Once called my holy satan because of the fervor he went about things. Very much a roman, a child of St Peter, he saw himself as his vicar in his papacy. His role models were the OT prophets who rebuked kings etc. loved Elijah. Very sure of God’s support so went around things head first. His will was Gods irrespective of other suffering. Though not academically inclined, he was educated. His letters, are full of biblical quotations from the OT, contemporaries likened him to Elijah, a military prophet. His favorite bit, Jeremiah 48v10, something about power of the sword!
The clash of Gregory and Henry IV, popes letter had often criticized the emperor but finally this antagonism finally erupted. At the route of the controversy lay the problem of separation of lay and spiritual power, state and church. The controversy was not to be solved in the middle ages - who has the upper hand.
The pope is not just his representative but Peter’s alter ego, therefore appointed by Christ, so had Christ’s authority. Before now all ministers were assumed to somehow be Christ’s vicars, now it’s quite clear that it’s not anyone who wields authority - princes had often claimed to be vicars of Christ. Now it was the popes claim alone.
We have all sorts of evidence that says that the emperors regulated the church so that there was peace, good will and order. The anti-papists were conservatives, there’s been order so far, why change it?
Anonymous of York: wrote in the interest of the anglo norman kings. He developed a vision of the the sacred nature of kingship, stressing the divine nature of kingly power symbolized by the anointing of kings. For him the king is more the vicar of christ than king. Both the clergy and the kings had been seen as vicars, anon sees the vicar, although he never actually mentioned the popes claims in his writing.
Third way is to see both powers as equal. Luther wrote something on this later.
The practice of lay intervention in the election of bishops, although this had come under criticism in several councils, finally in 1075 Gregory actually condemned the practice. King Henry on the other hand was not prepared to give up his legislative rights and got involved in the elections again, Gregory was furious and excommunicated the king.
The story: Henry, unlike his father did not have the sense to know what would excite the church, his father would never have invested a bishop there by simony. However, Henry had his followers, some bishops got together to depose the pope! Henry wrote saying he saw himself equal, Henry excommunicated the king, so he could no longer be king, so he was deposed.
The pope also now set about getting revenge on the bishops, so the bishops and german princes started to think again. They were afraid to loose there power, so they thought it was not good to support deposed king, but thought they could strengthen there own power so said that they would depose the king unless he asked for absolution. The princes thought they were on top because they thought this wouldn’t happen. However, Henry could go to meet the pope and ask for mercy. Various noble types tried to block the passes through the alps, however Henry slipped through. The pope however was trying to go north to meet with the german princes, fearing physical retaliation from the King. He went to a cathedral in Canossa, a monk describes how the king humiliated himself outside the castle for 2 days before being let in to see the pope. The pope relented and forgave him. The king’s humiliation made a great impression on his peers, papal supremacy had been seen. The pope won. However in the long run, the king won out. The pope lost the support of the nobles who had wanted the king deposed. The German princes did not welcome the lift, nor did they like the popes claim of supremacy. Civil war broke out. But in 1080, Henry solved the civil war and things claimed down. But Henry, still angry about Canossa, declare the pope deposed and kept electing his own popes. Eventually he lay siege to Rome, Gregory fled and Henry put his own pope in. Gregory called on the support of southern Italy, who did help. But Gregory died soon after.
Gregory’s claim gave up the claim of papal supremacy. The kings also gave up investiture. However the problem of lay investiture still remained, like in England. Compromise reached. Henry V gave up investiture by handing over ring and staff but was allowed to be present at election and was allowed to grant land, which he symbolized with a scepter - a symbol of worldly things, not spiritual.
The controversy was on ended and went on until the reformation came the conflict was totally out dated. One of the best known victims was St Thomas, he came from a wealthy merchant background, educated at the archbishop of Canterbury's school when Henry II came to throne, Thomas was made chancellor. He became a friend of Henry. So Henry made him arch bishop when the position became free. But the arch bishopric changed him, so the person who had loved good living, starting living an ascetic life. os when the king wanted a tighter grip on the english church, Henry did not want to stand up to his friend but in the time of papal reform, he rued his action and appealed to the pope that these things were not right, but appeals had been forbidden in some edict. Thomas was called to the kings presence but slipped out in the night, sensing danger and went to France for 6 years, eventually agreements were reached and Thomas returned, but the King was angry. One day, the king muttered, will no one rid me of this low born priest. four of his knights took this as a hint to go kill Thomas, who was then murdered in his own church. Although the king admitted in private that his words may have been taken as an order, the king was actually saddened by the death of his friend. Although the nobles did not like Thomas, the people really did and saw him as a good representative of the church. He soon became a saint.
The papal reform had brought with in a new interest in learning, in intellectual activities. The reform monasteries had assembled big libraries but since they only educated there own, they were not as important as the cathedral school, who educated young clerics who worked closer to the world than the monks. The most important thing, like in paris for example, where a number of schools were founded. These were centered around a teacher, and pupils came to a teacher to hear about theology etc. e.g. Avigala. Soon we get universities, bigger institutions of teachers and students who formed a legal body of it’s own e.g. Paris - theology, Bologna - law. Universities were based around the 7 Liberal arts - the quadrivium - geometry, astronomy, arithmetic and music and trivium - grammar, rhetoric and logic. But problems emerging, authorities were very often saying different things, disputations arising. Avigla, wrote book yes and no. He collected discordant authorities and his followers had to discuss which should be precedent, thus the scholastic method is started,
Eastern Christianity
Week 4 - Eastern Christianity
The relationship between the east and the west particularly, the fall of the roman empire through to the 4th crusade.
In the 5/6th centuries the roman empire is under pressure from outside it’s boarders, we’ve looked at the goths and the franc kingdoms emerging who were pretty much brought into the fold as the military defenders. But much more threatening are those on the eastern boarders like the persian empires and the arabians. Not Islamic yet, but some Christian, some traditional type pagans. They would eventually become united under mohammed, and pose such a threat to the eastern empire that a lot of it would fall under arab, muslim control.
The last Roman emperor Romulous Augustine resigned in 476, effectively the date that people trot out for the end of the western empire. It was however briefly revived in the 6th century when a lot of the germanic tribes were brought under control of the western empire, 527-565 were re-conquered by Justiain. By 7th century it disappeared again when the arabs expanded there kingdom up to France where they were whopped.
After 7th century when speaking about the Roman empire, we are speaking about an increasingly tiny kingdom, an empire in name only. Christians in central and northern italy owe some kind of notional almost romantic allegiance to the emperor in constanstinople, and the pope for a long time still considers himself the emperors servant. Sees itself in a commonwealth of sorts, it doesn’t mean anything politically any more but all in the commonwealth have a kind of fondness for the monarch, a romantic attachment.
The real roman empire in the east is ceasing to be roman at all, it is becoming Greek. The court at Constantinople ceases to use Latin in its decrees, it is no longer the language of the army. Greek is now the language. The title emperor is dropped and replaced with Kings.
In the East, any connection with the greek half is gradually dropping away. A cultural gulf is growing up between them. The Western church is now dominated to Christianized Germans, they may have a notional allegiance, but never experienced the culture. Any differences in doctrine that later arise are due to cultural division.
2 big differences in terms of doctrine emerge - the doctrine of Christ and the doctrine of the trinity.
Continuing dispute about who Christ is - 2nd person of trinity who are all equal in there divinity though different in there relationship to each other - councils of Nicene and Constantinople.
What’s this new problem - the doctrine that defined by two council in the 5th century - efficies in 431, calcedone in 451.
How can a human be the mother of God without being a God herself? God can’t have a mother a mother by definition - he’s eternal.
So the bishop of Constantinople, proposed that while it was not proper to call Mary the mother of God but it was proper to call her the Mother of Christ.
Even if the union between the divinity and the humanity came at a later point, the risk is the division of christ into two. If you accord to each of the two parts of Christ a full integrity, making it two people, you start hitting problems - was the human Christ possessed - spacesuit theology. But this puts down the humanity of Christ and his ability to relate to humanity - in suffering etc. The way its resolved, at the council of Calcedone, it’s okay to call Mary the Mother of God because she gave birth to one person, with a divine and a human nature united in one person. Fully divine and fully human sharing with each other in the one person.
BUT the fact that a council says something rarely actually resolves something.
By saying that it was okay that Mary was the mother of God the bishop who had objected got kicked out. He gathered himself supporters both in syria and in the persian empire and his followers known as Nestorian Christians spread along the empire along the silk trading routes and into China. When the arabs come and take over, they encounter Nestorian christians and are passed classical learning with it. Hence things like Aristotle are found within Islam.
There’s also a second schism at the other end of the nature of Christ, there are others that don’t like this tow natures in one person, they think it’s still two close to suggesting there’s two persons simply locked together.
Cyril of Alexandria (375-444) very orthodox but he was very suspicious of this two natures language, he said when the two natures were merged he said it was like a drop of milk dropping into the ocean, the milk is still there but the ocean is so vast, that it’s not proper to talk of Christ having two natures, he still recognizes that the milk is still there but it’s silly to talk of it as being a separate entity. He sees Christ as having a human nature fused with a divine nature. His followers are called the Monophysites. (or something!!!)
Problem is that this would take away from having a true human being. To really be a saviour he must be fully human. If a human being Jesus did not have body, soul, mind then there is something about us that was not fully redeemed. Only a human being can save other human beings. Cyril’s theory calls into question his humanity and therefore man kinds redemption.
Christianity in Egypt was still related to Cyril. After the council of Calceden, there were three groups, followers of the council, of cyril and nestor.
Cyril’s lot went down into Ethiopia, and it spread through syria as well following a concerted missionary effort to counter the nestorians.
The henotikon was an attempt to find a theology for reunion that was based on the theology of Cyril. He at least concedes that there are two natures. This is an attempt to bypass the council of Calcedene. This made some head way in the west, but as soon as it made any head way in the east, the west rejected it. Felix III excommunicated anyone who refused to accept the council of calceden, although he did this reluctantly. The pope sticks to his guns because he is setting himself against the emperor - at this point rome was ruled by germanic tribes so the pope had some protection. Papacy admits two governments but says that the government of the bishops is more important - hurrah Bishops have charge of the eternal souls so the bishops must always trump the world.
Eventually there is a resolution. but important precedent as been set - the papacy can call rulers to account.
recap:
1. Empire is under seize and also shrinking
2. As a result of invasion the east and the west are being culturally separate. In that cultural division the pope initially acts as a mediator but is increasingly torn between the two.
3. The east was deeply divided by three versions of post nicean Christianity, divided between theology of Christ’s humanity in relation to his divinity,
Justinian succeeded his uncle in the east in 527, his two empires were to unite the roman empire and to unite the east by bringing an end to the Christological divisions. Within 5 years of the beginning of his reign it already looked like the divisions in the east were going to break in to warfare.
e.g. 532, sports fans rioted and burnt down the main cathedral - church of the holy cathedral. The sports fans were divided into two groups the blues and the greens and there colors were associated with particular chariot drivers who raced in the hypadrome in Constantinople. The sporting divisions began to map themselves onto the religions divisions - calcedonians and monophysites. When that kind of civic disorder takes place so close to home - right in the emperors city the urgency to heal division is heightened.
So between 532 and 537, Justinian begins to rebuild the cathedral, it stands for Justinian’s perception of himself as the perfect Christian emperor. He views himself as the manager of the empire, the cathedral not only represents the religious but the political.
This is one of the first things he does as a symbol of his aspirations. Another important thing he does is that he commissions the codification of Roman law. So it is written down in one place - the civil law. This becomes a model for Christian kingship in the later middle ages, Justinian becomes a model king of sorts. Also becomes the model for the code of canon law and the model for the countries that use what we call roman law - scots, french, german, really everything except English law. But when James 4/5 tried to revived scots law in the 5th century, roman law rather than english was there model.
Justinian was fortunate in his choice of wife, because Theodora was monophysite, he was caldeonian and just by the very fact of there marriage, they managed to convince both sides it had the support of the imperial family. Theodora did a lot to support the monophysite interests earning the loathing of the calcedonians.
She founded monophysite monasteries which became mission based sites for missions in Sudan. She was also worried about nestorian persistence in syria, to bring the nestorians back into the fold converting them to monophysite christianity. So for a while Justinian and Theodora are playing both sides but not actually managing reconciliation. Until...
Justinian issues the Edict of the Three Chapters, condemning a number of theologians who were thought to be the founders of nestorian theology. The idea that by condemning them he showed Calcedonian christianity was not related to nestorian christianity.
The problem is that the three theologians are though orthodox by the east - pope included, so he rather feebly protested.
Justinian had re-conquered Italy and it was no longer in gothic hands so the pope vargilius didn’t have the protection that felix had, so justinian had him beaten up - how nasty.
Vargilius, relented.
Constantinople II (553)
Person hood of Christ discussed - human nature within divine nature - basically another attempt to resolve thing, does for a while in the east although the divisions soon break out another. In the west, it results in the excommunication of the pope.
People thing that the pope has sold out to the monophysites, excommunication was lifted at his death - shame!!!
Hymn of Justinian - key words - who without change didst become man.
New nature proposal - monothelite/monergite
New pope approves.
harmonious relationships seem to be solved in the west, but arguments still raging in the east.
When pope died in 638, the new pope Martin decided that the previous pope had been a heretic.
The new emperor, was so outraged he had Martin tortured, exiled and eventually executed. How mean!!
This had two sort of contradictory effects on the papacy.
When Martin decide previous pope had been heretic he did so appealing text in matthew - i am the rock etc. makes earliest papal appeal to that authority, but he is criticizing his predecessor, will come back to bite papacy later. Because one of the myths that the church later developed was that no pope had ever fallen into heresy. But Anorius, had according to martin.
Can a pope actually fall into heresy? But if a pope does, how do you deal with it and who can pull rank on the pope?? It was later decided that if a pope fell into heresy he was no longer pope so there could never be a heretical pope - very tenuous medieval theology.
There is no tidy resolution to this controversy.
Calcedonian wins mainly through attrition, its the religion of constantinople and greece but for the rest of the east, monophysite prevails but when islam moves in the christianity that survives, its monophysite maintains because its non roman and can’t be regarded as all that threatening.
So onto iconoclastic controversy.
Jumping into the 8th century...
eastern empire limited to western end of turkey, greece, the balkans, sicily and southern italy - remains of the greek speaking empire. The rest is under muslim rule. So the enemies of the empire have had dazzling success, reducing eastern empire by well over 2 thirds. A shadow of what it was once was in the east and certainly in the west. And the dispute over the use of holy images is turned up in this almost identity crisis that eastern christianity experiences as a result of this defeat.
If we have suffered these disasters who or what is to blame. Secondly if we are to achieve success again to repel these invaders, how will we win Gods favor. Holy images had a role in both of these questions because on the one hand images are to be instrumental in repelling invaders, they believe images are helping them in military endeavors, on the other hand when they experience defeat particularly by a culture that rejects images, perhaps it’s God anger at the images being shown.
Christians have been madly painting pictures from very early on. The illustration tends to be either highly figurative, or biblical.
Thursday’s lesson
Icons.
We saw pictures of richly painted churches, on the whole it’s accepted until the 7th century, when the empire finds itself under pressure from islam, so it needs to be decided what use icons have. Are they powerful vehicles or whether the success of islam is actually God’s punishment.
Islam refused to use images of created thing, representational art usurps Gods prerogative as creator. So Islamic art tends to be geometric decoration.
Example, some bishop held up the cross - not a crucifix but the two crossed bars, which repelled Islam's. So images began to be whitewashed and replaced with a simple cross.
Council of constantinople (the false one) called: Argument that God is beyond depiction because how do you draw the divine? If your saying that the depiction shows both in one figure you’re monophsyite because your saying it’s a mish mash of two natures. Criticizes John of Damascus, arab theologian living in syria.
John outlined the theology of icons as thus:
As human beings we have bodies and the way we find out about things is through our bodies we need to use our senses. ALL knowledge comes through bodies.
So in order to communicate with us God comes to us as we are, he uses our bodies to reveal himself to us, through words, signs (e.g. burning bush) etc.
God does this in Jesus Christ when he takes a body in order to communicate with us as a human being, he chooses to come to us visual in the body of christ.
So God uses images, fires, words, doves... but finally God becomes an image in Christ.
If God chooses to become visible then you can represent him as he has chosen to represent himself.
Jesus becomes a kind of a key to understanding all the other images around us, the whole world is a kind of code, but Jesus is the key to understanding that code.
If you can understand Jesus and how Jesus images God then you can understand the way in which everything else reflects God.
John lives in this universe which is a visible sermon, everything around you have a sermon to preach but it has to be understood through the key of Jesus, the first image of God, everything else is created through him, the world IS a image of Jesus.
He understands that icons are just things, and if we image that an image of jesus is Jesus himself we are wrong, it’s not Jesus it’s a picture. He sees idolitary is possible, but in so far tha you venerate what is represented there that’s no idolotary that’s worship paid to God. You can worship i tow ways - directly - ‘latria’, or you can worship his creatures as a form of his work, but you should never venerate the creatures as if they were Gods, John calls this veneration - ‘proskynesis’ - so when you venerate or kiss a statue, it’s kind of a second hand tribute to God.
In around 811, the Bulgarians invaded from the north and defeated the army of the emperor and decapitated him, and the leader Krum turned the head into a drinking cup. The same problem arises again - why is this happening?
In 818, the new emperor ordered all of the images removed, another council in constantinople is called.
Finally in 843, Michael III and his mother Theodora (the regent), (supporters of icons tended to be women), read out a declaration at the beginning of lent, in which the imperial family declares that icons are fine, date still celebrated as the feast of orthodoxy in the east.
The photian schism 9th century, breach between east and west getting really serious now.
Empress Theodora, eventually got over thrown by her teenage her son, Michael III, part of this cue against his mother, meant getting rid of the bishop Ignatius who fled to Rome. Michael found Photius, a layman but he seemed to be a safe pair of hands, someone who would work in support of emperor, he’s quickly ordained, and made a bishop. In this period when a bishop was elected, or ordained, it was customary that he send a letter to all the bishops in the area, or as a patriarch the other four patriarchs, this is what Photius did. The pope, Nicholas I saw this as an opportunity to apply some pressure, yes i’ll recognise you as bishop if you sort these things out for me.
Nick wanted control over sicily and the south of italy, these areas had always been greek speaking and fallen under the juridiction of rome in theory, but they were greek speaking enclaves in the western empire, but they were kind of annexed by the east, but the pope said he wanted at least spiritual jurisdiction.
Secondly, the bulgarians were beginning to get interested in Christianity but didn’t want to be subject to the east, so they had asked the pope to send latin missionaries, so the pope said he wanted to have control over the bulkans, which wasn’t actually a greek speaking area, again he wanted spiritual control so he could continue his mission.
He also did not want laymen appointed bishops anymore, otherwise any political type could be patriarch, it needed to be monks or priests.
Michael said yes to not appointing laymen but not the other requests.
This doesn’t stop the bulgarians agitating for roman missionaries and in 866, Khan Boris I said letters to Nicholas asking about the differences in the east and west asking why there were differences and who was right.
By this stage it’s becoming common for western clergy to be celebate, in the east they continued to marry. And more importantly, the westerners had also added a new bit into the creed in relation to the holy spirit - filioque - meaning ‘and the son’
With the father, he is worshiped / With the father and the son, he is worshiped and glorified.
In the New western version, the son is begotten from the father, in the east, both the son and the spirit, came from the father.
The West, Jesus was always there.
The relationship between the east and the west particularly, the fall of the roman empire through to the 4th crusade.
In the 5/6th centuries the roman empire is under pressure from outside it’s boarders, we’ve looked at the goths and the franc kingdoms emerging who were pretty much brought into the fold as the military defenders. But much more threatening are those on the eastern boarders like the persian empires and the arabians. Not Islamic yet, but some Christian, some traditional type pagans. They would eventually become united under mohammed, and pose such a threat to the eastern empire that a lot of it would fall under arab, muslim control.
The last Roman emperor Romulous Augustine resigned in 476, effectively the date that people trot out for the end of the western empire. It was however briefly revived in the 6th century when a lot of the germanic tribes were brought under control of the western empire, 527-565 were re-conquered by Justiain. By 7th century it disappeared again when the arabs expanded there kingdom up to France where they were whopped.
After 7th century when speaking about the Roman empire, we are speaking about an increasingly tiny kingdom, an empire in name only. Christians in central and northern italy owe some kind of notional almost romantic allegiance to the emperor in constanstinople, and the pope for a long time still considers himself the emperors servant. Sees itself in a commonwealth of sorts, it doesn’t mean anything politically any more but all in the commonwealth have a kind of fondness for the monarch, a romantic attachment.
The real roman empire in the east is ceasing to be roman at all, it is becoming Greek. The court at Constantinople ceases to use Latin in its decrees, it is no longer the language of the army. Greek is now the language. The title emperor is dropped and replaced with Kings.
In the East, any connection with the greek half is gradually dropping away. A cultural gulf is growing up between them. The Western church is now dominated to Christianized Germans, they may have a notional allegiance, but never experienced the culture. Any differences in doctrine that later arise are due to cultural division.
2 big differences in terms of doctrine emerge - the doctrine of Christ and the doctrine of the trinity.
Continuing dispute about who Christ is - 2nd person of trinity who are all equal in there divinity though different in there relationship to each other - councils of Nicene and Constantinople.
What’s this new problem - the doctrine that defined by two council in the 5th century - efficies in 431, calcedone in 451.
How can a human be the mother of God without being a God herself? God can’t have a mother a mother by definition - he’s eternal.
So the bishop of Constantinople, proposed that while it was not proper to call Mary the mother of God but it was proper to call her the Mother of Christ.
Even if the union between the divinity and the humanity came at a later point, the risk is the division of christ into two. If you accord to each of the two parts of Christ a full integrity, making it two people, you start hitting problems - was the human Christ possessed - spacesuit theology. But this puts down the humanity of Christ and his ability to relate to humanity - in suffering etc. The way its resolved, at the council of Calcedone, it’s okay to call Mary the Mother of God because she gave birth to one person, with a divine and a human nature united in one person. Fully divine and fully human sharing with each other in the one person.
BUT the fact that a council says something rarely actually resolves something.
By saying that it was okay that Mary was the mother of God the bishop who had objected got kicked out. He gathered himself supporters both in syria and in the persian empire and his followers known as Nestorian Christians spread along the empire along the silk trading routes and into China. When the arabs come and take over, they encounter Nestorian christians and are passed classical learning with it. Hence things like Aristotle are found within Islam.
There’s also a second schism at the other end of the nature of Christ, there are others that don’t like this tow natures in one person, they think it’s still two close to suggesting there’s two persons simply locked together.
Cyril of Alexandria (375-444) very orthodox but he was very suspicious of this two natures language, he said when the two natures were merged he said it was like a drop of milk dropping into the ocean, the milk is still there but the ocean is so vast, that it’s not proper to talk of Christ having two natures, he still recognizes that the milk is still there but it’s silly to talk of it as being a separate entity. He sees Christ as having a human nature fused with a divine nature. His followers are called the Monophysites. (or something!!!)
Problem is that this would take away from having a true human being. To really be a saviour he must be fully human. If a human being Jesus did not have body, soul, mind then there is something about us that was not fully redeemed. Only a human being can save other human beings. Cyril’s theory calls into question his humanity and therefore man kinds redemption.
Christianity in Egypt was still related to Cyril. After the council of Calceden, there were three groups, followers of the council, of cyril and nestor.
Cyril’s lot went down into Ethiopia, and it spread through syria as well following a concerted missionary effort to counter the nestorians.
The henotikon was an attempt to find a theology for reunion that was based on the theology of Cyril. He at least concedes that there are two natures. This is an attempt to bypass the council of Calcedene. This made some head way in the west, but as soon as it made any head way in the east, the west rejected it. Felix III excommunicated anyone who refused to accept the council of calceden, although he did this reluctantly. The pope sticks to his guns because he is setting himself against the emperor - at this point rome was ruled by germanic tribes so the pope had some protection. Papacy admits two governments but says that the government of the bishops is more important - hurrah Bishops have charge of the eternal souls so the bishops must always trump the world.
Eventually there is a resolution. but important precedent as been set - the papacy can call rulers to account.
recap:
1. Empire is under seize and also shrinking
2. As a result of invasion the east and the west are being culturally separate. In that cultural division the pope initially acts as a mediator but is increasingly torn between the two.
3. The east was deeply divided by three versions of post nicean Christianity, divided between theology of Christ’s humanity in relation to his divinity,
Justinian succeeded his uncle in the east in 527, his two empires were to unite the roman empire and to unite the east by bringing an end to the Christological divisions. Within 5 years of the beginning of his reign it already looked like the divisions in the east were going to break in to warfare.
e.g. 532, sports fans rioted and burnt down the main cathedral - church of the holy cathedral. The sports fans were divided into two groups the blues and the greens and there colors were associated with particular chariot drivers who raced in the hypadrome in Constantinople. The sporting divisions began to map themselves onto the religions divisions - calcedonians and monophysites. When that kind of civic disorder takes place so close to home - right in the emperors city the urgency to heal division is heightened.
So between 532 and 537, Justinian begins to rebuild the cathedral, it stands for Justinian’s perception of himself as the perfect Christian emperor. He views himself as the manager of the empire, the cathedral not only represents the religious but the political.
This is one of the first things he does as a symbol of his aspirations. Another important thing he does is that he commissions the codification of Roman law. So it is written down in one place - the civil law. This becomes a model for Christian kingship in the later middle ages, Justinian becomes a model king of sorts. Also becomes the model for the code of canon law and the model for the countries that use what we call roman law - scots, french, german, really everything except English law. But when James 4/5 tried to revived scots law in the 5th century, roman law rather than english was there model.
Justinian was fortunate in his choice of wife, because Theodora was monophysite, he was caldeonian and just by the very fact of there marriage, they managed to convince both sides it had the support of the imperial family. Theodora did a lot to support the monophysite interests earning the loathing of the calcedonians.
She founded monophysite monasteries which became mission based sites for missions in Sudan. She was also worried about nestorian persistence in syria, to bring the nestorians back into the fold converting them to monophysite christianity. So for a while Justinian and Theodora are playing both sides but not actually managing reconciliation. Until...
Justinian issues the Edict of the Three Chapters, condemning a number of theologians who were thought to be the founders of nestorian theology. The idea that by condemning them he showed Calcedonian christianity was not related to nestorian christianity.
The problem is that the three theologians are though orthodox by the east - pope included, so he rather feebly protested.
Justinian had re-conquered Italy and it was no longer in gothic hands so the pope vargilius didn’t have the protection that felix had, so justinian had him beaten up - how nasty.
Vargilius, relented.
Constantinople II (553)
Person hood of Christ discussed - human nature within divine nature - basically another attempt to resolve thing, does for a while in the east although the divisions soon break out another. In the west, it results in the excommunication of the pope.
People thing that the pope has sold out to the monophysites, excommunication was lifted at his death - shame!!!
Hymn of Justinian - key words - who without change didst become man.
New nature proposal - monothelite/monergite
New pope approves.
harmonious relationships seem to be solved in the west, but arguments still raging in the east.
When pope died in 638, the new pope Martin decided that the previous pope had been a heretic.
The new emperor, was so outraged he had Martin tortured, exiled and eventually executed. How mean!!
This had two sort of contradictory effects on the papacy.
When Martin decide previous pope had been heretic he did so appealing text in matthew - i am the rock etc. makes earliest papal appeal to that authority, but he is criticizing his predecessor, will come back to bite papacy later. Because one of the myths that the church later developed was that no pope had ever fallen into heresy. But Anorius, had according to martin.
Can a pope actually fall into heresy? But if a pope does, how do you deal with it and who can pull rank on the pope?? It was later decided that if a pope fell into heresy he was no longer pope so there could never be a heretical pope - very tenuous medieval theology.
There is no tidy resolution to this controversy.
Calcedonian wins mainly through attrition, its the religion of constantinople and greece but for the rest of the east, monophysite prevails but when islam moves in the christianity that survives, its monophysite maintains because its non roman and can’t be regarded as all that threatening.
So onto iconoclastic controversy.
Jumping into the 8th century...
eastern empire limited to western end of turkey, greece, the balkans, sicily and southern italy - remains of the greek speaking empire. The rest is under muslim rule. So the enemies of the empire have had dazzling success, reducing eastern empire by well over 2 thirds. A shadow of what it was once was in the east and certainly in the west. And the dispute over the use of holy images is turned up in this almost identity crisis that eastern christianity experiences as a result of this defeat.
If we have suffered these disasters who or what is to blame. Secondly if we are to achieve success again to repel these invaders, how will we win Gods favor. Holy images had a role in both of these questions because on the one hand images are to be instrumental in repelling invaders, they believe images are helping them in military endeavors, on the other hand when they experience defeat particularly by a culture that rejects images, perhaps it’s God anger at the images being shown.
Christians have been madly painting pictures from very early on. The illustration tends to be either highly figurative, or biblical.
Thursday’s lesson
Icons.
We saw pictures of richly painted churches, on the whole it’s accepted until the 7th century, when the empire finds itself under pressure from islam, so it needs to be decided what use icons have. Are they powerful vehicles or whether the success of islam is actually God’s punishment.
Islam refused to use images of created thing, representational art usurps Gods prerogative as creator. So Islamic art tends to be geometric decoration.
Example, some bishop held up the cross - not a crucifix but the two crossed bars, which repelled Islam's. So images began to be whitewashed and replaced with a simple cross.
Council of constantinople (the false one) called: Argument that God is beyond depiction because how do you draw the divine? If your saying that the depiction shows both in one figure you’re monophsyite because your saying it’s a mish mash of two natures. Criticizes John of Damascus, arab theologian living in syria.
John outlined the theology of icons as thus:
As human beings we have bodies and the way we find out about things is through our bodies we need to use our senses. ALL knowledge comes through bodies.
So in order to communicate with us God comes to us as we are, he uses our bodies to reveal himself to us, through words, signs (e.g. burning bush) etc.
God does this in Jesus Christ when he takes a body in order to communicate with us as a human being, he chooses to come to us visual in the body of christ.
So God uses images, fires, words, doves... but finally God becomes an image in Christ.
If God chooses to become visible then you can represent him as he has chosen to represent himself.
Jesus becomes a kind of a key to understanding all the other images around us, the whole world is a kind of code, but Jesus is the key to understanding that code.
If you can understand Jesus and how Jesus images God then you can understand the way in which everything else reflects God.
John lives in this universe which is a visible sermon, everything around you have a sermon to preach but it has to be understood through the key of Jesus, the first image of God, everything else is created through him, the world IS a image of Jesus.
He understands that icons are just things, and if we image that an image of jesus is Jesus himself we are wrong, it’s not Jesus it’s a picture. He sees idolitary is possible, but in so far tha you venerate what is represented there that’s no idolotary that’s worship paid to God. You can worship i tow ways - directly - ‘latria’, or you can worship his creatures as a form of his work, but you should never venerate the creatures as if they were Gods, John calls this veneration - ‘proskynesis’ - so when you venerate or kiss a statue, it’s kind of a second hand tribute to God.
In around 811, the Bulgarians invaded from the north and defeated the army of the emperor and decapitated him, and the leader Krum turned the head into a drinking cup. The same problem arises again - why is this happening?
In 818, the new emperor ordered all of the images removed, another council in constantinople is called.
Finally in 843, Michael III and his mother Theodora (the regent), (supporters of icons tended to be women), read out a declaration at the beginning of lent, in which the imperial family declares that icons are fine, date still celebrated as the feast of orthodoxy in the east.
The photian schism 9th century, breach between east and west getting really serious now.
Empress Theodora, eventually got over thrown by her teenage her son, Michael III, part of this cue against his mother, meant getting rid of the bishop Ignatius who fled to Rome. Michael found Photius, a layman but he seemed to be a safe pair of hands, someone who would work in support of emperor, he’s quickly ordained, and made a bishop. In this period when a bishop was elected, or ordained, it was customary that he send a letter to all the bishops in the area, or as a patriarch the other four patriarchs, this is what Photius did. The pope, Nicholas I saw this as an opportunity to apply some pressure, yes i’ll recognise you as bishop if you sort these things out for me.
Nick wanted control over sicily and the south of italy, these areas had always been greek speaking and fallen under the juridiction of rome in theory, but they were greek speaking enclaves in the western empire, but they were kind of annexed by the east, but the pope said he wanted at least spiritual jurisdiction.
Secondly, the bulgarians were beginning to get interested in Christianity but didn’t want to be subject to the east, so they had asked the pope to send latin missionaries, so the pope said he wanted to have control over the bulkans, which wasn’t actually a greek speaking area, again he wanted spiritual control so he could continue his mission.
He also did not want laymen appointed bishops anymore, otherwise any political type could be patriarch, it needed to be monks or priests.
Michael said yes to not appointing laymen but not the other requests.
This doesn’t stop the bulgarians agitating for roman missionaries and in 866, Khan Boris I said letters to Nicholas asking about the differences in the east and west asking why there were differences and who was right.
By this stage it’s becoming common for western clergy to be celebate, in the east they continued to marry. And more importantly, the westerners had also added a new bit into the creed in relation to the holy spirit - filioque - meaning ‘and the son’
With the father, he is worshiped / With the father and the son, he is worshiped and glorified.
In the New western version, the son is begotten from the father, in the east, both the son and the spirit, came from the father.
The West, Jesus was always there.
Western Monasticism
Week three: Western Monasticism
New ideas were generally suggested by monks throughout this time. There lifestyles although slightly differing are very similar.
To summarize monks are the most influential force in the medieval church in terms of ecclesiastical thought.
The basics
The origins of Christian monasticism can be traced back to the New Testament, every Christian is required to live in the imitation of Christ, this does not necessarily mean you have to live an aesthetic life - Jesus ate and drank a lot. But there are parts of the NT that do suggest aestheticism e.g. Jesus against earthly possession, strongly recommends not to rely on human relationships. These things can be read through aesthetic glass.
Matthew 6:19-20, do not store up treasures on earth... aesthetics read this in very bias way.
Matthew 19:16-21, Luke 12:13-21. Also can be read in aesthetic terms.
Act 2:44-45 - all who believe were together and had all things in common, pooling goods, no private possessions. Everyone who has a need, gets it.
Look into a Benedictine monastery, and you’ll see this in action.
St. Paul: Corinthians, I want you to be free from anxieties - suggests no marriage. Because virgins have more time to be worry about the affairs of the Lord.
Quest for Christian perfection comes about from rejection of possessions and sexual activity, instead focus on the gospel.
Asceticism arose from an environment that was very asceticism friendly.
First look at Judaism, many Jews were convinced of apocalyptic properties, this often provoked reactions such as aesthetic lifestyles amongst Jewish communities, and example being theraputue - they were vegetarians and drank no wine - therapies against desire.
Greek philosophy - vegetarian, denouncing the body as the grave of the soul - inherent reason for asceticism, freeing the soul of the prison of the body.
Most important philosophy for Christian monasticism - Platonism.
Platonists - especially plato influenced the monastic mindset. According plato the soul does not belong to the mortal world, it belongs to the immortal realm, the soul longs to return to wear it came. therefore it is wise not to become involved in materialism, but to focus on the real issues. Plato did not demand asceticism but others in his wake did.
The first Christian theologians were original philosophers e.g. Justin Martyr. Integration of philosophy within Christianity.
Ascetic practice - became a substitute for martyrdom as a path for the soul.
Origin - obsessed with idea of leading an ascetic life, lived life very like a monk. He went so far to take Matthew 19:12 literally - made himself a eunuch. He wanted to stay a virgin and did not want to be tempted. A move later regretted because he could not be consecrated as priest - because he was not whole. Surpassing our make up, enabling a return to the spiritual realm.
The combination of asceticism and mysticism.
If we surpass our material makeup our soul may return to the spiritual realm.
Origin believed those who live the ascetic life, can have there reason enlightened by the holy spirit, it is possible to recreate the situation of adam before the fall. reversing the consequences of the soul, by getting the soul back to God.
Despite his wish to seek solitude he remained among the society to teach others. His theology influenced monks but not the idea of still living amongst others.
we see that asceticism was around in the environment and we see that both pagan and jewish influences influenced the interpretation of the christian gospel.
Very soon we have two classes of people:
The people who strive for a more ethical life, living an ascetic life, following decrees of the councils
and
those who are happy enough simply to follow the 10 commandments.
The motives of Christian asceticism
Imitation of Christ - some thing that monks and nun specifically wanted to do. Derived from the ascetic interpretation of the gospel. A true pure imitation of christ without compromise.
Eschatological expectations - the end of the world, which at the beginning was a general expectations, which when it did not come, it became the individual expectation of the believer. It is judgement after the death. It’s not end for everyone simultaneously but everyone must die at some more, receiving damnation or salvation. The idea of punishment motivates the ascetic life - paradise needs to be gained. Origins idea that ascetics could reach paradise in this life. Hildegard of Bingen expresses this in several writings.
In this context we can interpret John Cassians writing writing about monastic life - writes about where ordinary lifestyle will prevent one reaching paradise - ascetic lifestyle is the road to salvation.
Idea of white martyrdom. After Christianity became the state religion, it was not longer dangerous to become Christian. Those who wanted to be pure Christian, those who would have become martyrs were not really happy with the state of things, so Christians looked for other ways to imitate Christ’s life - asceticism. No longer red martyrdom but white.
Monasticism, became the option for the holy few for those wishing to seek Christian perfection where the old values still prevailed.
History of monasticism
First hermit we have a biography is Antony, which was extremely influential of monks yet to come. He had already spent time with another hermit, he was originally very wealthy, he went to church, heard matthew 19, he gave away all his possessions and gave his sister to a convent of virgin, he began to live the life of the hermit, originally in tombs outside his village but soon went further into the desert. He wasn’t really that alone, because people kept coming to see him wanting to know how he did it. There were lots of others at the time but he was best known because of his writing.
He was tormented by demons wanting him to return and give into his temptations.
Christianity was an urban phenominum, but these people went into the wilderness separating themselves from society trying to displace themselves, moving away to live life afresh. By moving into the desert the hermit mobilized his humanity as a whole, to endure the lifestyle he had to struggle against many things - hunger, thirst. The desert is the place of demons that the ascetic had to overcome. The demon of sex that many fear nowadays is nothing compared to what hermits were facing. They had much more to worry about.
The desert fathers had to get rid of the needs of the body.
Cenobitic monasticism
While Antony’s monasticism was based on the individual we see a more structured form emerge, the founder of which is generally accepted to be Pachomius.
After serving as a soldier, the son of pagans he became Christian. He became a hermit but he needed people around him, he decided to found a shelter for ascetics wanting to live separate from the world, based on Acts 2. He wrote a fixed rule which was to be followed by everyone, even by the abbot. The spiritual leader was known as Abba, the bible formed the basics of the monks learning, every monk had to learn 20 psalms and 2 pauline epistles - this was the starting point for the novice, after which he would be assigned to one of the monastic houses, with about 20 monks in each. each house had a superior who were answerable to the abbot. Monks were dressed in a robe, mantle, girdle and stick. Extreme asceticism was discourages, they ate one meal a day together. The value of work was emphasized but the main activity was services and study of the bible.
Tuesdays lesson
After beginning in Egypt we find many ascetic movements springing up.
The idea of family ascetic life from which derived female ascetic life, it was not safe for them to live the same life as there male counter parts, rules for women wishing to live ascetic life sprung up, mostly for rich women.
Men such as jerome and caesuras of aries wrote rules. The idea of enclosure emerged for women, preserving virginity, measure of security as well as theological idea.
Women did not leave these enclosure until death. They were separate from the world but also form the clergy whom they needed. These nuns could not do charitable work, so there task was intercessory prayer for those who could not live lives like theirs.
Monk bishops
e.g Martin of Tours and Augustine of Hippo
Exemplary examples...
Martin lived between 335 and 397, in the 4th century, he comes before Augustine. He was a paradigm of monasticism, he was a soldier who became a Christian - while being a soldier he encountered a beggar freezing in a snow storm, driven by pity, Martin gave him half his clock, Jesus appeared in a vision the next night wearing the cloak, this triggered his conversion. First he retired to a monks cell but he was also a missionary taking Christianity into the countryside, attracting followers he founded a monastery, and later against his will he was made bishop of Tours. Legend of him hiding in a barn of geese?!
The rule of St. Benedict
Wrote a livable program of monasticism,
He lived from around 480 until 550, there’s only one roughly contemporary source abut his life, appearing in the dialogues of Pope gregory the great, written after Benedict’s life. Found amongst a collection of great italian monks, but not included because of his rule but because he is for Gregory an exemplary aestic, a holy man and miracle maker.
There might be some problems with the historisy of this source, but some of what he sys may have foundation, must be approached with caution.
Born in Italian city, he studied in Rome but gave up his studies, against the will of his family because he did not like the ungodly extravagant life of his fellow students. He withdrew from the community to live an ascetic life, a monk gave him guidance, various legends about ravens bringing bread.
He attracted many disciples, organized them into groups and appointed abbots, he himself did not want to be an abbott.
He moved to Monte Cassino where he died. Although it was destroyed 10 years after his death.
Italy at this time was populated by all sorts of different monasteries, it can be assumed Bene knew about these so could draw on a wide variety of sources for his rule e.g. the rule of the master, John Cassians writing.
There is a french scholar who looked at the role, comparing possible sources with the rule to establish the source.
He did not encourage ascetic extreme, wanting them to lead a responsible ascetic life. Healthy - he did not want them to kill themselves.
In his first chapter, he deals with all the sorts of monks around but advocates the cenobitic life.
Benedict died between 546, 550. He wanted to be a hermit but it was such an example others gathered around him, he founded monastery in Monte cassino. He wrote a rule that for some time would be the only rule allowed in Western Europe.
He is educating the cenobitic life, Listening and obedience very important.
St. Gaul Monastery plan : ideal layout of monastery - as in cathedral builders book.
8 times of prayer a day - Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, Non, Vespers, Compline, Vigil/Matins.
Over the week, the whole book of psalms was recited. Readings were taken from scripture and patristic writing (from saints writing) dependent on what day it was - e.g. time of year, saints days etc.
Combination of prayer and work - two main elements of the lifestyle.
Monks got roughly 8 hours a day, this was important as lack of sleep could lead to hallucinations and strange ideas. The abbot oversaw that monks did eat and sleep.
Just read the rule!!!
There were also Benedictine missionaries e.g. Boniface.
Cassiodorus a Roman senator, one of the leading figures under emperor Theodoric, when he retired, he retired to his country estate, and there he founded a monastery, with the declared purpose of preserving the classical heritage, education was important and he trained his monks to read and copy the classics.
He wrote a book known as the ‘instructions’ out lining a curriculum of classical and scriptural learning.
The Benedictine Rule under the Carolingians
The English church seems particular attached to Pope Gregory the great.
Charlemagne’s son pursued his fathers Romans policies, the most important reformer was Benedict of Arcan, in a series of decrees it was declared that every monastery should follow the rule of St. Benedictine.
From the early 9th century, every monastery needed priests because only priests were allowed to preside over mass, so some monks were ordained to serve the needs of their communities.
Gaelic Monasticism
‘Celtic’ invention of the 19th century (bunch of barmy so and sos).
The historical way of being a celtic monk...
The absence of evidence has allowed place for myth and legend, focusing on the like of Machar, Ninian, David, Patrick etc. Very few people know who these people actually were. Very difficult field!
Before Patrick arrived in ireland, there were other missionaries already there, even though Ptrick claimed he was the first he made allusions that they were already there.
They had probably come from Britain or maybe Gaul.
Neither Ninian or Columba can fairly be credited with the conversion of Scotland, but rather the picts had been converted by monks before - unknown who they were.
We know about Patrick because of his own writings, and they are testament of his mission.
Christianity generally spread family by family. Patrick and his colleagues adapted there missionaries to fit with the culture. The church became intertwined with the leading families.
The western side of Britain, spoke Latin so they could converse, not knowing all the regional languages. They were strongly influenced by ascetic writings. They had many types of writings e.g. Augustine, Cassidorus, Jermone, John Cassian, Gregory’s dialogues, Very influenced by them. Iona library shows that monasticism were shaped by the continent, following the egyptian fathers.
New ideas were generally suggested by monks throughout this time. There lifestyles although slightly differing are very similar.
To summarize monks are the most influential force in the medieval church in terms of ecclesiastical thought.
The basics
The origins of Christian monasticism can be traced back to the New Testament, every Christian is required to live in the imitation of Christ, this does not necessarily mean you have to live an aesthetic life - Jesus ate and drank a lot. But there are parts of the NT that do suggest aestheticism e.g. Jesus against earthly possession, strongly recommends not to rely on human relationships. These things can be read through aesthetic glass.
Matthew 6:19-20, do not store up treasures on earth... aesthetics read this in very bias way.
Matthew 19:16-21, Luke 12:13-21. Also can be read in aesthetic terms.
Act 2:44-45 - all who believe were together and had all things in common, pooling goods, no private possessions. Everyone who has a need, gets it.
Look into a Benedictine monastery, and you’ll see this in action.
St. Paul: Corinthians, I want you to be free from anxieties - suggests no marriage. Because virgins have more time to be worry about the affairs of the Lord.
Quest for Christian perfection comes about from rejection of possessions and sexual activity, instead focus on the gospel.
Asceticism arose from an environment that was very asceticism friendly.
First look at Judaism, many Jews were convinced of apocalyptic properties, this often provoked reactions such as aesthetic lifestyles amongst Jewish communities, and example being theraputue - they were vegetarians and drank no wine - therapies against desire.
Greek philosophy - vegetarian, denouncing the body as the grave of the soul - inherent reason for asceticism, freeing the soul of the prison of the body.
Most important philosophy for Christian monasticism - Platonism.
Platonists - especially plato influenced the monastic mindset. According plato the soul does not belong to the mortal world, it belongs to the immortal realm, the soul longs to return to wear it came. therefore it is wise not to become involved in materialism, but to focus on the real issues. Plato did not demand asceticism but others in his wake did.
The first Christian theologians were original philosophers e.g. Justin Martyr. Integration of philosophy within Christianity.
Ascetic practice - became a substitute for martyrdom as a path for the soul.
Origin - obsessed with idea of leading an ascetic life, lived life very like a monk. He went so far to take Matthew 19:12 literally - made himself a eunuch. He wanted to stay a virgin and did not want to be tempted. A move later regretted because he could not be consecrated as priest - because he was not whole. Surpassing our make up, enabling a return to the spiritual realm.
The combination of asceticism and mysticism.
If we surpass our material makeup our soul may return to the spiritual realm.
Origin believed those who live the ascetic life, can have there reason enlightened by the holy spirit, it is possible to recreate the situation of adam before the fall. reversing the consequences of the soul, by getting the soul back to God.
Despite his wish to seek solitude he remained among the society to teach others. His theology influenced monks but not the idea of still living amongst others.
we see that asceticism was around in the environment and we see that both pagan and jewish influences influenced the interpretation of the christian gospel.
Very soon we have two classes of people:
The people who strive for a more ethical life, living an ascetic life, following decrees of the councils
and
those who are happy enough simply to follow the 10 commandments.
The motives of Christian asceticism
Imitation of Christ - some thing that monks and nun specifically wanted to do. Derived from the ascetic interpretation of the gospel. A true pure imitation of christ without compromise.
Eschatological expectations - the end of the world, which at the beginning was a general expectations, which when it did not come, it became the individual expectation of the believer. It is judgement after the death. It’s not end for everyone simultaneously but everyone must die at some more, receiving damnation or salvation. The idea of punishment motivates the ascetic life - paradise needs to be gained. Origins idea that ascetics could reach paradise in this life. Hildegard of Bingen expresses this in several writings.
In this context we can interpret John Cassians writing writing about monastic life - writes about where ordinary lifestyle will prevent one reaching paradise - ascetic lifestyle is the road to salvation.
Idea of white martyrdom. After Christianity became the state religion, it was not longer dangerous to become Christian. Those who wanted to be pure Christian, those who would have become martyrs were not really happy with the state of things, so Christians looked for other ways to imitate Christ’s life - asceticism. No longer red martyrdom but white.
Monasticism, became the option for the holy few for those wishing to seek Christian perfection where the old values still prevailed.
History of monasticism
First hermit we have a biography is Antony, which was extremely influential of monks yet to come. He had already spent time with another hermit, he was originally very wealthy, he went to church, heard matthew 19, he gave away all his possessions and gave his sister to a convent of virgin, he began to live the life of the hermit, originally in tombs outside his village but soon went further into the desert. He wasn’t really that alone, because people kept coming to see him wanting to know how he did it. There were lots of others at the time but he was best known because of his writing.
He was tormented by demons wanting him to return and give into his temptations.
Christianity was an urban phenominum, but these people went into the wilderness separating themselves from society trying to displace themselves, moving away to live life afresh. By moving into the desert the hermit mobilized his humanity as a whole, to endure the lifestyle he had to struggle against many things - hunger, thirst. The desert is the place of demons that the ascetic had to overcome. The demon of sex that many fear nowadays is nothing compared to what hermits were facing. They had much more to worry about.
The desert fathers had to get rid of the needs of the body.
Cenobitic monasticism
While Antony’s monasticism was based on the individual we see a more structured form emerge, the founder of which is generally accepted to be Pachomius.
After serving as a soldier, the son of pagans he became Christian. He became a hermit but he needed people around him, he decided to found a shelter for ascetics wanting to live separate from the world, based on Acts 2. He wrote a fixed rule which was to be followed by everyone, even by the abbot. The spiritual leader was known as Abba, the bible formed the basics of the monks learning, every monk had to learn 20 psalms and 2 pauline epistles - this was the starting point for the novice, after which he would be assigned to one of the monastic houses, with about 20 monks in each. each house had a superior who were answerable to the abbot. Monks were dressed in a robe, mantle, girdle and stick. Extreme asceticism was discourages, they ate one meal a day together. The value of work was emphasized but the main activity was services and study of the bible.
Tuesdays lesson
After beginning in Egypt we find many ascetic movements springing up.
The idea of family ascetic life from which derived female ascetic life, it was not safe for them to live the same life as there male counter parts, rules for women wishing to live ascetic life sprung up, mostly for rich women.
Men such as jerome and caesuras of aries wrote rules. The idea of enclosure emerged for women, preserving virginity, measure of security as well as theological idea.
Women did not leave these enclosure until death. They were separate from the world but also form the clergy whom they needed. These nuns could not do charitable work, so there task was intercessory prayer for those who could not live lives like theirs.
Monk bishops
e.g Martin of Tours and Augustine of Hippo
Exemplary examples...
Martin lived between 335 and 397, in the 4th century, he comes before Augustine. He was a paradigm of monasticism, he was a soldier who became a Christian - while being a soldier he encountered a beggar freezing in a snow storm, driven by pity, Martin gave him half his clock, Jesus appeared in a vision the next night wearing the cloak, this triggered his conversion. First he retired to a monks cell but he was also a missionary taking Christianity into the countryside, attracting followers he founded a monastery, and later against his will he was made bishop of Tours. Legend of him hiding in a barn of geese?!
The rule of St. Benedict
Wrote a livable program of monasticism,
He lived from around 480 until 550, there’s only one roughly contemporary source abut his life, appearing in the dialogues of Pope gregory the great, written after Benedict’s life. Found amongst a collection of great italian monks, but not included because of his rule but because he is for Gregory an exemplary aestic, a holy man and miracle maker.
There might be some problems with the historisy of this source, but some of what he sys may have foundation, must be approached with caution.
Born in Italian city, he studied in Rome but gave up his studies, against the will of his family because he did not like the ungodly extravagant life of his fellow students. He withdrew from the community to live an ascetic life, a monk gave him guidance, various legends about ravens bringing bread.
He attracted many disciples, organized them into groups and appointed abbots, he himself did not want to be an abbott.
He moved to Monte Cassino where he died. Although it was destroyed 10 years after his death.
Italy at this time was populated by all sorts of different monasteries, it can be assumed Bene knew about these so could draw on a wide variety of sources for his rule e.g. the rule of the master, John Cassians writing.
There is a french scholar who looked at the role, comparing possible sources with the rule to establish the source.
He did not encourage ascetic extreme, wanting them to lead a responsible ascetic life. Healthy - he did not want them to kill themselves.
In his first chapter, he deals with all the sorts of monks around but advocates the cenobitic life.
Benedict died between 546, 550. He wanted to be a hermit but it was such an example others gathered around him, he founded monastery in Monte cassino. He wrote a rule that for some time would be the only rule allowed in Western Europe.
He is educating the cenobitic life, Listening and obedience very important.
St. Gaul Monastery plan : ideal layout of monastery - as in cathedral builders book.
8 times of prayer a day - Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, Non, Vespers, Compline, Vigil/Matins.
Over the week, the whole book of psalms was recited. Readings were taken from scripture and patristic writing (from saints writing) dependent on what day it was - e.g. time of year, saints days etc.
Combination of prayer and work - two main elements of the lifestyle.
Monks got roughly 8 hours a day, this was important as lack of sleep could lead to hallucinations and strange ideas. The abbot oversaw that monks did eat and sleep.
Just read the rule!!!
There were also Benedictine missionaries e.g. Boniface.
Cassiodorus a Roman senator, one of the leading figures under emperor Theodoric, when he retired, he retired to his country estate, and there he founded a monastery, with the declared purpose of preserving the classical heritage, education was important and he trained his monks to read and copy the classics.
He wrote a book known as the ‘instructions’ out lining a curriculum of classical and scriptural learning.
The Benedictine Rule under the Carolingians
The English church seems particular attached to Pope Gregory the great.
Charlemagne’s son pursued his fathers Romans policies, the most important reformer was Benedict of Arcan, in a series of decrees it was declared that every monastery should follow the rule of St. Benedictine.
From the early 9th century, every monastery needed priests because only priests were allowed to preside over mass, so some monks were ordained to serve the needs of their communities.
Gaelic Monasticism
‘Celtic’ invention of the 19th century (bunch of barmy so and sos).
The historical way of being a celtic monk...
The absence of evidence has allowed place for myth and legend, focusing on the like of Machar, Ninian, David, Patrick etc. Very few people know who these people actually were. Very difficult field!
Before Patrick arrived in ireland, there were other missionaries already there, even though Ptrick claimed he was the first he made allusions that they were already there.
They had probably come from Britain or maybe Gaul.
Neither Ninian or Columba can fairly be credited with the conversion of Scotland, but rather the picts had been converted by monks before - unknown who they were.
We know about Patrick because of his own writings, and they are testament of his mission.
Christianity generally spread family by family. Patrick and his colleagues adapted there missionaries to fit with the culture. The church became intertwined with the leading families.
The western side of Britain, spoke Latin so they could converse, not knowing all the regional languages. They were strongly influenced by ascetic writings. They had many types of writings e.g. Augustine, Cassidorus, Jermone, John Cassian, Gregory’s dialogues, Very influenced by them. Iona library shows that monasticism were shaped by the continent, following the egyptian fathers.
Week 1/2?
To summarize we’re talking about these migration of these peoples of germanic tribes the most, but also gaelic speaking people coming into Scotland but also salvics.
They come in as mercenaries, boarder guards and military veterans. They bring there families with them and settle amongst the Romans, but as the Roman empire ‘down sizes’ they begin to take over to a certain extent, taking on the tasks. They begin to demand money off the people because the empire is no longer paying they. They show loyalty to there tribal chiefs and kings, so we see the emergence of the barbaric kingdoms.
As we saw in the case of Theodoric, we see a high level of integration. Taking on Roman titles, and ways of life. But just a cultural level, no much has changed in Mediterranean Europe except for the rulers. They even seem to be governing in the name of the Roman Empire.
The more we get to the edges of the empire, such as Britain, the more Roman becomes an idea rather than a reality.
For example King Coroticus, an English King - ruling Kingdom of Strathclyde. St. Patrick to manipulate Coroticus, he asks, what kind of Roman are you? He’s basically saying how civilized are you?
‘With my own hand I have written and composed these words, to be given, delivered, and sent to the soldiers of Coroticus, I do not say, to my fellow citizens, or to fellow citizens of the holy Romans, but to fellow citizens of the demons, because of their evil works. Like our enemies, they live in death, allies of the Scots and the apostate Picts. Dripping with blood, they welter in the blood of innocent Christians, whom I have begotten into the number for God and confirmed in Christ!’
Patrick, Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus (5th century)
Large kudos the term Roman carries in both Religious and Cultural sense, even if people adapt it for there own uses.
St. Patrick
Possible lived some time in the 5th century, it’s possible that there was even two Patrick’s. He wrote two documents in Latin.
In the Confessio, he says he was born in a British Christian settlement, somewhere on the west coast. In this area, on the Latin Christian side, it is still in some sense roman, he’d be used to at least writing Latin. his father was a deacon and his Grandfather was a priest.
At the age of about 16, he was kidnapped by Scots pirates and taken off to Ireland. He worked there as a slave herding cattle, he regards this as a chastisement for his sins. Compares it to the Babylonian captivity. After about 6 years he escapes to Gaul and then back to Britain. Whilst in Britain he receives a vision. Something about the voice of Ireland.
He wrote this confessio because he got into trouble with British church and he felt he had to justify his mission in Ireland. Not sure what this trouble is but likely that he was ‘treading on someone else’s turf’ that he might not have had the authority. He says he’s a bishop but questionable if he was ever ordained. By Patrick’s account, the vision was enough.
There seemed to be Christians in Ireland already, who had something to do with the bishop Peladius who was almost certainly already there (possible that he was Patrick 1) and the Patrick who wrote confessio was already there.
Other types of missionaries
Many would simply leave there homes or monasteries and go on pilgrimage or exile. One of these was Columba. Thought that he murdered someone or started extended family feud in an argument over a manuscript to do with the gospel. So he goes wondering for Christ but not for quite the same reasons that other monastic do. He heads off to Iona, fairly central but remote if you need to be. Central to ’Scottish Mediterranean’. Iona becomes the center of Christina empire, becomes centre of network of other monasteries that take Iona as there model, extending into Britain, Ireland and even Europe. Rather than linking themselves to town, they link to rural families, some times very hard to distinguish between monastery and family farm stead. Monks shape the character of Christianity they take with them, predominately monastic, quite importantly it’s remote form the kind of structures you find in me Christianity like the episcopate and parish. There are bishops but there function is a rather remote one, they don’t have the same contact as you would in a city. In the gaelic speaking area the ministry is provided by the monks.
This model is spread from the British isles into Europe by a number of wondering monks, through barbarian kingdoms and even into the med. Monastic ‘internet’ spreading, keeping this sense of Romaness and Christianity alive, but also spreads it’s own particular take on what it means to be christian. E.g. tariff penance - the idea that if you commit a sin then you atone for i by confessing to a monk and receiving a small penance to do in it’s place - or if it’s a big sin a very big penance! Before the canonical system meant you only had to do penance for really big sins and then you had to spend the rest of your life in sack cloth, ashes, fasting and abstinence. The irish would rather you monitored your day to day sinfulness so you do not build up and up until you slip into a big sin. The gaelic system also allows you to sin more than once.
The conversion of the English
Gregory I sent missionaries there, because it was still meant to be Roman. According to Bede Gregory was wondering through a slave market when he saw some pale slaves, when asked he finds they are from Britain. Resolves Gregory upon mission, which he gives to Benedictine monk - Augustine. He leaves in 596 Rome and arrives in Kent in 597. According to Bede, the King there was baptized in the same year.
There may have been other reasons why Gregory chose to send missionaries to the Britain, may have been diplomatic. King of Kent’s capital was in Cantebury, where Augustine bases his mission. The King was married to Franc princess - Bertha, she was already Christian who had a chaplain with her, Ethelbert (the King) may well have been trying to secure alliance, a clause may have meant Ethelbert converting to Christianity.
This is the beginning but not the end of roman missionaries attempts in the the tribal areas. Bear in mind the British Isles were a patch work of many kingdoms.
Thursday’s lesson
Commerce - all kinds of contact of exchange between cultures and people.
We here have a lot of archeological evidence but also ambiguous archeological evidence.
e.g. silver wear buried around the time of the roman withdrawal, they show Christians scenes. Are they Christians or are they wealthy people owning nice roman cutlery?
Not just goods that are being exchanged across the boarder - it’s people as well.
Brings Nick to the conversion of the Goths, different tribes that have a common language, set along the boarders that gradually begin to trickle across. Low grade violence common between the goths themselves. Lots of these types being taken into slavery, as such they have to take on the religion of there masters i.e. Christian.
IN 340, a member of a Gothic diplomatic mission - Ulfila, came to Constantinople, and was consecrated a bishop. He was descendent of Greco-Roman slaves who had been kidnapped by the Goths. But he was made a bishop so the Christian Goths would have some clergy. They wanted to provide for people they saw there own - descendants of the Greco-Roman. But Ulfila was important in that he translated the bible from Greek into the Gothic language. He omits 1 and 2 Kings because there was far to much fighting and he thought the Goths didn’t need any encouraging.
At this time Christianity was not tridentine, it was e, in that Christ was just the first born of mankind. The problem is that the Goths had acquired a different kind of Christianity that was established in the empire. Arian Christianity spread through the Gothic kingdoms and when Aleric’s goths sacked Rome they brought there Christianity back. Although Augustine portrays they otherwise they were Christian.
They believed that there form of Christianity was superior to that of old Rome.
Marriage
Paul says in Corinthians, that Christians sanctifies his or her spouse through marriage. Additionally usually the offspring of these couplings are generally Christian. Also marriages for diplomatic reasons e.g. Ethelbert and Bertha, part of the alliance with the family means taking on there religion also.
A particlarly important marriage in this respect is between the Francish King Clovis and Bergundian princess, Clotilde. Clotilde followed Byzantine Christianity, and instantly after marriage, Clovis was pressurised into adopting her religion. She has a baby and wants its baptised, Clovis says ok, and the baby dies soon after baptism. One up for the pagans. They have another baby, and this time Clotilde prays to a saint martin. She succeeds in getting new baby baptized and it lives. One all.
Clovis is going into battle against another Northern tribe, and he knows that Clotilde is still praying. He wins, thus he is convinced the Christian God works.
Very similar to Constantine’s conversion, which may have been the writers intention.
In 507 Clovis is baptized with his whole household and also with 3000 of his warriors. It was done in a river and the warriors went down on mass but all held there fighting arm above the water, not wanting to forsake that part of there previoius life.
The crucial thing about the conversion of Clovis is that there is now a huge group of germanic tribes following the Roman Christianity - note that they are the military superior. He does as Constantine did and founds his own capital - Paris. He builds a big church and starts holding councils.
This becomes particularly important several generations later when Islam emerges out of Arabia, through Roman territories into France and would’ve gotten a lot further had there not been a huge warlike people with unbaptized fighting arms ready to defend there faith. The Francs drives them south.
Important thing now is that the bishops of Rome have on there side, a military force ready to stick up for there kind of Christianity against there foes.
In 768, Charles Martelles grandson, also Charles becomes King of the Francs, because of his military prowess and his alligence to Rome he earns the title ‘Great’ known in English as Charlemagne. He begins military campaigns spreading his religion. E.g. the Saxons. The Church is not particularly comfortable with this way of conversion. Charlemagne sees himself in very biblical ways, he sees himself as a Israelite king, laying waste to the idoliters. Founds his capital - Aachen, builds big chapel.
In 800, Charlemagne heads south on a pilgrimage to Rome, and on Christmas day, Pope Leo III, places imperial crown on his head and throws himself at his feet. At this point Pope’s were still loyal subjects of the Roman empire and subject to the emperor. But at this point there was already an emperor in Constantinople. What’s Leo doing??
Leo recognizes that the Francs are needed for protection, by this action Rome is allying themselves heavily.
How would Constantinople Emperor react to this? In order to keep emperor, Charlemagne adopts title governing emperor.
Two Roman, monk, diplomats, Cyril and Methodius. Translate the liturgy to the language of the people they are trying to convert - very new because Christianity had been a Latin religion because it was Roman. Frankish missionaries very up in arms about this, Pope didn’t really give a monkies. Cyril and Methodius go back to Rome to defend themselves, they are greeted by the Pope Adrian II and in order to signify his approval he has there new liturgy in slavonic he has it celebrated in St.Peters. They brought with them the relics of the third pope - Clemet. Who died by being thrown into the sea attached to an anchor. Cyril died whilst in Rome and was buried in the basement of Clement’s basilica.
Growing basis of petty fighting, political tension between two empires, orthodox east and catholic west schism begins to emerge.
They come in as mercenaries, boarder guards and military veterans. They bring there families with them and settle amongst the Romans, but as the Roman empire ‘down sizes’ they begin to take over to a certain extent, taking on the tasks. They begin to demand money off the people because the empire is no longer paying they. They show loyalty to there tribal chiefs and kings, so we see the emergence of the barbaric kingdoms.
As we saw in the case of Theodoric, we see a high level of integration. Taking on Roman titles, and ways of life. But just a cultural level, no much has changed in Mediterranean Europe except for the rulers. They even seem to be governing in the name of the Roman Empire.
The more we get to the edges of the empire, such as Britain, the more Roman becomes an idea rather than a reality.
For example King Coroticus, an English King - ruling Kingdom of Strathclyde. St. Patrick to manipulate Coroticus, he asks, what kind of Roman are you? He’s basically saying how civilized are you?
‘With my own hand I have written and composed these words, to be given, delivered, and sent to the soldiers of Coroticus, I do not say, to my fellow citizens, or to fellow citizens of the holy Romans, but to fellow citizens of the demons, because of their evil works. Like our enemies, they live in death, allies of the Scots and the apostate Picts. Dripping with blood, they welter in the blood of innocent Christians, whom I have begotten into the number for God and confirmed in Christ!’
Patrick, Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus (5th century)
Large kudos the term Roman carries in both Religious and Cultural sense, even if people adapt it for there own uses.
St. Patrick
Possible lived some time in the 5th century, it’s possible that there was even two Patrick’s. He wrote two documents in Latin.
In the Confessio, he says he was born in a British Christian settlement, somewhere on the west coast. In this area, on the Latin Christian side, it is still in some sense roman, he’d be used to at least writing Latin. his father was a deacon and his Grandfather was a priest.
At the age of about 16, he was kidnapped by Scots pirates and taken off to Ireland. He worked there as a slave herding cattle, he regards this as a chastisement for his sins. Compares it to the Babylonian captivity. After about 6 years he escapes to Gaul and then back to Britain. Whilst in Britain he receives a vision. Something about the voice of Ireland.
He wrote this confessio because he got into trouble with British church and he felt he had to justify his mission in Ireland. Not sure what this trouble is but likely that he was ‘treading on someone else’s turf’ that he might not have had the authority. He says he’s a bishop but questionable if he was ever ordained. By Patrick’s account, the vision was enough.
There seemed to be Christians in Ireland already, who had something to do with the bishop Peladius who was almost certainly already there (possible that he was Patrick 1) and the Patrick who wrote confessio was already there.
Other types of missionaries
Many would simply leave there homes or monasteries and go on pilgrimage or exile. One of these was Columba. Thought that he murdered someone or started extended family feud in an argument over a manuscript to do with the gospel. So he goes wondering for Christ but not for quite the same reasons that other monastic do. He heads off to Iona, fairly central but remote if you need to be. Central to ’Scottish Mediterranean’. Iona becomes the center of Christina empire, becomes centre of network of other monasteries that take Iona as there model, extending into Britain, Ireland and even Europe. Rather than linking themselves to town, they link to rural families, some times very hard to distinguish between monastery and family farm stead. Monks shape the character of Christianity they take with them, predominately monastic, quite importantly it’s remote form the kind of structures you find in me Christianity like the episcopate and parish. There are bishops but there function is a rather remote one, they don’t have the same contact as you would in a city. In the gaelic speaking area the ministry is provided by the monks.
This model is spread from the British isles into Europe by a number of wondering monks, through barbarian kingdoms and even into the med. Monastic ‘internet’ spreading, keeping this sense of Romaness and Christianity alive, but also spreads it’s own particular take on what it means to be christian. E.g. tariff penance - the idea that if you commit a sin then you atone for i by confessing to a monk and receiving a small penance to do in it’s place - or if it’s a big sin a very big penance! Before the canonical system meant you only had to do penance for really big sins and then you had to spend the rest of your life in sack cloth, ashes, fasting and abstinence. The irish would rather you monitored your day to day sinfulness so you do not build up and up until you slip into a big sin. The gaelic system also allows you to sin more than once.
The conversion of the English
Gregory I sent missionaries there, because it was still meant to be Roman. According to Bede Gregory was wondering through a slave market when he saw some pale slaves, when asked he finds they are from Britain. Resolves Gregory upon mission, which he gives to Benedictine monk - Augustine. He leaves in 596 Rome and arrives in Kent in 597. According to Bede, the King there was baptized in the same year.
There may have been other reasons why Gregory chose to send missionaries to the Britain, may have been diplomatic. King of Kent’s capital was in Cantebury, where Augustine bases his mission. The King was married to Franc princess - Bertha, she was already Christian who had a chaplain with her, Ethelbert (the King) may well have been trying to secure alliance, a clause may have meant Ethelbert converting to Christianity.
This is the beginning but not the end of roman missionaries attempts in the the tribal areas. Bear in mind the British Isles were a patch work of many kingdoms.
Thursday’s lesson
Commerce - all kinds of contact of exchange between cultures and people.
We here have a lot of archeological evidence but also ambiguous archeological evidence.
e.g. silver wear buried around the time of the roman withdrawal, they show Christians scenes. Are they Christians or are they wealthy people owning nice roman cutlery?
Not just goods that are being exchanged across the boarder - it’s people as well.
Brings Nick to the conversion of the Goths, different tribes that have a common language, set along the boarders that gradually begin to trickle across. Low grade violence common between the goths themselves. Lots of these types being taken into slavery, as such they have to take on the religion of there masters i.e. Christian.
IN 340, a member of a Gothic diplomatic mission - Ulfila, came to Constantinople, and was consecrated a bishop. He was descendent of Greco-Roman slaves who had been kidnapped by the Goths. But he was made a bishop so the Christian Goths would have some clergy. They wanted to provide for people they saw there own - descendants of the Greco-Roman. But Ulfila was important in that he translated the bible from Greek into the Gothic language. He omits 1 and 2 Kings because there was far to much fighting and he thought the Goths didn’t need any encouraging.
At this time Christianity was not tridentine, it was e, in that Christ was just the first born of mankind. The problem is that the Goths had acquired a different kind of Christianity that was established in the empire. Arian Christianity spread through the Gothic kingdoms and when Aleric’s goths sacked Rome they brought there Christianity back. Although Augustine portrays they otherwise they were Christian.
They believed that there form of Christianity was superior to that of old Rome.
Marriage
Paul says in Corinthians, that Christians sanctifies his or her spouse through marriage. Additionally usually the offspring of these couplings are generally Christian. Also marriages for diplomatic reasons e.g. Ethelbert and Bertha, part of the alliance with the family means taking on there religion also.
A particlarly important marriage in this respect is between the Francish King Clovis and Bergundian princess, Clotilde. Clotilde followed Byzantine Christianity, and instantly after marriage, Clovis was pressurised into adopting her religion. She has a baby and wants its baptised, Clovis says ok, and the baby dies soon after baptism. One up for the pagans. They have another baby, and this time Clotilde prays to a saint martin. She succeeds in getting new baby baptized and it lives. One all.
Clovis is going into battle against another Northern tribe, and he knows that Clotilde is still praying. He wins, thus he is convinced the Christian God works.
Very similar to Constantine’s conversion, which may have been the writers intention.
In 507 Clovis is baptized with his whole household and also with 3000 of his warriors. It was done in a river and the warriors went down on mass but all held there fighting arm above the water, not wanting to forsake that part of there previoius life.
The crucial thing about the conversion of Clovis is that there is now a huge group of germanic tribes following the Roman Christianity - note that they are the military superior. He does as Constantine did and founds his own capital - Paris. He builds a big church and starts holding councils.
This becomes particularly important several generations later when Islam emerges out of Arabia, through Roman territories into France and would’ve gotten a lot further had there not been a huge warlike people with unbaptized fighting arms ready to defend there faith. The Francs drives them south.
Important thing now is that the bishops of Rome have on there side, a military force ready to stick up for there kind of Christianity against there foes.
In 768, Charles Martelles grandson, also Charles becomes King of the Francs, because of his military prowess and his alligence to Rome he earns the title ‘Great’ known in English as Charlemagne. He begins military campaigns spreading his religion. E.g. the Saxons. The Church is not particularly comfortable with this way of conversion. Charlemagne sees himself in very biblical ways, he sees himself as a Israelite king, laying waste to the idoliters. Founds his capital - Aachen, builds big chapel.
In 800, Charlemagne heads south on a pilgrimage to Rome, and on Christmas day, Pope Leo III, places imperial crown on his head and throws himself at his feet. At this point Pope’s were still loyal subjects of the Roman empire and subject to the emperor. But at this point there was already an emperor in Constantinople. What’s Leo doing??
Leo recognizes that the Francs are needed for protection, by this action Rome is allying themselves heavily.
How would Constantinople Emperor react to this? In order to keep emperor, Charlemagne adopts title governing emperor.
Two Roman, monk, diplomats, Cyril and Methodius. Translate the liturgy to the language of the people they are trying to convert - very new because Christianity had been a Latin religion because it was Roman. Frankish missionaries very up in arms about this, Pope didn’t really give a monkies. Cyril and Methodius go back to Rome to defend themselves, they are greeted by the Pope Adrian II and in order to signify his approval he has there new liturgy in slavonic he has it celebrated in St.Peters. They brought with them the relics of the third pope - Clemet. Who died by being thrown into the sea attached to an anchor. Cyril died whilst in Rome and was buried in the basement of Clement’s basilica.
Growing basis of petty fighting, political tension between two empires, orthodox east and catholic west schism begins to emerge.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)