Archivi categoria: Storia

History of Medieval Church


Part VII


The Papal Church in the High Middle Ages

 

 

 

 

During the 12th century, noble, monastic, and episcopal churches consolidated under papal leadership. Gradually, with the support of canonists tied to the papacy—who increasingly defined the legal identity and functions of the Church—the principle of the Church’s freedom and autonomy emerged, culminating in the papacy’s claim to leadership within the Church. It thus fell to the pope to resolve the Church’s affairs, though the Church could delegate their execution to temporal authorities. A significant turning point was the reform of Gregory VII (1073–1085), who, with his Dictatus Papae (1075), strongly promoted papal supremacy over imperial authority. This reached its zenith under Innocent III (1198–1216), when the balance shifted from imperial theocracy to papal hierocracy. However, the Church first needed to undertake an internal moral cleansing, addressing severe disorders—namely, Nicolaitism and Simony. Nicolaitism, Simony, and Theocratic Rule of Monarchs

By the mid-11th century, the Church—particularly its clergy—was plagued by Nicolaitism and Simony, two vices encouraged by the theocratic mindset of the sovereigns of the time. These problems arose from the Church’s excessive involvement in worldly affairs. Nicolaitism referred to an early heresy mentioned only in the Book of Revelation (Rev. 2:6, 15), of which little is known beyond its Gnostic and libertine tendencies. It also came to signify clerical concubinage, despite the obligation of celibacy imposed on clergy since the 6th century. Simony—derived from Simon Magus’s attempt to buy spiritual gifts (Acts 8:18–24)—referred to the buying, selling, or commercialization of sacred offices and goods. Gregory the Great (590–604) identified three forms: munus a manu (bribes), munus a lingua (recommendations), and munus ab ossequio (services rendered). These corrupt practices degraded the Church’s moral standing and sparked protest movements from within. Among the bishops who opposed such corruption was Raterius of Verona (931–968). Reform necessitated the cultivation of a new moral conscience, sensitive to spiritual values. Closely related to simony was the theocratic system of rulers in the 11th century, whereby kings and lords claimed the right to appoint bishops, abbots, and other ecclesiastical positions linked to landed benefices. The issue of ecclesiastical investiture—asserted as a sovereign or lordly right—was rooted in the feudal system of the time. Churches, monasteries, and parishes built on private lands were considered the property of the landowner, who enjoyed their benefits and authority. Consequently, the appointment of bishops or other ecclesiastical offices required royal or feudal approval. Appointments entailed two acts: investiture, involving homage, and consecration. Over time, these acts became conflated, binding spiritual office to feudal allegiance. This structure reflected the feudal system, which combined benefices with vassalage—a bond of loyalty between vassal and lord. This state of affairs ended with the Gregorian Reform (Gregory VII, 1073–1085), which distinguished regalia (temporal rights) from spiritualia (spiritual rights)—the former belonging to the sovereign, the latter to the Church.

Henry III and the Synod of Sutri

Under Charlemagne and the German Ottonians, the Empire and Papacy coexisted as distinct yet complementary realities within the Ecclesia Universalis. With the young emperor Otto III emerged the idea of the Renovatio Imperii Romanorum in a Christian framework—envisioning a federation of equal, independent nations with Rome as its capital. This vision collapsed after Otto’s death and a popular uprising that expelled him from Rome. Meanwhile, the papacy fell into disrepute under a succession of simoniacal and scandalous popes. Henry III, inspired by high religious ideals and a commitment to reform, intervened to restore order. He reclaimed control of the Church hierarchy, imposing candidates of his choosing as popes. Henry III’s actions marked the triumph of the Imperium over the Sacerdotium but also reestablished order within the Church, freeing the papacy from the turmoil of Roman noble families. On December 20th, 1046, Henry III convened the Synod of Sutri, the pinnacle of imperial Church reform, deposing rival popes Sylvester III and Gregory VI. Three days later, at a second synod in Rome, he deposed Benedict IX and appointed Clement II. The groundwork was thus laid for the great Gregorian Reform, preceded by spiritual renewal radiating from the Abbey of Cluny, a monastery founded in 910 and directly subordinate to the pope, thus shielded from local powers. Cluny reinvigorated the Rule of St. Benedict, hosting 300 monks and overseeing nearly 2,000 dependent monasteries across Christendom. This spiritual ferment paved the way for Gregory VII’s monumental reform (1073–1085).

The Gregorian Reform

The Church’s excessive subjugation to the Empire deprived it of its true identity and hindered its mission. This spurred an internal movement for recovery, culminating in Gregory VII’s reform, aimed at restoring the Church’s spiritual identity through the affirmation of its autonomy: the Libertas Ecclesiae. The reform sought to moralize the clergy and spiritually renew the Church. Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida provided a systematic critique, rejecting the systems of “proprietary churches” and “royal churches.” The Gregorian Reform addressed Nicolaitism, simony, and imperial theocracy, unfolding in four phases:

  1. First Phase (1046–1057): Initiated as a moral reform against Nicolaitism and simony, supported by Henry III. The Synod of Sutri (1046) began reorganizing the papacy, a prerequisite for broader Church reform. Notable among the German popes appointed was Leo IX (1049–1054), a zealous reformer.
  2. Second Phase (1057–1073): Reformers like Humbert of Silva Candida recognized the need to dismantle medieval institutions such as the sale of churches and investitures. The 1059 Roman Synod forbade lay investiture and established papal election by the College of Cardinals.
  3. Third Phase (1073–1085): Gregory VII implemented radical reforms, prohibiting lay investiture and articulating papal authority in his Dictatus Papae (1075), a series of 27 theses outlining the papacy’s new role. Conflict arose with Henry IV of Germany, leading to Henry’s excommunication (1076). Henry responded at the Synod of Worms (1076), declaring Gregory deposed. Left isolated, Henry undertook his penitential journey to Canossa (1077), where Gregory forgave him. Reconciliation was short-lived. Henry IV was excommunicated again in 1080, invaded Italy, deposed Gregory VII, and appointed Clement III as pope. Gregory died in exile in 1085.
  4. Fourth Phase (1085–1124): The conflict persisted until the Concordat of Worms (1122), a compromise between Pope Callixtus II and Emperor Henry V. The agreement granted free episcopal elections to the clergy, renounced lay investiture, and allowed the emperor to confer feudal authority via the scepter. This ended imperial theocracy and inaugurated papal hierocracy, prefigured in Gregory VII’s Dictatus Papae and culminating under Innocent III (1198–1216).

The Theological-Legal Basis of the Reform

The Church not only asserted its autonomy but grounded its claims theologically, portraying itself as God’s work on Earth, founded by Christ and entrusted to the clergy—not kings. Episcopal investiture was deemed an ecclesiastical act, and royal involvement was condemned as arrogant and disruptive to divine order. Synodality was revived, fostering internal reflection and self-governance. Simony and Nicolaitism were recognized as signs of the Church’s degradation and targeted for elimination.

The Pope Claims the Role of Leader

The Libertas Ecclesiae was inseparable from the Petrine-apostolic principle, affirming the papacy as the Church’s primary guide. This principle, rooted in scriptural rivalry between the patriarchates of Rome and Constantinople, was articulated by Pope Gelasius I, who distinguished the auctoritas sacrata pontificum from the potestas regalis. Documents such as the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals and the Dictatus Papae (1075) provided foundational arguments for papal supremacy, solidifying the Church’s independence and dominance over temporal powers.

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta

Le Lezioni sulla filosofia della storia
di Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel


Dialettica, spirito, libertà

 

 

 

 

Le Lezioni sulla filosofia della storia, tenute da Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel nel 1821, 1824, 1827 e 1831 alla Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, raccolte e pubblicate postume, nel 1837, da Eduard Gans e dal figlio Karl, esaminano la relazione tra l’evoluzione storica e il progresso del pensiero umano, secondo i principi della dialettica hegeliana. Hegel sostiene che la storia sia un processo razionale, guidato da una logica interna, che si sviluppa attraverso contraddizioni e sintesi successive, riflettendo il progresso dello spirito (Geist) verso la realizzazione di sé.
Hegel, quindi, interpreta la storia come una manifestazione visibile del Geist, forza guidante che muove l’umanità verso una maggiore libertà e autocoscienza. La sua visione è profondamente eurocentrica: considera il processo storico europeo come il culmine dello sviluppo umano, con particolare attenzione agli Stati nazionali quali entità che incarnano il raggiungimento della libertà individuale.
L’analisi hegeliana della storia universale è suddivisa in tre diverse ere: quella dell’Oriente, dove solo uno (il despota) è libero; quella del mondo greco-romano, dove solo alcuni sono liberi; quella del mondo germanico-cristiano, dove tutti sono idealmente liberi. Questa suddivisione riflette la sua teoria secondo cui la storia è il palcoscenico di realizzazione della libertà, con il mondo moderno che rappresenta il vertice di questo sviluppo.
Dal punto di vista filosofico, le Lezioni di Hegel sono intrise del suo metodo dialettico, che vede la storia evolversi attraverso la tesi, l’antitesi e la sintesi. Ogni epoca storica rappresenta una tesi che viene contrapposta da una antitesi, risultando in una sintesi che supera e incorpora gli elementi di entrambe. Questo processo dialettico non è solo un meccanismo storico, ma anche un processo logico che riflette il modo in cui la realtà stessa è strutturata.
Uno degli aspetti più innovativi e critici del pensiero del filosofo tedesco è rappresentato dall’idea che la storia sia guidata dalla ragione. Questo implica che ogni evento storico, non importa quanto caotico o irrazionale possa sembrare, contribuisca al progresso della libertà umana e della ragione.
Le Lezioni offrono anche una visione complessa e articolata dell’uomo, posto al centro del processo storico e filosofico. Per Hegel, l’uomo non è soltanto un ente passivo attraverso il quale si manifesta la storia; piuttosto, è l’agente attivo che porta in sé il Geist, il principio razionale che guida il progresso storico. L’uomo, in quanto entità razionale e libera, è visto come il culmine dello sviluppo dello spirito. Questa concezione implica che ogni individuo partecipi alla dialettica storica non solo come testimone o vittima, ma come co-creatore attivo del tessuto storico.
Anche la libertà costituisce uno dei temi centrali delle Lezioni. Essa non è semplicemente assenza di costrizioni, ma capacità di agire secondo leggi che sono razionalmente riconosciute come proprie. In questo senso, la storia rappresenta, attraverso il progressivo riconoscimento dell’individuo come soggetto autonomo e moralmente responsabile, il luogo in cui l’uomo apprende e realizza la propria libertà.
Alla filosofia della storia è intrinsecamente legata anche l’etica. Hegel sostiene che le norme etiche e i principi morali non siano astrazioni immutabili, quanto piuttosto il risultato di processi storici che riflettono la maturazione dello spirito umano. La moralità è intesa come sintesi dialettica di diritti individuali e doveri collettivi, nel cui ambito la legge e la società devono evolvere per riflettere sempre più la libertà individuale.
L’interazione tra l’individuo e la società è un altro aspetto fondamentale della speculazione storica hegeliana. La società è delineata quale arena in cui si concretizza lo spirito, per mezzo di istituzioni come la famiglia, la società civile e lo Stato. Ogni fase del suo sistema filosofico rivela come l’uomo e la società si influenzino reciprocamente, promuovendo un avanzamento verso forme sempre più complesse e integrate di organizzazione sociale, che riflettono una maggiore realizzazione della libertà.
Hegel, quindi, ritiene l’uomo essenziale all’attuazione dello spirito nella storia. La sua filosofia enfatizza una visione progressista della storia umana come marcia verso una sempre maggiore realizzazione della libertà, interpretando l’etica e la morale come entità dinamiche, intrinsecamente legate al tessuto sociale e storico in cui vivono gli individui. Questa visione continua a generare riflessioni sulla libertà, l’etica e il ruolo dell’individuo nella società moderna.
Le Lezioni sulla filosofia della storia rimangono un’opera cruciale, che offre profonde intuizioni sulla natura della storia e della filosofia. Tuttavia, è essenziale approcciare il testo con atteggiamento critico, riconoscendo tanto i suoi contributi significativi quanto i suoi limiti contestuali e ideologici (nonostante l’ingegnosità della sua sintesi filosofica e storica, l’approccio hegeliano presenta problemi notevoli: la sua eurocentricità e la visione progressista della storia sono state oggetto di numerose critiche, soprattutto per la loro apparente giustificazione dello status quo e del colonialismo. Inoltre, l’idea che la storia sia una marcia inarrestabile verso la libertà è stata messa in discussione da vari pensatori successivi, che hanno evidenziato come eventi storici quali guerre e genocidi sfidino questa interpretazione ottimistica).

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta

History of Medieval Church


Part VI


The Revival of the West

 

 

 

Despite the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the decline of the Church, which had leaned heavily on the Empire, the West did not disintegrate. Instead, it completed its geographical and political configuration by integrating the northern regions into Christianity. Two factors contributed to the revival of the West: Christian culture and religion, which became a unifying cultural amalgam upon which a new unifying political framework was built; Otto I of Germany, who saw himself as the natural heir of Charlemagne. Crowned in Aachen in 936, Otto undertook the restoration of the fragmented Empire and the fallen Church, initiating sweeping reforms that revitalized both institutions.

Internal and External Policies of Otto I

In domestic politics, Otto I diminished the power of dukes and counts by granting public rights to bishops and abbots. He reserved the right to appoint bishops, making them pillars upon which the Kingdom of Germany rested. In foreign affairs, Otto I descended into Italy in 951 to free Adelaide from Berengar II and marry her. During this campaign, he assumed the title of King of Italy in Pavia. Subsequently, Pope John XII (955–963) sought Otto’s help against Berengar II. In 962, Otto was crowned emperor and recognized as such. On this occasion, he granted the papacy the “Privilegium Ottonianum,” reaffirming the ecclesiastical privileges from Charlemagne’s era and requiring newly elected popes to swear loyalty to the Emperor. However, John XII’s intrigues led Otto to limit papal autonomy, decreeing that no pope could be elected without his consent. John XII was deposed, and Leo VIII was elected in his place. While the papacy lost its autonomy under Otto I, this reform rescued it from the dark crisis of the “Saeculum Obscurum” (the Dark Age).

Otto I’s Imperial Ideology and Claim to the Crown

By being crowned in Aachen in 936, Otto I considered himself the rightful heir of Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire. Although German kings traditionally governed their realms without overstepping their borders, Otto I embraced Charlemagne’s sense of “dignitas imperialis,” which made him feel responsible for the entire Western Christendom. He regarded imperial consecration and coronation as a sacrament, binding him closely to the Church and involving him in its priestly mission. Otto consistently felt personally responsible for the papacy and the Church, grounding his politico-religious vision of the Empire in this conviction. Under Otto I, State and Church were not only deeply united but nearly merged into a single identity. Over time, the imperial perspective evolved to assert a direct right to the crown, viewing papal acknowledgment as mere formality. However, this view clashed with the Roman stance, which maintained that the pope’s blessing and consecration were essential. This debate resurfaced in the 11th century during a dispute between Frederick Barbarossa and Pope Adrian IV. The pope demanded gratitude for his imperial investiture, while Barbarossa argued that his election by German princes was divinely sanctioned, rendering papal acknowledgment redundant. Thus, the theological-political question arose: did imperial authority derive directly from God or through the pope? Two factions emerged: canonists advocating papal mediation and those asserting that God directly conferred authority through the election by German princes, leaving the pope to merely recognize the outcome. The issue was resolved under Pope Gregory VII (1073–1085), who, in his Dictatus Papae (1075), claimed the right to examine and approve the emperor’s dignity.

Temporal and Spiritual Power in the Early and High Middle Ages

Why did such theological and legal disputes arise? Were they merely about power struggles? The answer lies in the theological and religious worldview that guided the Church, Empire, and medieval society. From Charlemagne to Henry III, imperial power increasingly permeated the Church, not as an intrusion but as a rightful involvement in matters of shared concern. Imperial sovereignty was conferred not only through political election but also through sacramental consecration. Consequently, kings wielded sacred authority (Sacra Potestas Regalis), enabling them to intervene in ecclesiastical affairs alongside the clergy. Two elements defined this Sacra Potestas Regalis: Political religiosity – everything religious was public, and everything public was also religious; The concept of the “proprietary church” – every power regarded itself as sacred, thus bearing responsibility for the “holy things” (res sacrae). These principles significantly shaped the idea of royal authority.

The King’s Role in the Church

Given the king’s sacredness within the Church, how did royal authority (potestas regalis) relate to papal authority (auctoritas pontificalis)? Two complementary theories addressed this relationship: Theocratic Monism – this held the supremacy of kingship over the priesthood. Based on Christology, it argued that Christ’s eternal kingship preceded his priesthood, which later emerged to mediate between God and humanity. The king, as Christ’s representative, embodied divine sovereignty; Theocratic Dualism – based on the “two swords” theory (Luke 22:38), it symbolized the temporal and spiritual powers, both derived from God with the shared goal of maintaining justice and order. While the monarchy defended and propagated faith, the priesthood sanctified and redeemed. Yet, given the monarchy’s means of wielding power, it often assumed supremacy over the priesthood, reverting to theocratic monism.

The Culture of the King’s Church

Within this theocratic framework, art and culture were entrusted to the Church, with rulers acting as patrons. Cultural production reflected the splendor of royal power as an extension of Christ’s glory (splendor Christi), while the king’s authority was seen as participation in Christ’s rule. This harmony between Kingship and Priesthood extended to the social harmony between the powerful and the poor. Ecclesiastical institutions, especially monasteries, undertook social and charitable responsibilities, emphasizing the duty of the powerful toward the weak.

Concept of the “Proprietary Church”

Emerging from late antiquity (4th–5th centuries), societal reforms transformed property owners into local sovereigns, exercising authority over people and resources on their estates. This signoria fondiaria encompassed territorial sovereignty over both secular and ecclesiastical domains. Churches, monasteries, clergy, and religious institutions fell under the jurisdiction of landowners, who maintained both administrative and spiritual oversight. During the Carolingian era, laws required landowners to allocate parts of their estates to the Church. While these allocations became investments in the “proprietary church,” landowners retained their authority over the properties and ecclesiastical personnel.

The “Domus Episcopalis” and its Evolution

The Domus Episcopalis represented the bishop’s administrative and pastoral authority, encompassing ecclesiastical resources, oversight of the clergy, and care for the laity. As the Church expanded, bishops decentralized spiritual care, establishing centers with “episcopal rights.” Over time, these centers gained autonomy, creating parishes with independent assets while remaining spiritually tied to the bishop. By the 11th century, the Domus Episcopalis had dissolved entirely. Bishops, increasingly involved in secular affairs, adopted aristocratic roles, culminating in a new archetype, particularly in Germany: bishops as city lords, rulers of proprietary churches, and wielders of royal sovereignty.

 

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta

History of Medieval Church


Part V


Relationship between the Church and Charlemagne

 

 

 

 

The strong missionary drive led by the Anglo-Saxons and St. Boniface (Winfrid), coupled with the establishment of the Papal State, had concentrated significant power in the hands of the Pope, extending across almost the entire Western world.
Following the death of Pope Adrian I (772-795), Leo III (795-816), a presbyter of humble origins, ascended to the papacy. However, he soon became embroiled in courtly intrigues, facing accusations of perjury and adultery, which led to his arrest.
Leo III managed to escape and sought refuge with Charlemagne, who travelled to Rome in November 800 to resolve the papal controversy and restore order. A synod convened to examine the accusations against the Pope, but it declared itself unable to judge, invoking the principle of “Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur,” derived from a false document known as the Symmachian (from Pope Symmachus, 498-514). This forgery created an account of an invented Council of Sinuessa in 303 that asserted this principle.
Two days after the Roman synod concluded on December 23, 800, Charlemagne was acclaimed and crowned emperor in a ceremony modelled after the Byzantine imperial coronation. Although the event appeared sudden and unexpected, various signs indicate that the coronation was prearranged: the elaborate imperial welcome Charlemagne received upon his arrival in Rome, where an opulent crown was already prepared. Additionally, there had been previous imperial aspirations advocating for equal status between Charlemagne and the Byzantine Emperor.
It is likely that this plan was agreed upon between Pope Leo III (795-816) and Charlemagne during their meeting in Paderborn.
The coronation marked a definitive break between Rome and Constantinople and initiated a new era in Christendom, characterized by dual leadership: the Pope and the Emperor. It also represented a turning point in Church-Empire relations, establishing the anointing, coronation, and papal consecration as essential elements of imperial authority.

Charlemagne and the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire

The rise of Charlemagne (768-814) and his subsequent coronation solidified the idea of a restored Roman Empire. He strengthened his internal power and expanded his influence outward. The coronation on December 25, 800, as “Imperator Romanorum,” definitively asserted his dominance over the West. This title was later formally recognized by Byzantium through a series of agreements.
For Charlemagne, however, titles held less significance than the essence of imperial authority, free from Roman claims. He envisioned a new “Imperium Romanum” akin to the Byzantine model, centralized in the core of the Carolingian realm along the Meuse and Rhine.
Thus, two years after his coronation, Charlemagne required an oath of allegiance and sought formal acknowledgment of his title from Constantinople, which Byzantium granted through agreements concluded between 810 and 814. This recognition marked Byzantium’s permanent retreat from Western affairs.
Following these agreements, Charlemagne crowned his son Louis the Pious in Aachen in 813, using the Byzantine imperial rite. This coronation was reiterated in 816 at Reims by Pope Stephen V, reinforcing the Roman origin of the imperial title, which was in service to the Church’s protection.
Charlemagne diligently worked to create a cohesive empire: he mandated the use of a standardized script (Carolingian minuscule); aligned Latin with patristic standards; imposed a unified liturgy blending Gallican-Frankish and Roman traditions; and standardized monastic practices under the Rule of St. Benedict.
Despite these efforts, the Empire remained fragile due to Charlemagne’s death in 814, which prevented full consolidation. The Frankish inheritance system, which called for power-sharing among heirs, also contributed to its downfall.

After Charlemagne’s death, the Holy Roman Empire was divided into three separate kingdoms. Louis the Pious, Charlemagne’s successor, distributed the Empire among his sons according to Frankish succession customs, formalized by the Treaty of Verdun (843), which permanently divided the Empire and ended the unity of the Western Holy Roman Empire. This fragmentation led to significant internal and external pressures, culminating in the abdication of Charles the Fat, one of Charlemagne’s descendants, who proved unable to defend the Empire. The realm ultimately split into five distinct entities: Germany, France, Italy, and Upper and Lower Burgundy, with the imperial title ceasing upon the death of Berengar I, who was assassinated in Verona in 924.
The decline of the Empire coincided with the Church’s waning influence.
In Italy, the papacy, bolstered by the “Pactum Ludovicianum,” secured its autonomy, severing ties with the decaying Carolingian Empire. While this newfound autonomy could have been advantageous, it sparked fierce power struggles. The papacy became a highly contested institution among Roman nobility and southern Italian leaders, resulting in violent conflicts. This era, known as the “Saeculum Obscurum” of the Church, saw rapid turnovers in the papal office, often driven by the shifting dominance of competing factions, leading to instances where rival popes were simultaneously appointed.

A reflection on Theocracy in the Carolingian Empire

It is essential to differentiate between the terms “theocracy,” “hierocracy,” and “caesaropapism.”
“Theocracy” refers to the intervention of rulers in religious matters that fall within the Church’s jurisdiction. In contrast, “hierocracy” is the Church’s intrusion into State affairs. “Caesaropapism” denotes the State’s involvement in the internal administration and organization of the Church.
The Carolingian era was marked by theocratic tendencies, particularly evident in liturgical reform, which aligned with Roman practices yet incorporated local elements, resulting in the Franco-Roman liturgy. This reform was initiated by rulers, not the Church. This development would later give rise to the Latin liturgy.
In legal matters, the “Dionysio-Hadriana Collection” was upheld, augmented with new legislation to meet evolving needs.
Episcopal offices were integrated into the Kingdom through feudal rights.
Legislative mechanisms in the Carolingian period included:

  • Mixed councils, comprising both clerical and lay participants, tasked with legislating social and ecclesiastical matters.
  • The Capitularies, or laws supplementing ordinary chapters.
  • The Missi dominici, inspectors sent on missions throughout the Empire, composed of bishops and lay officials. This overview highlights how, in Carolingian governance, religious and secular responsibilities were interwoven. Charlemagne also engaged in theological debates, such as Adoptionism, which claimed Jesus was God’s Son by adoption; and Iconoclasm, initially resolved by the Second Council of Nicaea convened by Empress Irene but whose conclusions Charlemagne rejected due to the exclusion of the Frankish Church. This applied similarly to the Filioque dispute, stemming from the Council of Constantinople (381).

Charlemagne played a significant role in these matters, but unlike Byzantine emperors, he respected papal authority, maintaining a clear distinction between religious and state powers within the Empire’s unified administration, thus permitting ecclesiastical autonomy.
Two principal powers emerged, mutually independent yet interlinked: religious and secular. This concept, clearly expressed by Pope Gelasius (492-496) in a letter to Emperor Anastasius in 494 and influencing Western political thought for over a millennium, identified the Church with the broader world. The Church was perceived not as an intermediary between God and humanity but as a “Societas fidelium,” where every member, according to their role, was committed to defending the Kingdom of God and converting all people to God. This universalistic view led the Church to embody “Ecclesia universalis.” The ancient Church’s Christ Pantocrator, creator of all, took on an earthly aspect in the medieval period: Christ became the supreme Priest and King governing the “Ecclesia universalis,” encompassing all Christian humanity. Here, the Pope and the King represented sacramental counterparts of one reality: Christ, who lived and expressed Himself through them.
Yet, by the 8th century, a gradual separation between the laity and priesthood began to emerge, initially evident in the liturgy, which symbolized the Church’s life. The King, as a consecrated layman, retained a sacred status, thereby serving as Christ’s legitimate earthly representative.

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta

History of Medieval Church


Part IV


The Early Medieval Church (400-1050) or the King’s Church

 

 

 

Political-religious background to the Holy Roman Empire

With the transfer of the imperial seat from Rome to Constantinople (May 11th, 330) and the subsequent disintegration of the Western Empire by the barbarians (476), along with the rapid Christianization of the new Germanic populations—through which they assimilated Latin culture—the papacy, heir to Latin heritage, organization, and imperial culture, became the focal point of the nascent Western world. The connection to Rome was based on two main ideas: one religious-ecclesiastical and the other religious-political.
Regarding the first, it should be noted that in late antiquity, the Latinity of the Church and the West was centered in North Africa, which was the birthplace of great martyrs, theologians, and apologists. However, with the Islamic conquest of North Africa, it was lost to the Western world, which found its natural point of reference in the Church of Rome and the papacy.
These religious ties with Rome were particularly established and strengthened by the Anglo-Saxon monk Boniface.
The entire Catholic Europe, therefore, looked to Rome as the reference point for its Christian identity in which all recognized themselves.
It was not, of course, a legal dependency, but a moral one, and we will see how, in the High Middle Ages under Innocent III, a legal assertion was also initiated.
As for the second idea, it would be affirmed with Charlemagne in the attempt to revive the Roman Empire, whose intent was to unite the entire West under a single political and religious leadership. Thus, the Augustinian dream of the “Civitas Dei,” the Kingdom of God on earth, was realized.

Formation of the Papal States

As long as the Roman Empire served as a unifying force for the peoples, the Church had no need for material power as it was supported by the Empire. However, when the Empire began to crumble, the Church fragmented into various local churches. This led to the need for the pope’s political autonomy to defend spiritual independence.
During the time of Gregory I (590-604), thanks to the “Justinian Code,” the popes already held power over Rome, and bishops were recognized as public figures.
Two events strengthened the papacy during Gregory I’s time:

  • The possession of large tracts of land, received as donations (the so-called “Patrimonium Petri”).
  • The papal governance acting as a substitute for the exarch of Ravenna, who was unable to manage his power. The popes soon became the true masters of Rome.

 

The Roman Church and the Franks

The birth of the Christian West found its original nucleus in the relations between the Frankish Kingdom and the Church. With Clovis, a first concentration of lordships was established over a vast area, but it was under the Carolingians that power was consolidated under a single ruler. By 680, they were already mayors of the palace under the Merovingians and concentrated significant power in the region of the Meuse and Rhine. The victory of Charles Martel at Poitiers in 732 against the Arabs strengthened the Carolingian position, making it easy for Pippin the Short to depose the last Merovingian, Childeric III, and have himself proclaimed king by the greats of the kingdom and consecrated by Frankish bishops.
Thus, the Frankish kingdom was being formed, leading among European powers and becoming champions of Christianity for halting the Arab advance at Poitiers. It was to them that Gregory III (731-741) turned around 739-740 to oppose the Lombards, submission to whom would have reduced the popes to mere territorial bishops under their control.
This move by Gregory III was historically significant as it indicated the new direction of the Western Church: a first step that would detach it definitively from the East, creating its own empire in the West. The decisive date of this separation can ideally be marked as 741, when the figures of Gregory II, replaced by Pope Zacharias for the Church; Charles Martel, replaced by his sons Carloman and Pippin III for the Franks; and Leo III, succeeded by his son Constantine V for the Eastern Empire, disappeared almost simultaneously. Carloman withdrew from the political scene, leaving the position to his brother Pippin III, who turned to Pope Zacharias for reassurance on the legality of his ascent to the Frankish throne. Zacharias pragmatically resolved the matter by asserting that it was better to call king the one who actually held power rather than the one who had been stripped of authority.
Pippin was thus elected king and anointed. This anointing, inspired by that of Saul and David, took on a sacred and religious character and developed a sacramental theology of anointing. This consecratory anointing legitimized the involvement of kings in Church affairs and vice versa. Thus, a profound union between temporal and spiritual power was forming to the point that Innocent III (1202) declared that only he had the right to examine who had been elected king. The king, therefore, became a theocratic sovereign and could govern the Church, which, incorporated into the Kingdom, reserved the right to approve the king’s election.
After the death of the Lombard Liutprand (744), King Aistulf resumed expansionist policies and advanced to Rome with the intention of making it the capital of Italy. Pope Stephen II (752-757), having asked Emperor Constantine V for help in vain as he was preoccupied with the iconoclastic controversy, turned to Pippin III, who not only promised assistance but also the return of the Exarchate of Ravenna.
Pippin III’s prompt acceptance of the invitation concealed his ambition to extend his influence in Italy and annex the Lombards to the Frankish kingdom.
After an initial failed attempt at the diet of Bernacum, which ended inconclusively, Pippin III secured approval for papal assistance with the diet of Quierzy and promised vast Italian territories to the pope.
Thus, after a failed diplomatic attempt to persuade King Aistulf to return the land to the pope, Pippin III, through two military campaigns, repeatedly defeated Aistulf, who was forced to cede a third of his treasure and vast lands to the pope. This donation by Pippin marked the birth of the Papal States. The formation of the Papal States immediately triggered a power struggle, and upon the death of Pope Paul I, brother of Stephen II, various nobles and noble factions placed Constantine, who ruled for a year, and then Philip, who was deposed after a few months, on the papal throne. Finally, Stephen III (768-772) was duly elected.
These incidents highlighted the need for regulations for papal elections, which gradually evolved over the centuries, leading to the two-thirds requirement of the cardinal assembly (1179).
Under Adrian I, the Church began to mint its own currency and date diplomas according to the years of the pontificate. The final break from Constantinople would come with Charlemagne and the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire.

The Donation of Constantine

To cement greater autonomy and power for the Papal States, the most famous forgery in history appeared: the “Donation of Constantine” or “Constitutum Constantini.” It likely emerged under Pope Stephen II (750) and consists of two parts: a “Confessio” in which Constantine professes his faith and recounts how he was miraculously cured of leprosy by Pope Sylvester; and the “Donatio,” where Constantine, before departing for Constantinople, recognized the supremacy of the bishop of Rome over the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople. The pope was also granted the regalia of “basileus,” including the purple mantle, scepter, and mounted escort, which conferred temporal power over the Western Empire and independence from the Eastern one. The clergy were equated with the Senate and authorized to adorn their mounts with white trappings; the emperor personally deposited the act of donation on the tomb of St. Peter. The complete text of the “Donation” appeared for the first time around the mid-9th century in the “Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals,” another medieval forgery, and was long regarded as authentic. It was only in the 15th century that humanists like Nicholas of Cusa and Lorenzo Valla proved its falsehood. However, the exact time, place, and purpose of this forgery remain unclear. It was likely created within papal circles to justify Rome’s independence from Byzantium and the founding of a Papal State.

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta

History of Medieval Church


Part III


Evangelization of the Germanic Peoples
during the Migration Period

 

 

 

The barbarian invasions, or migrations of northern peoples, who established kingdoms by exploiting the weakness of the late Roman Empire, significantly altered its political and military structure while profoundly impacting Christianity. Among these migrating populations, the kingdom of the Franks, founded by Clovis (451–481), emerged as the most influential, consolidating the majority of the Germanic peoples. Christianity, transmitted to and assimilated by these groups, was adapted to their mindset, even shaping a noble-led church under royal authority (theocratic period), which eventually provoked a reaction within the church itself. From the Gregorian Reformation (1073–1085) through the Concordat of Worms (1122) and culminating with Innocent III (1198–1216), the church asserted itself, shifting from an imperial theocracy to a papal hierocracy.

Encounter with the Roman Empire and Christianization

Driven by demographic growth and the desire for settlement, entire Germanic groups approached the Roman Empire as early as the 4th century. In 410, Alaric and his Goths entered Rome, foreshadowing the Empire’s final fall in 476. Meanwhile, other Germanic tribes established themselves in the western region as follows:

  • Visigoths in Aquitaine and Spain;
  • Franks in Northern Gaul;
  • Ostrogoths in Italy;
  • Vandals in North Africa;
  • Burgundians in the Rhone Valley.

The encounter between these pagan Germanic peoples and the Christian Roman Empire posed the challenge of their Christianization. Through widespread missionary efforts across Western Europe, these groups were integrated into the Roman Empire’s culture and assimilated within it.

Missionary Activity

Between the 4th and 6th centuries, a network of missionaries spread Christianity among these populations, and by the late 600s, most major Germanic groups had converted to Catholicism. Notable missionaries from this early Christianization period include:

  • Bishop Ulfilas (311–383) for the Goths;
  • St. Martin (316–397) of Tours for Gaul;
  • St. Patrick (389–461) for England and Ireland;
  • Pope St. Gregory the Great (590–604), who sent St. Augustine of Canterbury with 40 monks to Britain.

The churches formed in this period were autonomous and tied to local kings, not yet unified with Rome. Only with St. Boniface (675–754) did a greater unification of these churches under Rome emerge.

Missionary Methods

How was this Christianization achieved among these so-called barbarian populations? In the Middle Ages, only the nobility enjoyed freedom and political rights, so conversion efforts focused on the nobility, particularly the king. Once the king converted, the nobles followed, and the lower classes, entirely dependent on the nobility, merely replaced pagan rites and deities with Christian worship and the Christian God. The shift in divinity posed little issue, as such changes were relatively frequent. Christian communities had also gained public, social, and cultural prestige due to their unity in faith, doctrine, and disciplined life governed by law. Clovis himself relied on the Gallic church for his administration, leading to a substantial expansion of Christianity with mass conversions and baptisms. However, this superficial and politically motivated Christianity required a lengthy assimilation process, often challenging. Catechesis was limited to teaching fundamental prayers and confession, which outlined Christian duties.

Christianization of the Germans, Celts, and Slavs

Throughout the thousand years of the Middle Ages, the Germanic peoples underwent Christianization, first through individual conversions, then mass conversions following the king’s conversion, and finally through forced conversions by the sword. Christianity among the Visigoths, Vandals, Burgundians, and Lombards was marked by Arianism, distinguishing them from the orthodox-Catholic populations they conquered. This Arian influence hindered their lasting impact on Catholic Western formation, a role instead assumed by Clovis, baptized in 498 by Bishop Remigius of Reims. In Spain, Visigothic king Reccaredo’s Catholicism was stymied by the Arab invasions of 711.

Missionary Activity in Early Medieval Europe

By the 5th century, Gaul had fully converted to Christianity, strengthened by noble conversions. Missionary impetus initially came from bishops but soon extended to monasteries, where, by the 7th and 8th centuries, monks led missionary efforts, supporting Christianity in Europe and constantly revitalizing the Church. The spread of Christianity increasingly involved the Frankish Kingdom, which saw missionary work as an opportunity to expand territories and influence. Consequently, Christianity was sometimes viewed as the religion of conquerors, leading to resistance or conflict. This broad missionary campaign first spread through the efforts of Irish-Scottish and Gallo-Frankish monks, later followed by the Anglo-Saxons and Franks.

Irish-Scottish Missions

Irish-Scottish missionaries, from the British Isles where a Celtic church had emerged in Ireland, embodied a monastic spirit. Monasteries replaced episcopal seats in pastoral work, fostering what is known as the “Celtic monastic church.” Inspired by the idea of “Peregrinatio pro Christo,” these monks left their homeland to spread Christianity across Europe, founding numerous monasteries, often supported by local lords and Merovingian kings. One prominent monastery was Luxeuil, founded by St. Columban.

Anglo-Saxon Missions

From 750 onward, Anglo-Saxon monks joined Irish-Scottish missionaries in evangelizing the continent, especially in the unexplored regions of the Frisians, Thuringians, and Saxons. Prominent figures included Bede the Venerable (735). Their missions operated under royal protection, with Winfrid, known as Boniface, as the leading Anglo-Saxon missionary. His work was closely tied to Rome, uniting local churches with the papacy and spreading a distinctly Roman Christianity across Europe.

Missions in the Carolingian Kingdom

Under Charlemagne and his son Louis the Pious (814–840), Frankish Christianity extended southeast toward Lower Austria and Styria-Carinthia and northeast to the Saxons, who initially resisted Christianization linked to Frankish domination. Charlemagne ultimately overcame this resistance, consolidating Frankish-Christian influence and organizing the Frankish church.

The Gradual Unification of Churches under Rome

A key aspect of Irish Christianity was its distinctive monastic character, which, marked by individualistic asceticism, led to marginalization in the West, where the English church, founded by St. Augustine of Canterbury, aligned more closely with Rome. Figures like St. Boniface (Winfrid of York) unified churches under Rome, reducing regional church independence under royal authority.

Characteristics of Medieval Christian Religiosity

Germanic, Celtic, and Slavic Christians adapted Christianity to their culture and needs. Medieval Christianity lacked a distinct ecclesial community, merging instead with secular society, giving rise to a socio-political and religious monism. The sacraments held a central role, often viewed with a blend of reverence and superstition, shaping a Christian life marked by sacramentally mediated grace. In confession, which became private, and penance, derived from monastic “penitential tariffs,” Christianity shaped a new cultural landscape. The medieval church merged ecclesiastical and civil spheres, laying the groundwork for an emerging Western Christian society distinct from the Eastern Empire.

 

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta

L’ideologia

Fondamento del pensiero e arma della trasformazione
sociale in Rosmini, Galluppi e Gramsci

 

 

 

 

L’ideologia è un concetto che ha assunto molteplici significati nel corso della storia del pensiero filosofico e politico, venendo declinata in diverse maniere a seconda del contesto e degli autori che ne hanno trattato. A partire dalle riflessioni di alcuni pensatori chiave come Antonio Rosmini, Pasquale Galluppi e Antonio Gramsci, si può osservare come l’ideologia sia stata interpretata e utilizzata in modo diversificato, a volte con sfumature più teoriche e astratte, altre volte con implicazioni fortemente concrete e politiche.
Antonio Rosmini, filosofo italiano del XIX secolo, è uno dei pensatori che ha dato un contributo importante alla riflessione sull’ideologia nel contesto della filosofia idealista. Per Rosmini, l’ideologia non è semplicemente una costruzione sociale o politica, bensì una “scienza del lume intellettivo”. In questo senso, l’ideologia è legata al modo in cui l’uomo utilizza l’intelletto per rendere comprensibili i fenomeni sensibili, cioè tutto ciò che percepisce con i sensi. Secondo Rosmini, il processo conoscitivo parte dai dati sensibili, che, attraverso l’ideologia, vengono resi intelligibili grazie all’intervento del lume intellettivo, una sorta di luce della ragione che consente all’uomo di trasformare l’esperienza sensibile in sapere universale. Questo concetto si inserisce in una visione epistemologica idealista, dove l’intelletto è la chiave di volta per comprendere il mondo e per organizzare il sapere in una forma sistematica. La funzione dell’ideologia, dunque, non è solo di descrivere il mondo, ma di renderlo intelligibile in maniera universale e coerente, attraverso un processo che parte dall’esperienza e arriva alla conoscenza astratta e concettuale.

Pasquale Galluppi, contemporaneo di Rosmini, offre una concezione dell’ideologia incentrata sul ruolo delle idee nel processo del ragionamento. Per Galluppi, l’ideologia è la “scienza delle idee essenziali al ragionamento”, ovvero di quelle idee che formano la base del pensiero logico e argomentativo. In questa visione, l’ideologia non è solo un sistema di rappresentazioni astratte, ma un insieme di strutture mentali necessarie per qualsiasi tipo di ragionamento. Le idee di cui parla Galluppi non sono semplici rappresentazioni della realtà, ma entità fondamentali che governano il modo in cui l’uomo pensa e ragiona. L’ideologia diventa così lo studio delle condizioni essenziali del pensiero, delle categorie fondamentali che l’intelletto deve possedere per poter formulare giudizi, inferenze e, in ultima analisi, per comprendere la realtà. La riflessione di Galluppi si collega a una tradizione filosofica che ha radici nella scolastica e nell’idealismo, in cui le idee sono viste come precondizioni per il pensiero. Questa concezione si differenzia dalla visione più moderna e politica dell’ideologia, che si presenterà in autori come Gramsci, ma resta centrale per comprendere come nel XIX secolo l’ideologia fosse strettamente legata a questioni epistemologiche e logiche.
Antonio Gramsci, filosofo e politico marxista italiano del XX secolo, rivoluziona il concetto di ideologia, spostando il discorso dal piano epistemologico a quello politico e sociale. Per Gramsci, l’ideologia non è una scienza astratta delle idee, ma un elemento centrale nella costruzione del “terreno sociale e politico” su cui si muovono gli esseri umani. In altre parole, l’ideologia diventa lo strumento con cui si plasmare la società e le relazioni di potere. Secondo Gramsci, l’ideologia è fondamentale per la formazione dell’egemonia culturale, ovvero quel processo attraverso il quale una classe dominante riesce a imporre la propria visione del mondo, rendendola accettabile anche alle classi subalterne. L’ideologia, in questo contesto, non è qualcosa di neutrale o semplicemente un riflesso della realtà, ma una costruzione attiva che serve a mantenere o a contestare lo status quo sociale e politico. Gramsci distingue tra “ideologie organiche”, che emergono spontaneamente dalle classi sociali in lotta per il potere, e “ideologie sovrastrutturali”, che sono quelle imposte dalla classe dominante attraverso istituzioni come la scuola, la Chiesa, i media e altre forme di controllo culturale. L’ideologia, quindi, per Gramsci non è solo una questione teorica, ma un campo di battaglia dove si decide l’orientamento politico e sociale di un’intera società.
Come concetto, quindi, l’ideologia, si presta a molteplici interpretazioni e approcci. Da una scienza del lume intellettivo per Rosmini, alla scienza delle idee essenziali al ragionamento per Galluppi, fino a diventare uno strumento di dominio e di lotta per Gramsci, l’ideologia si rivela una nozione centrale per comprendere non solo il modo in cui pensiamo e conosciamo il mondo, ma anche il modo in cui viviamo e agiamo nella società. Essa non è mai un’astrazione pura, ma un insieme di credenze e pratiche che influenzano profondamente il corso della storia umana.

 

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta

History of Medieval Church


Part II


The Separation of Rome from Constantinople

 

 

 

The Causes of the Separation

Various factors contributed to the birth of the Middle Ages, among which the alliance between the Church and the barbarian populations played a significant role. This was encouraged by the gradual separation of Rome from Constantinople during the 8th century.
The slow and progressive detachment between East and West has its roots as early as the 5th century.
Until 397, the year of St. Ambrose’s death, the Church was uniform throughout the Roman Empire, which acted as a unifying force. However, by the 5th century, strong tensions began to arise between the churches of the Eastern and Western regions. The factors that favoured the separation between the East and the West were essentially three:

  • Linguistic divergence: Greek, the official language of the Church, was replaced by Latin. The Western Church began to ignore Greek, introducing Latin within its practices. In this regard, Pope Damasus (380) introduced Latin into the Western liturgy and entrusted St. Jerome with the translation of the Septuagint from Greek into Latin, which resulted in the creation of the “Vulgate.” This language shift altered the way things were understood and communicated, leading to a change in culture and perspective. Thus, the East remained Byzantine, while the West became Latin.
  • Political fracture: The Western Roman Empire quickly collapsed under the pressure of barbarian invasions, while the Eastern Roman Empire lasted until the 15th century, ending with the fall of Constantinople (1453) to the Arabs. Additionally, there developed a strong Western aversion toward the East, which, in an effort to alleviate the pressure from the barbarians, granted them settlements in the West, which the East regarded as barbarized and culturally inferior.
  • Different ecclesiastical structures: On May 11, 330, Emperor Constantine moved the imperial seat from Rome to Constantinople, the new Rome. In the West, this created a political and administrative void that the Church slowly and tacitly filled, becoming the natural heir to the former Western Empire, which had been effectively abandoned by the emperor. Consequently, Rome, along with the West, believed it could operate independently, effectively abandoning the Eastern Emperor and his Empire.

Additionally, differing views on the Church separated the East from the West:

  • In the East, the structure was quadripatriarchal (Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem), with Rome as the fifth patriarchate.
  • Moreover, for the East, decisions were to be made communally and with mutual agreement. It was thus inconceivable that Rome alone would decide for and over everyone. Consequently, the East developed a communal approach, while the West adopted a monarchical one.

Beyond all else, the general atmosphere had changed: the East, by nature, was contemplative, while the West had a practical and concrete view of things. This different mindset was reflected in the respective liturgies: those of the East were elaborate and rich in symbolism, while those of the West were sober and practical.
These various sources of friction between East and West manifested as early as the 5th century in two ruptures in relations: the first lasting 11 years (404–415), the second lasting 50 years (484–534), the latter caused by the issuance of Zeno’s Henotikon (482), which sought to resolve Christological disputes between the Monophysites and Dyophysites following the Council of Chalcedon (451).


From the 5th century onward, the East and the West followed paths that increasingly alienated them from each other, particularly regarding the Monophysite and Dyophysite issues left unresolved by Chalcedon, from which emerged Monothelitism and Monoenergism. The East, in particular, struggled to reconcile the supreme purity of God with the fallen nature of humanity. This Monothelite controversy was addressed at the Council in Trullo I (680), restoring relations between the two Churches.
However, this fragile peace was disrupted by Justinian II (685–695), who sought to interfere in the internal affairs of the Church concerning ecclesiastical discipline. To this end, he convened a council, the Council in Trullo II, in 692 without consulting Pope Sergius I (687–701). This council, intended by the emperor to complete the work of the two previous councils—namely, the Fifth (Second Council of Constantinople in 553) and the Sixth (Third Council of Constantinople in 680), also known as Trullo I—came to be known as the Quinisext Council. Of the 102 canons approved, many were in open conflict with Western Church customs, and as a result, Pope Sergius I refused to sign them, rejecting even the copy reserved for him, despite intense imperial pressure. An agreement on these canons was reached only with Pope Constantine I (708–715), who accepted only about fifty of them after traveling to Constantinople, where the privileges of the Roman Church were renewed.
 
New Controversies: Leo III and Popes Gregory II and Gregory III

After the resolution of the 102 canons from the Council in Trullo II or Quinisext (692), peace between the state and the Church was again disrupted by two disputes between Emperor Leo III and Popes Gregory II (715–731) and Gregory III (731–741).
Upon ascending the throne, Leo III had to engage in significant military efforts to defeat the Arabs and quell the rebellion in Sicily. These wars drained the imperial treasury, prompting Leo III to impose heavy taxes on the Roman Church, thereby violating its privileges. Gregory II firmly opposed these imperial abuses, regarding them as a grave offense to the Western Church. Leo III, in turn, interpreted the papal refusal as an act of rebellion, which he sought to suppress, though unsuccessfully, due to a popular uprising and the unexpected support of the Lombards for the pope

The Iconoclastic controversy

Another point of conflict between the Empire and the Papacy was the iconoclastic controversy, which unfolded in two phases and lasted about a century.
The first phase (726–787) began with Leo III’s order to destroy the images in Constantinople and persecute the monks who guarded them. It was during this phase that John of Damascus intervened, introducing the distinction between adoration and veneration.
The iconoclastic movement was condemned by the Roman Church, and relations with Constantinople worsened when Leo III, as part of an imperial reorganization, significantly reduced the territorial jurisdiction of the Roman Patriarchate in favour of that of Constantinople. Rome lost control of Southern Italy, Sicily, Greece, Macedonia, and the Balkan Peninsula. The conflict continued with Leo III’s son, Constantine V, who persisted in the fight against images, developing a theological justification for iconoclasm.
The situation was resolved at the Second Council of Nicaea (787), convened by Empress Irene in agreement with Pope Adrian (772–795), although the council was not approved by the Synod of Frankfurt, convened by Charlemagne, who had been excluded from the conciliar decision-making process due to a misunderstanding.
 
The Second Phase (814–843)

The second phase of the iconoclastic controversy occurred under Leo V, who launched a new offensive against the veneration of images, attributing the Empire’s poor state to the relaxation of the struggle against images. Empress Theodora, like Irene, convened a new council in 843, which restored the veneration of images and established the Feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, still celebrated today on the first Sunday of Lent.

The Motivations of Iconoclasm

The motivations behind iconoclasm were rooted not only in Exodus 20:4 and Deuteronomy 4:15, which prohibit the worship of images, but also in Jewish and Islamic cultures, which viewed images as a violation of God’s transcendence, asserting that He cannot be represented. Additionally, early Church tradition was opposed to images, and bishops feared a return to idolatry and paganism.
These reasons found theological support at the Council of Hieria (754).
Opposing the iconoclast position, John of Damascus emphasized the important distinction between “adoration,” reserved for God alone, and “veneration,” due only to the saints.
It was also highlighted that, through the Incarnation, God Himself took on the image of man, and thus, humanity is permitted to use images in worship, which, far from containing or representing divinity, instead point toward it.

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta