Imperial
Unity & Christian Division: J. Pelikan
9/5/94:
Lecture 1
Beginnings
of the Middle Ages:
Continuity
through history often of 'shared presupposition'. Important: devise a methodology in which to
uncover it. Needed: a willing suspension
of one's belief. Enter into the role of
another time and into its presuppositions.
Certain times in history when elements of discontinuity outweigh those
of continuity.[1]
Seeing past 'periods' as 'the other' is part of the venture of the historian.
Period labels such as 'middle ages' are designated by folks after the
period. The 'other' did not see
themselves as in the middle. So, try to
get beyond our label to get the perspective of the 'other' who was in that
'period'. Pelikan looks at languages. What does the structure of a language do
to the mentality of those who use it?
Language: a metaphor for issues that are not linguistic. Historical
periodization: fuzzy boundaries. In this course, we want to look at such a
boundary. We will look at the boundary between classical antiquity and the
middle ages.
The
Theodosian Code was a law code in the Roman Empire
under the emperor Justinian after Christianity became its religion.
Boethius--'the last of the Romans'. A Christian theologian, who wrote on
Christology and on the trinity. But, his Consolation
is not Christian per se, but is philosophical. But, his question: why should an
innocent person suffer. He tried to see
how much of human nature can be known apart from revolution. He tries to push human reason to its
limits. He was a scholastic. A philosophical work by an orthodox
'Trinitarian' Christian: the believer pretending not to be a believer (this is
a medieval trait--see Anselm). Bede's History: Deals with the question of the
relation between England
and the Continent. The relation between English beliefs and practices and those
dictated by Rome .
English distinctiveness is documented by Bede by history. How do you use history to talk of national
identity and cultural specificity as well as of a framework of
universality. Bede does so by writing a
history of England
in Latin. So, his work is
culturally-specific and contains universality in its mode. Einhard's Charlemagne. Charlemagne was emperor of the Holy Roman
Empire- A German. Relate Charlemagne to David of the O.T. On a just ruler. The
answer is medieval (rule like a Caesar), yet it is as David.
We
are dealing with intellectual history.
9/7/94:
Lecture
Ecumenical
council: presided over by an emperor (in the East).
Seven
councils binding on East and West.
Question
of imperial unity, threat to, occasioned them.
Threat was 'clothed' in dogma.
So, dogmatic debate.
What
is the relation between imperial unity and dogmatic unity? The political
power-struggle is the real issue and the dogmatic matter is the pretext. But,
the councils were about both! Relevant:
who is in power, questions of teaching, questions of jurisdiction. For
instance, at the second council, it was decreed that Constantinople would have
as much power as Rome . A religious/political move of the capital of
the empire. On what basis did the pope
justify himself as first among equals (at least)? Peter was at first the bishop
of Jerusalem , then Antioch ,
and finally Rome . At the councils, Rome usually got its way (except for the
Noray council). Pelikan: whoever is
bishop of the capital carries primacy of jurisdiction and honor. This is the more likely real reason for the
popes primacy. But, when the capital
moved to Constantinople, why didn't this statement hold true; primacy remained
with the bishop of Rome . Also, Andrew was Peter's older brother and
the first one called. So, the Byzantines
use the Roman argument, documenting the primacy of Andrew (his see was Constantinople ). It was a political matter, but politics
was not the sole motive.
12/8/94:
Lecture
Council
of Nicea(325):
At
around 324, Arius stated that the Son is a creature. God, on the other hand, is transcendent and
unitary(as in Greek Phil.).
Specifically, Arius taught that the Son is a creature created out of
nothing by the Father's will before this age.
So, the Son had a separate existence from that of humans, but is not
equal to God. The Son had a beginning
and is liable to change and mutation separate from the substance of God. The Father is not fully known by the Son
because they are of different substances.
One supreme God and two subordinate divine beings. Jesus is not the logos. A reaction to Sebellius' Monarchanism which
stressed God's unity.
Origen
vs. Alexander of Alexandria: The Son as a creature, subordinate to God the
Father vs. The Son co-equal with the Father, being eternally generated
therefrom.
The
Creed of Nicea: The Son is begotten, rather than made, and so is not a
creature.
The
bishops at Nicea and Constantine wanted unity.
Also, the bishops wanted to avoid Modalism. The solution was geared to
these goals by avoiding subordination but keeping a distinction by using the
word 'homoousios'. But the Nicene Creed
is anti-Arian rather than anti-Modalist.
So, fifty years of a fear of Sebellianism followed. The distinction had been less clearly defined
than had the oneness. As an effect of
the council, a precedent had been set for the councils to reflect the political
ruler's will. The Church and State were
intertwined. Also, there was a creed.
The precident for a creed was the baptismal statements (which were
statements of faith). Pelikan: would not the political theology of Arianism
have better suited the emperor's view of himself and his place as an
intermediary between God and Man? Moreover, if God is beyond comprehensibility,
then is it not also beyond all language?
How is it to be decided which language to use to describe God? Theological and political factors here.
12/12/94:
Lecture
Council
of Ephesus
(431):
Theopholus
of Alexandria
vs. John Chrysostom at the Council of the Oak.
Chrysostom was exiled for taking in Egyptian monks. At Ephesus ,
Cyril of Alexandria bribed the emperor to exile Nestorius. The council established a precedent: that
councils could check a bishop. Pelikan:
weakened imperial power, so bishops became in effect rulers. Rome
played one side against the other, both politically and theologically.
The
theology involved: Right-wing Origenism:
Jesus Christ as divine; left-wing Origenism: Jesus Christ as a man. Both: ascending model.
Constantinople:
a literal view of the Bible; Alexandria :
an allegorical view of it.
Nestorius:
Jesus was of two distinctly separate natures, being fully divine and
human. He used 'prospona' instead of
'hypostasis' to mean a mask or role. Interpreting the natures as distinct,
Nestorius denied that Mary was the 'Mother of God'. Cyril of Alexandria
disagreed. To Cyril, the incarnation
involved one subject (the logos), so he rejected Nestorius' two prosponas. To Cyril, God wept. Jesus who was God
suffered. Mary gave birth to the one who
was God. This guaranteed salvation: the
unchangeable power of God was necessary for the Jesus to have sufficient power
to redeem mankind. To Cyril, Jesus had a
divine body, having the unity of the divinity and humanity. The danger of having two natures as a
description, according to Cyril, is that a change in the logos is implying,
thereby impairing salvation. So, against
Appollinarius, Cyril argued that Jesus had a human soul. Against Nestorius, Cyril argued for the unity
of Jesus Christ. Pelikan: they all
accepted the impassibility of God. To
protect this impassibility, Nestorius argued that Jesus was two subjects, only
one of which suffered (the human). Cyril
argued that the human nature of Jesus was divinized (i.e. transformed): fully
human and so not broken. We can have
this too. Key: he was of the 'likeness
of' sinful flesh. The Logos was united
to a divinized humanity which can suffer in an impassible way.
The
issue: how do the theogagy (the Godhead as it is) and the eccononic (the
Godhead as it is to humans) relate?
The
West: The theology was closer to that of Antioch
(Nestorius: two natures). Politically
closer to Alexandria
(Cyril), however. Constantinople was a
rising ecclesiastical rival to Rome .
Ephases Compromise: Mary as the Mother of
God (against Nestorius).
12/13/94:
Lecture
Council
of Chalcedon
(451):
Pre-Chalcedon:
Flavian, bishop of Constantinople , condemned
Eutyches, a Monophysite. Monopysitism: Jesus was of one nature--divine. Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria , went after Flavian. Flavian appealed to Pope Leo. Leo's letter back to Flavian, known as the
'Tome', was against Monophysitism. Leo
urged the emperor Theodosius to call a council.
The emperor refused.
451 Chalcedon : Papal legates demanded that Dioscorus only be
judged. Marcian respected the bishop's
exclusive right to proclaim doctrine. In
the absence of the papal legates, the bishops voted the twenty-eighth canon
which confirmed to Constantinople the second place in the Church with its own
jurisdiction (so equal to Rome in matters of jurisdiction). This was so on the grounds of its being an
imperial city. Leo refused to accept
this. In fact, Rome 's
role as an arbitrator strengthened. Also, the Tome of Leo was incorporated into
the faith. Also, the fact that the Creeds at Nicea and Constantinople were in
line with the orthodox tradition strengthened Rome . In the east, the Bishop of Rome
was accorded honour and given equal jurisdiction because Rome was the imperial
city when Jesus was alive (i.e., not due to Peter). Pelikan: if the basis had been apostolicity, Jerusalem would have been
chosen. So, Rome
was accorded honour as a Christian capital due to its imperial past.
The
theology of Chalcedon : Cyril of Alexandria-- 1 nature (Divinized
humanity) vs. Nestorius of Antioch-- 2 natures (not two persons!). Cyril used 'physis' as meaning a concrete
individual. So, he thought that
Nestorius had said that Jesus was two individuals when in fact he had said that
Jesus had two natures (divine and human).
Nestorius used 'physis' to mean a concrete assemblige of characteristics
and attributes.
The
goal at Chalcedon
was unity. The acts of the 'Robber Synod' had been undone. The issue at Chalcedon : the two natures after the
incarnation. The Alexandrian school had
said: from two natures, Jesus Christ forms one.
The Antiochian school: in two natures, Jesus Christ has two natures(accused
of saying that God had two sons). The
decision: the Son is homoousios (consubstantial--of the same substance) with
Mankind. Leo's Tome had stated: 1 person
in two natures. Pelikan: but the Tome deal with the natures as though they were
comprable entities (e.g. they can swap attributes). They are not.
Consubstantiality to us and to the Father is a verbal trick. Shouldn't we say instead that humanity
(rather than the man Jesus) was unified with divinity?
12/15/94:
Lecture
Council
of Constantinople (681):
Background: The city of Chalcedon
was in the eastern part of the Roman empire, whose capital was Constantinople .
Justinian had been the last great Roman emperor in the east. He had been
against the Monophysite (one nature) bishops.
About twenty years after Justinian, the Byzantine emperor Maurice
recognized the Bishop of Rome as the supreme bishop(Bonifice IV). Pelikan: on what basis?
Sergius,
patriarch of Constantinople, and Honorius, bishop of Rome , attempted a compromise to bring the
Monophysites back. Sergius: two natures
and one energy(operation). Honorius: two
natures and one will. In the meantime,
emperor Heraclius gained some territory from the Persians. This meant that Monophysites who had been
under the Persians were back under the imperial yoke. So, the Egyptian Copts came into line in
633. Also, there had been a shift from
the 'one energy' to the 'one will'. This
was problematic because 'one will' smacked of Monophysitism. In 638, the
Byzantine emperor Heraclius recognized 'one will' as orthodox in his Ecthesis. In 641, John IV, bishop of Rome , condemned 'one will'. This set up a fight between the bishops of Rome and Constantinople .
Pyrrhus
and Maximus the confessor believed in 'two wills'. Martin I, bishop of Rome ,
wanted Pyrrhus restored as the patriarch of Constantinople . Back in Constantinople ,
Pyrrus went back to Monophysitism.
Emperor Constans II revoked Ekthesis and arrested Martin I for being a
Monophysite. Paul II, patriarch of Constantinople , was against this arrest. Pyrrhus returned to Constanople as its
bishop, and exiled Martin I. Constans II
exiled Maximus. Years later, Agntho,
bishop of Rome ,
wrote to the emperor Constantine IV for a council to settle the issue of
Monophysitism.
12/14/94:
Lecture
Council
of Nicea II: Iconoclasm restored.
Background: In the 600's, Islam rose and the eastern
patriarchs fell. Moreover, there was a
break between the east and west. The
bishops of Rome
were thus the only effective opposition to the emperor within the empire. In 726, emperor Leo IV issued an edict
against the veneration of images of the saints.
It was seen as idolitry. Gregory
II, bishop of Rome ,
was against this edict. Gregory III
excommunicated all who refused to venerate images. In response, Leo IV raised taxes in Italy and detached some papal estates from the
jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome , giving them
to the bishop of Constantinople . There was thus a gulf between the bishop of Rome and the
emperor. In the east, John of Demascus
opposed Leo's edict. He distinguished between bowing down and adoring. Leo didn't answer John. After Leo and then Constantine V, a usurper
to the throne restored the icons. The
next emperor banned them again.
Steven
of the Roman church requested the emperor Constintine V to help him fight
against the Lombarts. He refused, so
Steven went to the Franks' king. This
was the beginning of the papal state.
Constantine
V took the issue to the level of Christology: in an icon, the two natures are
being mingled. Or, if icons are only
depicting Christ's human nature, they separate Christ's two natures, resulting
in the worship of Christ's human nature.
If no icons of Jesus are orthodox, neither then are those of Mary and
the saints appropriate. The emperor
started persecuting Xns who practiced the worship of icons. In 767, there was a council in the west. The King of France supported the bishop of Rome (pro-icon). In 769, Steven IV of Rome summoned the Lateran council. In 775, Leo IV was emperor. In 780, Constantine VI was emperor.
Nicea
II: It beban at Constantinople where the Army
(pro-iconoclastic) ended the council. At
Nicea, it was decided that in the incarnation, the incircumsribable allowed
itself to become circumscribed (the Logos became flesh). Images were restored and the veneration of
them was required.
In
800, Leo III of Rome
crowned Charlemagne as the emperor of the holy roman empire. A political split between the east and west.
Pelikan:
there is ambiguity in the sense of a council.
There are different views of 'council'held by the east and west. With regard to the iconoclastic controversy,
what about statues? They are not
two-dimensional icons, but are three-dimensional graven images. Yet, the west did not fully incorporate the
eastern argument of the incarnational view of icons.
[1]In such times, dominant presuppositions
change. SW