We have so much to learn!
Once the Post-Nicene Church Father era ends with Augustine, we see an emergence of authority take place. What happened leading up to this point? Five Ecumenical councils took place, a claim to succession from Peter began , Christianity moved beyond the borders of the Empire, and in 476 the last Emperor is deposed. I consider the broader Medieval Christian period to last from 451-1516 AD. I know there are ways to subdivide this time, and I will mention some throughout the next few articles, but as a whole, this entire time period is marked with difficulty and exploitation.
From 451-1050 both the Eastern and Western sides of the Empire were marked with barbarian invasions. Groups like the Visigoths, Celts, Franks, Saxons, Ostrogoths, and others would continue to move in and out of the Empire. At times, they might control Rome as the capital and other times they would relent. The East would see one real enemy in the Muslims. Although it was not until the 1000’s with the Seljuk Turks invasion that Jews and Christians would be persecuted, resulting in the Crusades (more to come later).
With the rise in the barbarian nation’s invasions came the rise of papal authority. (I use the term papal reluctantly because I am not convinced that the identity of the Pope is established until Gregory I.) I will agree that the Bishop of Rome rose to a more prominent place during the early part of the Medieval period. Significant reasons attributed to this rise: geographical location of Rome, political prestige, doctrinal wisdom, and able men are some of the explanations – men like Innocent I and Leo I. These men would ward off the barbarian invasions of Rome and protect the city from destruction. Now I know it wasn’t “just” them, but I cannot deny their specificity of them either. Rome was centrally located and quite a long distance from Constantinople, the eastern capital. Therefore, for logical purposes Rome served as the important epicenter for the church.
While I do not think the direct term was applied until later, I do recognize the emergence of the papal power. The title Pope simply means “papa or father.” Early on in the church’s history, the term was used for any bishop who was held in high regard. It was a term of respect. Another key thought leading to the rise of the Bishop of Rome as the Pope was mentioned earlier, the beginning of the succession of Peter. By this time, Innocent and Leo were making claims to a Petrine succession for the Bishop of Rome. They began to circulate the idea that a pure succession from Peter existed among the Bishop of Rome. Innocent I made the earliest claims between 402-417, but Leo I 440-461 provided biblical exposition. The universal passage used to give credence was Matthew 16:18-19. Others used included John 21:15-17 and Luke 22:31-32. Now you and I see zero biblical warrant to these interpretations, but they sure did. While this article is not designed to deflate the Catholic tradition, I think it is safe to say we know this is not correct interpretation.
When Rome was eventually sacked, a vacuum of leadership resulted. Consequently, the Bishop of Rome stepped into that vacuum and began to issue political and ecclesiastical orders. The clearest example comes from the negotiations of the barbarians like Attila the Hun and North African Vandals. The invasions would not cease and eventually the barbarians would succeed. With the new invasions taking place, the church captured the opportunity to “convert” the new prospects. The desire to “win” the barbarians to the church promoted a newer practice of sending church leaders to these barbarian lands. While many men were sent, I will mention a few: Bishop Martin of Tours who traveled in 360 to the Franks in modern day France; St. Patrick, a 5th century Scottish man, who goes back to evangelize the Irish; Columba of Scotland who was sent to Iona, Ireland in 563; and Augustine the Benedictine monk, was sent to England in 596 by Gregory I. I know the practice would continue, but for the sake of time, I will move on.
The success of these church missionaries is debatable. When the barbarians would “convert” it was often in mass. As the tribal leader goes, so goes the rest of the clan. Many would see mass conversions, which really were nothing more than the adoption of “Christianity” on top of their pagan practices. We call this practice syncretism. Some might see the opportunity to get “some” of the truth throughout the Empire, but I for one see this as a problem.
Everyone did not see the barbarian invasions the same way. Some began to view the invasions as God’s judgment upon the church. Between the reign of Constantine and the Reformation much of the noble practices of the church came from the monastic movement. Until this point most of the monastic movement came from the East with men like Athanasius, Augustine, Ambrose, and others. Now with the church in the West and its faltering condition, monasticism would rise. The most influential Western monk is St. Benedict of Nursia 480-545. His practice tended to be more practical than the Eastern, allowing the punishment of the body for training and preparation for missions. Some of the men that would be sent out by the church came from the monasteries. Benedict did not place a premium on solitude like the Eastern monks, but sought a purely communal living. He wrote The Rule, which became the standard for monasteries for centuries. He emphasized poverty, chastity, and obedience. His “Rule” would be influential upon the Mendicant orders of the 12th and 13th centuries.
The period of time from 451-1050 was also marked with division. The Eastern and Western churches were not together. For over 600 years a great division existed and would eventually lead to the Great Schism of 1054. This split would be permanent until more modern times. The rise of power of the Bishop of Rome heightened his desire to step into the affairs of the East, which was not always welcomed. Before we move on to later times, in my next article I will discuss Pope Gregory I and Charlemagne.
What can we learn from all this? I think we need to learn that we were not there. We do not know all of the facts and details of every situation. We are only able to provide conjecture based upon the information, and I think that should lead us to be cautious in our assertions concerning this period of time.