History of Christianity Class 11
The Great Divorce and Monastic Reform
The ”New” Christianity of the 9th century
As we summarized two weeks ago the rather amazing story of how Western Europe and the western Catholic Church somehow recovered from the almost complete devastation of both the old western Roman Empire and the western catholic church by the massive migration and takeover of western Europe by migrating German tribes and their kings.
By the beginning of the 9th century a firmly established form of Catholic Christianity in western Europe, thoroughly orthodox in doctrine, reformed in morals and clerical regulation, and increasingly uniform in liturgical observance.
But - and there is always a but.
It is important to emphasize at this point that the “recovery”, as critical as it was to the survival of the church and western Europe, did not mean the church had smooth sailing. In fact the continued story we will now tell from the 10th through the 15th century reads like a constant series of crisis events. All the way to the Reformation Era, which was a major crisis event.
We are going to tell that story as well as we can given that , as usual, real history is messy and confusing.
The Great Divorce
In the 11th century, relations between Christianity in the East and in the West, between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, were severed and remain so to the present. The two earliest forms of Christianity have been in a state of schism for more than 1,000 years. The symbolic date for the split is 1054, but as with so many divorces, this one built on centuries of growing alienation. And like other divorces, this one was undoubtedly sad in the experiencing; it is surely one of the more depressing sequences in Christianity’s long history to recount, testimony to the consequences of a religion deeply over involved with politics.
Lets talk first about the factors that all contributed to this divorce over time.
Administrative Division and Rivalry
The story begins with the administrative division of the Roman Empire that was initiated by Diocletian and perfected by Constantine. It institutionalized the possibility of faction among and between strong leaders, and insofar as emperors were regarded as “bishops for external affairs,” religious policy could differ dramatically in the East and the West.
The ecclesiastical rivalry among the four patriarchates (Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, and Constantinople) that mirrored such administrative “spheres of influence” stimulated and expressed polemical views on doctrinal matters.
After the Muslim conquests of the 7th and 8th centuries, only Rome and Constantinople remained as functioning patriarchies.
This did not diminish but exacerbated the rivalry between the two most politically defined centers of Christianity.
Even more than these simple political, structural elements, the historical and cultural developments in the East and West were dramatically different.
The eastern part of the empire expanded (see Justinian) and contracted (under Persian and Muslim attack), but it maintained a political and cultural order until 1453 that was (at least on the surface) continuous with the ancient empire. Its political genius was shown not least in its success in diverting to the west the migrating nations from the north.
In contrast, the western part of the empire collapsed as an institutional whole under the successive waves of nations (Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Lombards), so that only a portion of Italy was held by Byzantium (Ravenna); the city of Rome exercised no real political power.
The role of the respective patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople was affected by these shifting historical circumstances.
The patriarch of Constantinople frequently asserted equality with Rome but in practice was still responsive to Rome’s authority in many cases. This was especially true given that appeal to Rome gave the patriarchs of Constantinople some small leverage against the control of the Byzantine emperors.
The bishop of Rome could be harassed by the Byzantine emperor but, through a series of extraordinarily strong leaders (such as Gregory the Great), asserted Rome’s religious independence. Further, the papacy eventually struck up an alliance with the new Frankish kingdom (which came to be called the Holy Roman Empire).
To further complicate matters, a series of extraordinarily strong leaders (such as Gregory the Great), asserted Rome’s religious independence. Further, the papacy eventually struck up an alliance with the new Frankish kingdom (which came to be called the Holy Roman Empire).
Language itself divided rather than united: In the East, Greek was exclusively used for politics and theology; the Latin that was studied in the University of Constantinople was “classical Latin.” In the West, Greek was neither spoken nor easily read; Latin was a living language undergoing constant change (medieval Latin is far from “classical”).
Ambrose of Milan (339–397) was educated in both Greek and Latin, corresponded with theological writers from the East, and was comfortable in the Eastern theological idiom.
Augustine of Hippo (354–430) knew little if any Greek; he worked with the Latin text of Scripture entirely and was trained completely in Latin literature and rhetoric. His theological work is, therefore, marked by his own genius more than a prior tradition.
Trinitarian and Christological Controversies
As we have already seen, serious divisions arose in the discrete parts of the church from the 4th through the 6th centuries.
In the Trinitarian controversy of the 4th century (the battle with Arianism), the emperors of the East and West adopted different positions, and although the orthodox parties in both areas were united, counter-councils were held (Tyre, 335; Sardica, 343; Antioch, 379) that bishops of one area or another boycotted or from which they were excluded.
In the Christological controversies of the 5th and 6th centuries, the West, especially in the person of the popes, represented the position finally defined as doctrine at Chalcedon in 451; both before and after that date, the Eastern emperors and patriarchs characteristically favored a monophysite or monothelite position.
Twice in these centuries, indeed, there were periods of actual broken communion between East and West.
From 404 to 415, relations between East and West were severed after the emperor Theophilus deposed John Chrysostom. Rome objected to the deposition and withdrew from communion for eight years.
From 484 to 519, Pope Felix III excommunicated the patriarch Acacius of Constantinople because of his support of monophysitism, leading to a state of schism for 35 years.
The Iconoclasm Controversy
An even more divisive controversy arose in Byzantine Christianity that caused even deeper divisions, namely, the battle over iconoclasm (meaning the breaking of icons or images), which raged for more than a century (725–842).
Icons are painted representations of Christ, Mary, or other saints that had traditionally been used by the faithful in prayer, both liturgically and privately. The use of such images affirms in a fairly direct fashion the deep convictions of orthodoxy concerning the humanity of Jesus and the sanctification of the material order by the divine. Because God entered into humanity, the artistic depiction of Jesus as human can symbolize the presence of the divine.
Despite the popularity of icons, especially among monks, there were several factors in Byzantine Christianity that were hostile to their use.
Monophysitism (and its nephew monotheletism) diminished an appreciation of the humanity of Jesus in favor of his divinity; for those holding such a view, an artistic representation of the “son of God” might appear to be close to pagan idolatry.
In the iconoclast struggle, the papacy steadily represented the orthodox position and was a source of support for iconodules— those who venerated sacred images—in both East and West; consequently, the iconoclast emperors were intensely hostile to the papacy.
This hostility of the Eastern emperors toward a pope in Rome (claiming to be the first among equals) continued even after the iconoclast emperors were removed in the east.
The Final Break
The final break in 1054 involved naked power plays on the side of both Rome and Constantinople.
The papacy insisted on the adoption of Latin liturgical practices in the Greek churches of southern Italy that had been liberated from Byzantine control by the Normans. At the same time, the patriarch of Constantinople forced Latin churches in that city to adopt the Greek liturgical usages and say the creed without the additional words.
The head of the Bulgarian church, Leo of Ohrid—encouraged by the patriarch Michael Cerularius—attacked the Latin practices, which led Pope Leo IX to send an embassy led by Cardinal Humbert to Constantinople in 1054.
Cardinal Humbert was abusive and arrogant, and his attitude was matched in both by the patriarch. On July 16, 1054, Humbert and his legates laid a statement of excommunication of the patriarch and his supporters on the altar of the Church of St. Sophia.
By order of the emperor Constantine IX, the statement of excommunication was burned, and a synod he summoned in Constantinople excommunicated in return Humbert and his associates. The schism was final.
Two serious efforts were subsequently made to heal the schism but with no lasting success.
The Second Council of Lyon (1274) saw the filioque affirmed by the Greek delegates, and peace lasted for 15 years, ending in 1289.
At the Council of Ferrara-Florence in 1439, the Greeks sought unity with the West in light of the threat to Constantinople from the Turks. Long debate on doctrinal and ritual matters led eventually to compromise and the basic acceptance of the Latin positions. But many of the Greeks subsequently recanted, and the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453 rendered the peace void.
Monastic Reform
The split between East and West in the 11th century occasioned by the filioque controversy shows how independent the Catholic tradition, headed by the pope, had become from the imperial Orthodox tradition. In the West, the world shaped by popes, kings, and monks was called simply “Christendom,” and it was a world that was pervasively and profoundly Christian in coloration if not always in character. From the 10th through the 12th centuries, moreover, monasticism was the dominant formal expression of Christianity in the Catholic West, with hundreds of separate communities and many thousands of adherents. But the further growth in the number and size of monasteries gradually led to perceptions of corrupting elements that needed reform.
The Appeal of the Monastic Life
For people today, even many Christians, the appeal of the monastic life is difficult to understand. A life apart from the pleasures of society and in pursuit of God does not meet contemporary standards of happiness or fulfillment.
Here is where some historical imagination helps. Because the medieval understanding of the world and life illustrates the possible attraction of monastic life and makes intelligible its great success across centuries.
Although moderns in modern societies aspire to an extended life, including for many, hopes of years of safe and healthy experiences, for most of pre-modern history the life span of humans was close to 30 years.
Thus, the short and mostly painful time given to humans was considered to be a period of preparation for an eternal destiny; life was ordered to “the four last things”: death, judgment, heaven, or hell.
A freely chosen modicum of deprivation and discipline during mortal existence seemed a small price to pay when compared to the cost of eternal misery caused by luxury and vice and far better than passing through an afterlife “purgatory.”
A life dedicated to God in such an explicit fashion prepared the monk for the only thing that really mattered: participation in eternal life in heaven. There was, for the medieval mind, nothing irrational in choosing sacrifice in this life in order to gain everlasting bliss in God’s presence.
Thomas Hobbes (English Philosopher in the 1500’s)
Quote:
"The life of man: solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
Thus, the short and mostly painful time given to humans was considered to be a period of preparation for an eternal destiny; life was ordered to “the four last things”: death, judgment, heaven, or hell.
A freely chosen reasonable amount of deprivation and discipline during mortal existence seemed a small price to pay when compared to the cost of eternal misery caused by luxury and vice and far better than passing through an afterlife “purgatory".
A life dedicated to God in such an explicit fashion prepared the monk for the only thing that really mattered: participation in eternal life in heaven. There was, for the medieval mind, nothing irrational in choosing sacrifice in this life in order to gain everlasting bliss in God’s presence.
Less explicit but no less real were the obvious material benefits that the monastic life made available, even to members of the nobility.
The cloister offered safety, security, and an orderly way of life rather than the chaos and struggle of secular existence. Diet in the monastery was better and more consistent, sleep more regular, days more meaningful, and therefore, health much improved. For women in nunneries, lack of sexual activity meant that the terrors of childbirth, infant mortality, and rapid aging were avoided.
For women and men alike, life within the cloister gave access to beauty through architecture, music, and the liturgy; the chance to practice the crafts of calligraphy and bookmaking, weaving, pottery, and gardening; the possibility of a genuine education; and the chance to hold positions of authority.
The Monastic Life – Unintended Consequences
Precisely because of its great popularity during these centuries, the institution of monasticism also required constant reform.
Greater numbers in communities inevitably meant that some members were more dedicated to the implicit benefits of the life than to the explicit ideals. For some monks in every age, a comfortable bed for sleep and meals on a regular basis trump any religious motivation.
The size of monastic houses also led to the specialization of activities, so that the delicate balance between work and prayer stressed by the Rule of Benedict could be lost. And the more monks were separated from the realities of hard manual labor, the more their existence could be seen—by others, as well as themselves—as privileged.
An unintended corollary of community size and noble patronage was a growth in material prosperity, which led to the paradox of “poor” monks who “called nothing their own” living in grand buildings with splendid ornament.
The Abbey of Cluny
The founding of the Abbey of Cluny in Burgundy in the year 910 by William I, duke of Aquitaine, began a two- century period of influence for that monastery. Duke William served as a very generous patron to the monastery.
Cluny deliberately set out to initiate a reform movement, and it was, consequently, innovative in its approach to the Rule of Benedict. Duke William served as a generous patron to the monastery. This main monastery served as the “mother house” of a congregation of monasteries and nunneries that were subordinate to it; it grew to more than 1,000 Benedictine houses belonging to the Cluniac order.
An innovation, rather problematic,, was that Cluny effectively dropped the manual labor side of the Benedictine Rule, menial work was assigned to hired “lay brothers, in favor of a complete concentration on prayer for the monks , above all, in the divine office (the opus Dei) and the Mass (Eucharist).
The first illustration is a model of the "mother monastery" of Cluny. Much of the original was destroyed in the frenzy of the French Revolution, although you can still visit there and see what remains.
The second illustration is the interior of a Cluny church associated with the monastery. Although no longer adorned with finery you can see that its is far more elaborate than the modest buildings of the Desert Mothers and Fathers, or even the later Benedictine monasteries, many which housed only 20 or so monks.
The Cluny monasteries thus became involved in making petitions and saying intercessory prayers for the monks themselves and for others, who made donations to the monks so that such prayers might be said.
Significant patronage from those seeking supernatural help enabled the construction of grand buildings at Cluny and the making of fine altar vessels and vestments for liturgical practice.
The “work” component of the Rule for choir monks was expressed not by plowing in the fields but in intellectual labor: The library and scriptorium were sites for study, teaching, and the copying of manuscripts. A new monastic culture developed that has been called, “the love of learning and the desire for God”.
Almost inevitably in such circumstances, however, wealth and power had their own corrupting effect on the rigor of monastic life. The magnificent clothing and vessels adorned not only the altar but also the abbot’s table; the food was not only good but, often enough, a pretentious display. Worldliness—at least at the level of those members of the nobility who served as abbots— crept into meals that Benedict had conceived as simple and unadorned.
The entry of the nobility into the monastery and their inevitable ascent to power led, in turn, to the almost inevitable election of abbots of Cluny as bishops, thus extending even further the influence of the Cluniac sensibility. Three monks of Cluny were even elected bishops of Rome.
Pushback
Within a couple of centuries the “common people” who so admired monastic life began to become disenchanted.
An unintended corollary of community size and noble patronage was a growth in material prosperity, which led to the paradox of “poor” monks who “called nothing their own” living in grand buildings with splendid ornament.
One of the responses to this was the development of a new approach to monasticism – the Mendicants – the rise of the Friars.
What is called the mendicant movement in Church history arose primarily in the 13th century in Western Europe.
The Mendicant Orders
The mendicant friars were bound by a vow of poverty and dedicated to an ascetic way of life, renouncing property and traveling the world to preach. Their survival was dependent upon the good will and material support of their listeners. It was this way of life that gave them their name, "mendicant", derived from the Latin mendicare, meaning "to beg”
A large number of mendicant orders developed. We will mention two of the most prominent ones:
The Dominicans (The Order of Preachers)
The Franciscans ( Order of Friars Minor)
As students and professors, Friars Minor and Friars Preacher, Franciscans and Dominicans, taught at the leading universities of the time. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bonaventure were mendicants.