First Century Where should the history of the church begin? An obvious date is the birth of Jesus, the founder of Christianity. A realistic date is Pentecost. The world into which Jesus was born: Politically and culturally, the Greco Roman world. Racially religiously the Jewish world. What do we know about Jesus historically? No one doubts that he was a historical person. But like Socrates, Jesus did not write anything. Precisely what Jesus said, did or believed, is not known to us. The Christian sources about him are the books of the New Testament which were composed, in the second half of the first century, many years after his death. Their authors were not composing history but were writing as believers in Jesus. There are few non Christian sources: Flavius Josephus (37/38-110/120) Jewish historian: There are references to John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus and Jesus himself in his book Jewish Antiquities published around AD 90. Concerning the stoning of James in AD 62 he says: "So he convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned." Gaius Plinius II, was the Roman governor in Bythinia, a Roman province in Asia Minor. In 112 Plinius sends a letter to the emperor Trajan in which he states how he treats the Christians and asks the emperor for advice. He says that although the Christians were not guilty of any serious crime, it is a perverse and extravagant superstition. They refuse to worship the emperor and otherwise they seem merely to have recited by turns a form of words to "Christ as a god". Cornelius Tacitus, the great Roman historian writes about the great fire of Rome in AD 64 the blame for which Nero put on a class hated for their abominations, called the Christians by the populace. He says. "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a deadly superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the source of the evil, but also in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world meet and become popular." When was he born? We have today the Common Era or Christian Era which divides time into two periods: the period before the birth of Jesus and after the birth of Jesus (AD and BC). It was first calculated by Dionysius Exiguus a monk who lived in the 6th century. While devising a new Easter Calendar he said in 525 that it was calculated from the year of the incarnation of the Lord but did not give any precise date for the incarnation. But today historians say that the birth of Jesus might have been between 7-4 BCE. Herod the Great who ordered the massacre of the innocent children died in 4 BC and the occasion for it was the birth of Jesus and therefore he would have born before the death of Herod.

1

His ministry, death and resurrection: subjects to be studied as part of the study of the New Testament. The church began on Pentecost (Pentecost means the fiftieth day), fifty days after Christ’s ascension into heaven according to the acts of the apostles. The holy spirit descended upon the disciples gathered together in Jerusalem and transformed them into a group of courageous people and an enduring church (Acts 2,1-4 and 41-42) The period from Pentecost to the death of john the evangelist, the last apostle to die, is called the apostolic age. And therefore, the first century of church history is the apostolic age, the age of the apostles, when at lEast one apostle of Jesus was alive. The sources are the New Testament books, principally the acts of the apostles and the letters of Paul and some extra biblical sources. The Acts is essentially an historical work though with an apologetic purpose. It speaks of the early spread of the church. The nationalities mentioned in the account of the Pentecost is not surprising because these were the places where the diaspora Jews lived and to where Christianity later spread. The situation in the Roman empire was also favourable because of the Pax Romana. Three things that deserve our attention in the first half of the first century and the early parts of the Acts of the Apostles are the first martyrdoms, the conversion of Paul and the Council of Jerusalem. The first martyrs The earliest Christian community consisted of a group of ordinary Jewish men and women who expected the second coming of Jesus in the near future. They differed from the other Jews only on two counts: in their belief that Jesus is the Messiah and saviour of the world, and in their claim to be the “New Israel.” Otherwise they continued to be Jewish in their life and beliefs, observing Jewish rules and regulations in their social and religious life. They expressed this difference through two distinguishing rituals: Baptism and the Breaking of the Bread or the Eucharist, the first and two most important sacraments of the Christians. However, their extraordinary claims and distinguishing rituals also gave rise to enmity between Jews and Christians. Around 33 Stephen, one of the prominent members of the community of Jerusalem, was stoned to death for his faith by his Jewish compatriots (Acts 7.55-60). Around 42 James the Elder, the head of the Jerusalem community was executed by Herod Agrippa at the instigation of the Jewish leaders (Acts 12.2). Conversion of Paul A new important phase in the history of Christianity began with the conversion of Paul (Saul) of Tarsus, a Pharisee by birth. Paul was born sometime at the beginning of the Christian Era. While on his way to arrest Christians whom he viewed as a heretical sect dangerous to Judaism, Paul had a vision of the risen Christ, was converted to Christianity (around 34 CE), and became one of its preeminent missionaries (Acts 9). Through his famous missionary journeys (45-47, 50-52, 53-58 CE) and untiring work for the communities he founded, Christianity rapidly spread and was firmly established in many parts of the empire: Asia Minor, Egypt, Greece, and Rome itself, where a Christian community seemed to have existed already around 57 CE. It was Paul who introduced the first major change into Christianity, namely, the transition from Jewish to Hellenistic Christianity, its opening up to non-Jews, and consequently its complete separation 2

from Judaism. The movement to the gentiles had already taken place in a small way. The chamberlain of the Queen of Ethiopia baptized by Philip - Acts 8:26-39; the conversion of Cornelius - Acts 10:1-11:18; Peter's justification of his action in Acts 11. A community at Antioch according to Acts 11:19ff where the disciples were called Christians for the first time. It consisted of non Jews. But it was Paul who gave a theological justification for it and made it an official policy of the church. Council of Jerusalem It is in this context that the Council of Jerusalem (around 50 CE) becomes important. At this council Paul rejected the idea that non-Jews should keep the Jewish Law in order to become Christians. This was the first authentic “inculturation” of Christianity and the beginning of a separate identity for the Christians. This contributed greatly to the establishment of Christianity in the Roman empire and was decisively important for the success of Christianity as a world religion. Thus from the beginning the church had a participatory structure in the form of synods and councils and it was very important in subsequent centuries where councils would settle many major disputes in the church Persecutions In the second half of the first century, persecution by Nero (64) and Domitian (93-96). The persecutions which would continue till the beginning of the fourth century show that there was an opposition building up against the church. The prominent martyrs during the persecution of Nero were Peter and Paul. Neither Peter’s ministry nor his death is recorded in the Acts. Two letters written by Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch at the turn of the century just before or after the year 100 refer to Peter’s presence and death in Rome. Later church fathers like Tertullian and Eusebius mention other details like his crucifixion and his death at the hands of Nero around 64. For the presence of his tomb which is the site of the St. Peter’s basilica of today, we rely on the letter of Proclus written in 200 which is quoted by Eusebius which says that the trophy of Peter which meant his burial place or tomb is on the Vatican hill. Constantine took much trouble to place his new church on this hill which people say is because he wanted it to be on the tomb of peter. Later archaeologists confirmed the existence of a tomb under the basilica of St peter. For Paul, the Acts mention the captivity of Paul in Rome not of his death. However, again the letters of Clement Rome and Ignatius of Antioch record the death of Paul alongside that of Peter. Tertullain mentions that he was beheaded. It also is usually assigned to the Neronian persecution. His tomb is in the church of St. Pauls outside the walls in Rome. Clement of Rome was supposed to be the third successor of Peter in Rome (According to tradition Peter was the first bishop of Rome, and so the first pope), and he wrote a letter to the church of Corinth in 96, a remarkable initiative to advise the church of Corinth to keep order and discipline. It is often cited in support of the beginning or Roman primacy. It is in this letter that we find the first mention of a distinction between clergy and laity. Most of the books of the New Testament were written by the end of the first century although the canon was finalized only in the third century.

3

Emperor Tacitus destroyed the Jerusalem in 70 Ad as a result of the Jewish uprising there in 6670. According to tradition Christianity also spread outside the Roman empire, to Persia, and India in the first century itself. Who were the Christians of the first century? Their social horizon: There are three points that we have to keep in mind regarding the social horizon of the early Christian community. First, they were Jews, born in the sphere of hellenistic Palestinian culture. Second, they belonged to the lower classes, fishermen, peasants, craftsmen, people, who had little political power. They formed a small, weak, and marginal group of the society. Third, they were men and women (Lk 8:1-8). There were women who gave financial support to Jesus and his followers and who followed him to Jerusalem. The practice of also calling women disciples was unconventional and undermined existing patriarchal structures. Jesus addressed his message to the poor, those who suffered, those who were downtrodden and marginalized. The word poor (anawim) is to be understood in a comprehensive sense denoting the oppressed, the afflicted, the failures, the despairing, the wretched, not necessarily the materially poor only. Jesus did not advocate the dispossession of the rich or advocate communism. His priMary objective was not economical but the Kingdom of God. There must have been some followers of Jesus who were rich. The Spiritual Horizon Its spiritual horizon of the first Christians was apocalyptic, (meaning unveiling, revelation), eschatological. They expected the end of the world. They were influenced by this movement which had become strong since the time of the Maccabees in the second century BC. The characteristic of this movement was a concern with the future which they interpreted in the form of prophecies, dreams, and visions. This future would be brought about by God and his intervention through his messiah, the Son of Man (Daniel). The Kingdom of God would be established in this world by the Messiah. Jesus lived in this climate, although there is disagreement as to whether he claimed to be the Son of Man. He was influenced by the apocalyptic expectation of the end time. He expected the Kingdom of God in the imminent future. In fact, the end time had already begun with him. However, he never speculated about the precise date of the end of the world. The earliest community also was influenced by this. Their views on sexuality, marriage, prayer, asceticism, life and death etc. were set against this horizon. Thus the earliest Christians had elements from both. With the Jews they shared the belief in the One God of the fathers. held fast to the holy scriptures observed the law, circumcision, sabbath, festivals, regulations about purity and food. visited the temple, sacrificed and prayed.

4

But differed from Jewish faith in their belief in the lord Jesus, dead and risen, the anointed (Christ) of God, messiah, prophet, king, who was the fulfilment of the OT. His community is the new Israel. Salvation comes only through him. He was given Jewish honorific titles like Son of David, Son of Man, Messiah, Christ, Son of God etc. What distinguished the community? Baptism, the rite of initiation. It was a Jewish ceremony though Jesus himself did not practice baptism nor institute a rite of baptism. But the community now felt empowered to baptize in the name of Jesus and his message, in remembrance of his baptism by John. Baptism would be given in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit. What held the community together? The breaking of the bread - the celebration of a meal. Whether Jesus himself formally instituted the ritual of the Eucharist and told his disciples to repeat it is debated. The earliest gospel, the gospel of Mark does not contain the words, do this in memory of me. But Jesus celebrated a farewell meal with his disciples. It was a Jewish passover meal and Jesus knew that he was going to die and gave a new interpretation to this passover meal. This was observed by the Christian community, as a memorial and as a thanksgiving for the redemptive work of Jesus. It was called the Lord's supper and the Eucharist. It was a meal and an agape. Later on the meal was separated because of abuses as we read in Paul's letter to the Corinthians. Thus baptism and the Eucharist were the two basic symbols of the new community. What structures did it have? They had provisional structures. Jesus did not found a religious organization and did not institute structures for it. His was an eschatological movement. The Twelve with Peter as the head was a symbolic number with reference to Israel. But Jesus wanted his message to be preached all over the world and for that the community saw itself empowered to develop some structures. Already in the Acts of the Apostles there is the first provisional structure of the Seven deacons (Acts 6:1-2). It is a new office which the apostles introduced. They did not say Jesus instituted the 12 and that is enough. There were also other offices in the early church, for example. Apostles: not just the twelve but all those who proclaimed the message of Christ, founded and led communities, who were considered primal witnesses and messengers. Paul and Barnabas are considered apostles. Prophets - Acts 11:27; 15:32; and Prophetesses - Acts 21:9 Evangelists - Acts 21:8 Elders - Acts 11:30; 15:4 Teachers - 1 Cor. 1:28

5

And several other offices are mentioned in the New Testament. So there is no evidence of a uniform, prescribed structure in the NT church. There is no mention of the hierarchical structure of the later church, bishop, priest, deacon in the Acts and the letters of Paul. Role of Women Women constituted an integral part of this community. Jesus had women disciples. Women played a considerably important role in the earliest community. In the earliest community, there was a praxis of equality and the involvement of all, both male and female disciples. But how far they were itinerant preachers or exercised leadership in communities cannot be proved from existing sources. In Chapter 16 of Romans Paul mentions several women who are named his coworkers. Second Century Political challenges to Christianity Persecution remains one of the central themes of the church also in the second and third centuries. First of all most persecutions were intermittent and confined to particular regions. But they had a profound influence on the history of Christianity. Many people suffered grievously. Secondly, the church could not have a normal form of church life, for example, it could not build churches and church life was restricted in many ways. The life and death of the martyrs affected the history of Christianity ever since. The Christian ideal embodied in the heroism of the martyrs greatly enriched the church. Many of the persecutions were conducted by Roman emperors. The attitudes of these emperors varied considerably. For example, Nero had ordered a fierce and open persecution whereas Trajan in 112 said that persecution has to be a last resort. During Trajans (98-117) rule Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome suffered death. His successors Hadrian (117-38) and Antonius (138-61) were tolerant rulers even though it was perhaps during the time of the latter that Polycarp of Smyrna and eleven companions were killed. The next persecution was the one by Marcus Aurelius (161-180) and Justin Martyr and the martyrs of Lyons (48 Christians) suffered death. During the persecution of Septimus Severus (193-211) Perpetua and Feliciti suffered death who are remembered even today in the Roman canon. Some reasons why the Christians were persecuted 1. Threatened the unity of the empire. This was the accusation levelled against Christians by the followers of traditional religions. They considered the Christians atheists since they rejected the official religion, the emperor cult. Origen with his combination of faith and science, philosophy and theology had achieved a theological and cultural shift. The empire now feared that there would be a political shift and that the Christians would take over the empire. 2. Christians claimed absolute truth, universally valid thus claiming exclusivism and universalism. (Acts 4:11). 3. They cut themselves off from their surroundings. No military service, no sports. The Romans considered them enemies of classical culture. 4. Enmity of the Jews and Romans and this disturbed religious peace. 5. The false propaganda that they were secretive, immoral, and that they angered the gods. 6

The martyrs came from all walks of life. Men and women, young and old, slaves and soldiers, wives husbands, bishops and popes. We do not know precisely how many individuals died; those who have been mentioned are perhaps only a fraction. Secondly, there is nothing exceptional in the number of Christian martyrs. Life in the Roman empire was brutal in many respects and capital punishment was frequent and other religious groups were also targeted, for example the Jews and the Manichaeans. The tragedy is that Christians who became the rulers later were as intolerant as the Romans, for example the centuries long anti-Semitism all over Europe. One explanation was life was more communitarian than individual and religious dissidence was considered an affront to the whole community and not a personal matter and therefore dissidence was not tolerated. Another form of challenge to the church was intellectual The first such challenge came from intellectuals, like the Roman writers, Lucian and Celsus, who tried to show that Christianity was a contemptible faith. They ridiculed the Christians and spread calumny against them. Celsus in his work, True Doctine (178) ridiculed the Christians for their reliance on faith and doctrine ("Some do not even want to give or to receive a reason for what they believe, and use such expressions as Do not ask questions; just believe, and thy Faith will save thee."). He charged them to be unprofitable members of the society, a religion for weaklings, women, and slaves. His famous question: "Why on earth this preference for sinners?" They broke the order of society, abandoned the traditional religion, and did not help the emperor fight against Rome's enemies. Christians were enemies of the empire by destroying its unity by introducing another religion. Traditional religions are necessary for the survival of the empire. They refuted Christian doctrines such as monotheism, revelation, creation, incarnation, resurrection, redemption etc. Christianity was a religion of the stupid and of stupidity. Other accusations were that the Christians practised incest (because of the secret meetings), cannibalism (because of the Eucharist) etc. Another intellectual threat was Gnosticism. It was one of the greatest religious movements of late antiquity which promised redemptive knowledge (gnosis). It originated between 2nd and 4th centuries. A mixture of many religious traditions - occultism, oriental mysticism, Judaism, Christianity, hellenistic philosophy etc. From 1945-48 in the desert of upper Egypt near the present Town of Nag Hammadi, a discovery of a collection of gnostic and non-gnostic manuscripts were made, 13 volumes with 51 works. There were Christian gnostics and non-Christian gnostics. The writings of Paul and John contain references to gnosticism as a threat to Christianity. Gnosticism was concerned with the origin of evil and with knowledge as the means of salvation. It took a dualistic stance. It took an anticosmic stance, a negative evaluation of the material world. It speaks of a Fall in the divine world as a result of which matter came into existence and a Demiurge (an inferior divine being) created the world. 7

However, some of the pure spiritual nature, a spark of the divine was planted in some souls. A redeemer came from the divine world to reveal the way of escape out of the material world for the souls with the divine spark. This is gnosis, a revealed insight into the nature of things. The soul must pass through the realms of the world rulers (archons) This is easily possible for a group of elect. The majority of humanity has no hope The journey back to the divine is assisted by asceticism, sexual abstinence etc. So it advocates powerful determinism So we see a preoccupation with the problem of evil, sense of alienation from the world, desire for a special and intimate knowledge of the secrets of the universe (knowledge is salvation), dualism, both ethical - good and evil, eschatological - this age and the age to come and psychological - body and soul; an evolutionary and devolutionary cosmology; a graded anthropology that groups human beings into different fixed categories (the pneumatics or spirituals who had the divine spark in themselves and were destined for salvation, the psychics who could be saved by the ministrations of the church and good works, and the hylics who belonged to the material world and were hopelessly lost); a radically realized eschatology and personal salvation; asceticism; rejection of the hierarchy and ecclesiastical structures, giving leadership roles for women etc. There was an effort to integrate Christianity with gnosticism and to make it an elitist faith because many believed that Christianity was a simplistic religion with simplistic doctrines like biological virgin birth, bodily resurrection, etc. Some found in this sophisticated system of particular revelation, myths, secret tradition etc. something better than the simple gospel truths and the Christian rites. It posed a challenge to Christianity by mythologizing Christianity negating its historical origin, by advocating hostility to the world, extreme asceticism, hostility to sex, and by posing the threat of syncretism. A third intellectual challenge came from Christians themselves in the form of heresies. A heresy is any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs or customs. The term heresy is from Greek αἵρεσις originally meant "choice", Heresy was later redefined by the Catholic Church as a belief that conflicted with established Catholic dogma. Already the NT speaks of the Judaizers who advocated the mosaic law for Christians. The Ebionites denied the divinity of Christ. Marcion d. 160 was the son of the bishop of Pontus. He was a semi-gnostic, he made a distinction between of the God the OT and the NT. He said that the Church must purify herself from contamination from Judaism. The God of the OT, the wrathful God created the world. From the NT writings he accepted only Paul and Luke. 8

Montanism: Montanus began preaching an apocalyptic message around AD 170. He said that Christ would come soon and that the end of the world was near. A charismatic, he wanted to bring back the church to its initial purity. He did not recognize the hierarchy. The Church's Reaction Development of Christian literature and the church’s theology. Some of them wrote precisely for defending the church like the apologists. Others through their writings defended the church and proposed the catholic doctrine which is the foundation of Christian theology. Others wrote for spiritual purposes to encourage the community. Still others codified the church’s rules. But one thing to note is that in the defence of Christianity some fathers used more than the bible but the Greek philosophy, like Justin martyr, Origen etc., and this led to the hellenization of christinaity. That was a danger but that saved the church at that time. In any case they      

rejected syncretism and argued for an independent theological, moral and spiritual profile of the church They defended monotheism and rejected the idea of a malicious God. They rejected the idea of private revelation and said that the age of private revelation was over with the death of the last apostle and that God was encountered in the normal ministry of Word and Sacrament. They rejected the idea that Jesus was a demiurge They emphasized the biblical prescription of love and compassion rather than secret knowledge They rejected both libertinism and extreme asceticism, rejected hostility towards the world and sexuality but at the same time, not succumbing to the world.

Against heretics or disunity within the church the church formulated the three Regulators The Rule of Faith, the Canon of the Bible, and the monarchical episcopate. The rule of faith was the confession of faith made at baptism. It was a confession of the trinitarian God, belief in the Father, Son, and the Spirit which gave birth to the creed and from which also developed the trinitarian and Christological dogmas. Since the gnostics emphasized private revelation, it challenged the authority of the scriptures. Therefore the Canon of the Bible was fixed between AD 170-220. The OT was retained. The canonical books of the NT were set apart. The third regulator was the monarchial episcopate. The bishops were now made guarantors of the apostolic tradition. The idea of Apostolic succession of bishops was introduced in order to stress apostolic tradition. Thus the word Tradition. The words apostolic tradition and apostolic succession are important. Apostolic tradition is the faith of the apostles. Irenaeus claimed that apostolic tradition is preserved in the church of Rome and thus giving a boost to Roman primacy. But a jurisdictional primacy was not part of the self understanding of the church of that time.

9

Secondly Irenaeus proposed the monarchical episcopate as the guarantor of apostolic succession in the church. The bishops were considered to be the successors of the apostles. This needs a little clarification. How did monepiscopacy and the hierarchical structure of bishop-priests-deacons come into existence? The earliest Christians expected the imminent end of the world - it was an eschatological community. However this concern slowly declined and the need for some organization arose. Moreover, large number of Christians too and the need for order and structures. It takes a definite shape in the 2 nd century. Jesus ministry was centered around the kingdom of God. (1) He had 12 close disciples - a symbolic number, with reference to Israel. They shared in the ministry of Jesus. They were sent out by him to preach during his life time. Whether they founded communities, were local church leaders, whether they ordained people, whether they ever went out of Palestine is not known for sure. Their’s was an unrepeatable function. But they were involved in decision making and pastoral jurisdiction in the Jerusalem community. (2) Apostles is a more general term. Jesus never called the twelve apostles. "12 Apostles" is a Lukan concept. An apostle is a messenger. Paul identifies an apostle as a witness to the resurrection/one who has seen the risen Lord, in order to justify his own apostleship. However, he speaks of other apostles in his letters although they probably did not see the risen Lord: for Eg., I Thessalonians 2:6; Rom 16:7. In the early church, apostleship was a ministry. Romans 16:7. (3) They instituted the ministry of Deacons - Acts 6:6. (4) There were Evangelists - Acts 21:8. (5) There were Prophets and Teachers - Acts 13:1-3 (6) Prophetesses - Acts 21:9 (7) Elders or Presbyters - Acts 11:30, 14:23, 15:6 In the Pauline communities There were Bishops and deacons in Philippi - Phi. 1:1 In Corinth - the whole community, charismatic gifts - I Cor 12:28. Pastoral letters - Bishops and Deacons I Tim 3:1ff; Presbyters I Tim 5:17; Presbyters and bishops Titus 1:5, 7. These two terms might have been synonymous. I Tim 3:11 - some women in ministry I Tim 5:9 - ministry of widows 10

Rom 16:1 - ministry of deaconess. Timothy and Titus are not called bishops but evangelists - II Tim 4:5. Ignatius of Antioch around AD 110 speaks for the first time about one single bishop, a group of presbyters, and deacons. Slowly this form takes precedence over others. Of course, there was need for organization. Ignatius of Antioch found monarchical episcopate the best solution and gave a theological justification for it. The importance of the See of Antioch gave it wider acceptance. His theological justification we read in his letter to the Smyrnaeans: "Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your presbyters, too, as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command from God. Make sure that no step affecting the church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop's sanction...Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is present, we have the catholic church... you have only to acknowledge God and the bishop, and all is well. It is from this importance attached to the position of the bishop that the concept of apostolic succession or the idea that bishops are successors of the 12 apostles developed by Irenaeus of Lyons. How should it be understood? Literally or symbolically? First of all, we have said that the term apostle was a general term. They were founders of churches, not necessarily one of the 12. Apostolic succession basically means not a succession of particular officials but a succession of the apostolic testimony, apostolic tradition, apostolic faith. So the apostolic succession of bishops cannot be understood literally in the sense that the bishops are in a direct and exclusive sense the successors of the 12 apostles or the apostles in general. We have no evidence to show that they ordained and appointed successors in an unbroken succession. An uninterrupted laying on of hands from the apostles of the early church to the bishops of today cannot be demonstrated historically although such lists were produced later on, for example by Irenaeus of Lyons of the church of Rome to show its apostolicity deriving from Peter himself reaching up to the year 168. Apostolic succession should be understood functionally, in preserving the apostolic tradition, in leading and founding communities, but always rooted in the proclamation of the gospel. We can accept the monarchichal church order as a legitimate development which took place as a result of the paradigm shift from Judaeo-Christian to the hellenistic paradigm. It as a legitimate historical development. What is unhistorical is to say that it rests on divine institution or that is directly instituted by Jesus Christ. Jesus instituted only one ministry, the ministry of service - Mk 10:43. The institutionalization of this ministry took place because of the delay of the parousia. There was a need to preserve the relationship with the origin. So the principle of apostolic succession was developed, not only of faith but also of ministry.

11

Third Century

The third century presents before us a church on the path to consolidation in every aspect but at the same time facing the last attempts of the Roman empire to contain it. The first empire wide persecution began under Decius (249-251) and continued under Valerian (253-260). Valerian's edict of 258 introduced death penalty for bishops, priests, deacons, and Christian senators, and confiscation of property and exile for prominent women. There were prominent martyrs like Cyprian of Carthage, Lawrence. After a lull, with Diocletian (285-305) the last of the persecutions began lasting into the early fourth century until Constantine stopped it for ever. But this did not stop the consolidation of the church in other fronts. Christianity was firmly established in the major cities of the empire and also outside. Outside the Roman empire Armenia became the first kingdom to officially accept Christianity as its state religion. The authority of the bishop of Rome grew beyond the city of Rome although not without opposition. Clement of Rome who is according to tradition the third successor of St. Peter wrote a letter to the church of Corinth in Ad 96 urging the Christians to keep unity because some people had revolted against the presbyters. Bishop Victor of Rome (189-98) demanded that all churches keep the date of Easter according to the tradition of the Roman church since there was no uniform pattern (some churches on the 14th of Nissan whether s Sunday or not while Rome and some churches the Sunday following the 14th of Nissan) and he threatened the other churches with excommunication although it was not implemented. Pope Stephen I (254-257) ruled on two contentious issues in the early church, the return to their dioceses of bishops who had apostatized during persecution and the validity of baptism given by heretics saying that the church should be soft on these issues but the position was rejected by the African church led by Cyprian of Carthage. Cyprian rejected jurisdictional Roman primacy and said that the church was founded on the bishop because Stephen had used for the first time Matthew 16.18 to claim primacy for the bishop of Rome. In the second case we see pope Dionysius (260-268) intervenes in a theological controversy in Alexandria and suggests to the bishop there the use of the word homoousios (consubstantial) to denote the relationship of the son to the father, a term which was later adopted by the council of Nicaea. It shows that the bishop of Rome had from an early period shown an interest in the affairs of other churches. All these and many other instances showed that the bishop of Rome showed an increasingly distinct awareness of duty and corresponding claim to leadership within the communion of churches. He takes initiatives in the domain of doctrine and jurisdiction. The Roman church claims some preeminence. Of course the church of Rome had a privileged position because it was the capital of the empire, it was one of the oldest churches, large and prosperous. It had the tombs of the two greatest apostles Peter and Paul and it thus was supposed to be the place where the apostolic tradition was kept in its purity and it was known for its charitable activities. And now with bishop Stephen there is the claim that he is the successor of Peter. Peter’s presence in Rome and his death although not attested by the New Testament is supported by a strong tradition by 12

church fathers like Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons. The basilica of St. Peter in Rome is supposed to have been built on the tomb of Peter. But still the other churches rejected any claim to jurisdiction by the bishop of Rome. The primacy was a primacy of honour and not jurisdiction. The concept was a communion of churches according to the self understanding of the churches at that time. The jurisdictional primacy of the pope reached its highest development at the First Vatican Council (1869-1870) when it was defined as a dogman together with papal infallibility. By the second half of the third century the church had developed a rather sophisticated organizational structure based principally on the diocese which is governed by a single bishop. The word diocese was a Roman administrative unit. In rank higher than the diocesan bishop was the metropolitan bishop who was the bishop of a large city who had some authority over the bishops of the area. Still above were the bishops of the three major cities, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, who were called patriarchs and two more were added later, Constantinople and Jerusalem which came to be called the Pentarchy. Priests and deacons assisted the bishop. Another institution was the councils and synods which were convoked frequently. It was a legitimate tradition in the structure and called to discuss thorny issues. There are records of such regional councils in Antioch and north Africa in the third century. But they are still not a universal institution. J.D. Mansi and others (eds.) Conciliorum preserves in 53 volumes the documents pertaining to all councils which are still available today. The second aspect is canon law. Every institution needs some laws and the church was no exception. It started as a guide or orientation in matters of liturgy, prayer, asceticism and obviously in legal matters. Two works are important from the early third century, Apostolic Tradition and Didascalia apostolorum. They contain for example, the rules regarding baptism and Eucharist, the core of the Roman canon is already there, ordination and duties of bishops, priests and deacons, marriage, rules for widows and deaconesses, rules for fasting and prayer, penance and reconciliation of sinners, etc. They were local rules and not meant for the universal church. Each church had their own rules and regulations. The later code of canon law had its foundation in these various codes. Christian life was centred on the Eucharist which was celebrated secretly in private houses for fear of persecution. Early Christian art is found in the catacombs of Rome. The most popular one is Jesus symbolized as a fish. The letters of the Greek word for fish ICHTHUS were taken to represent I(esus) Ch(ristos) Th(eou) U(ios) S(oter) Jesus Christ Son of God Saviour. There are other paintings referring to the Eucharist, loaves of bread, beakers of vine, men and women seated around a table etc. The catacombs were also burial places which was done with great care and devotion. Tombs of martyrs were places of pilgrimages and as a custom churches were built over them once the persecutions ended. The most important ones of course are of peter and paul. Baptism was administered to adults generally. In the third century, the fEast of Easter came to have the basic structure it has today, the Lenten fast, the Easter vigil, and the paschal season. Another important development was the development of the ascetical tradition in the church. Asceticism was considered a value in the church encouraged by Jesus and Paul and practised in the communities. The asceticism as a movement which developed into monasticism began with 13

the Hermit Antony of Egypt (251-356). From 270 he began life as a hermit in the Egyptian desert and this can be considered the beginning of monasticism in the church and Antony is called the father of Christian monasticism. Monasticism and later consecrated life as we have it today grew into very powerful institutions in the church in later centuries. Origins of Christian Monasticism Around the year 270, Anthony, a young Egyptian Christian of about twenty years old, heard the words of the Sunday gospel read in Coptic: “If you wish to be perfect, go and sell your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come and follow me” (Mt 19:21). He moved to a shed on the edge of his village, continued to share in public worship, and supported himself by making mats and baskets like many other older ascetics living there. Later Anthony moved out to the edge of the desert, developing a new model of strictly eremitical life, a model that many others soon came to imitate. St Anthony of Egypt (c. 250-356), as he is traditionally known, is regarded as the founder of Christian monasticism, the forerunner of all forms of consecrated life in Christianity. But taking a closer look, we will find that beginning the history of Christian monasticism with Anthony of Egypt is an oversimplification. He had merely joined others who were already living a life of “asceticism,” which existed in the Church from the beginning, evidences for which are present in the New Testament itself. What began with Anthony was the withdrawal of these ascetic men, and possibly women, into the deserts, that is, complete separation from family, the Christian community and the society at large, giving birth first to anchoritism or eremitism, and then to coenobitism, or monasticism proper. Till then these ascetics lived within the confines of their families and communities. What was the kind of asceticism practiced by these Christians? It was a freely chosen life of renunciation of most human comforts for the sake of Christ. They gave up marriage, ate minimum amount food, kept silence for most part of the day and did some manual work to earn enough money to support themselves. They contented themselves with a minimum of possessions and devoted themselves to prayer. Thus it was a life of maximum freedom from the distractions of the world so that they could move into themselves. This idealism was nourished also by the expectation of the imminent second coming Christ, and therefore, the need to live in constant vigilance. Then did not Paul say: “The appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the form of this world is passing away” (1 Cor 7:31). In the first three centuries these ascetics belonged to two major groups: 1. Wandering Ascetics: These were ascetics who did not belong to any community but itinerant preachers and missionaries after the model of the missionaries of the gospels, for example Lk 10:1-12, proclaiming the Kingdom of God, healing the sick, and instructing the people. During their journeys they lived in Christian homes as guests. The Didache, a popular piece of early Christian literature (c. 140) calls them prophets and the best missionaries of the Church. They visited especially those communities, which were among the non-Christians and catechized the people. But as the Church became organized under the bishop with fixed ministries, these ascetics lost their relevance but we have evidence to show that they continued to exist till the early Middle Ages although no more recognized and even bitterly fought off by the Church. They may be the 14

gyrovagi or gyratory monks whom the Rule of Benedict renounces for their wretched life style. However, this ascetic wandering for the sake of Christ and the Kingdom, the peregrinatio, would resurface later in other forms (in the peregrinatio of the Irish monks and the wandering preaching of the Mendicant Orders). 2. Community Ascetics: These ascetics lived in the Christian community and constituted its inner core and spiritual focal point. Mostly they lived in their families and built no communities for themselves. They lived as celibates, gave away their wealth to the poor or the community, and lived a simple life. Women were an integral part of this movement, especially, widows and virgins. The widows constituted the first group of consecrated persons recognized and institutionalized by the early Church (cfr. 1 Tim 5:3-12). Initially the deaconesses were chosen from among them. The office of deaconess was instituted for assisting the bishop in his ministry involving women; in the Eastern Church it was institutionalized through the laying on of hands. They seemed to have continued to exist till the fourth century and then became absorbed into the monastic life. The virgins were those who were consecrated and took the vow of chastity following Jesus’ call to virginity for the sake of the Kingdom (Mt 19:12). As a sign of consecration, the virgins wore a veil. Sometimes they lived in communities. Breaking with the vow was punished with excommunication. No such rite seems to have existed for men. This vowed life was an alternative way of life for many women in a society, which assigned no legitimate role for women outside of the married state. These ascetics received ample support from the Church Fathers from earliest times. The best examples of it in the first three centuries are Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) and Origen (c. 184-254). Clement of Alexandria’s concept of the “perfect Christian” whose goal is contemplation and unceasing union with the Godhead influenced monasticism considerably. Eusebius of Caesaria (c. 260-340), gives a good picture of Origen’s “philosophic” way of life which was very ascetic. Origen, one of the greatest theologians of the early Church, carried his asceticism too far by castrating himself by literally interpreting Mt 19:12. But he had tremendous influence on Egyptian monasticism and on the development of Christian monasticism and spirituality. From the middle of the 3rd century there began in Egypt, Palestine, Syria and Asia Minor the movement of these ascetics into the desert. Here the influence of Anthony seems to have been decisive. Thousands of people seemed to have moved into the desert in imitation of his way of life. Most of them lived in individual hermitages but some others created a group of hermitages protected by a wall, which came to be called lavra. From the lavras emerged the first monasteries proper, supposed to have been founded by another Egyptian, Pachomius (c. 287347) who also provided the first rule of Christian monasticism. Within a short time, it became some sort of a mass movement with thousands of men and women joining it. How did this come about? Why this interest in asceticism and monasticism? Are the roots of asceticism and monasticism Christian or non-Christian? Asceticism: Christian or Pre-Christian? Why did Christians give up marriage, abandon family, friends and the society and move into the desert maintaining that they were serving God by doing that? Of course Jesus had said: “No one who prefers father or mother to me is worthy of me. No one who prefers son or daughter to me is 15

worthy of me” (Mt 10:37). But neither Jesus nor the apostles lived a secluded life. On the contrary, they were always in the midst of people and their life. Paul admonished Christians to pray at all times (1 Thess 5:17) but he did not tell them to go to the desert to do it. But the hermits, monks and nuns insisted that their way life was the perfect way of following Jesus, although from his life they could show little to prove it. Moreover, we could ask: why did it take three centuries for this perfect way of following Christ to evolve in the Church if that was what Jesus intended? So the question automatically arises: are the ascetic and monastic ideals the fruits of the Hellenization of Christianity? In other words, is asceticism Christian or preChristian? Is it not correct to say that its entry into Christianity with its renunciation of the world and the body has adversely influenced the Christian ideal of the goodness of creation and of the human person? Has it not made the message of Jesus needlessly ascetic? Should we not seek the roots of Christian asceticism outside Christianity? Long before Christianity, cultures and religions of the world had practiced the ascetic ideal. The term is derived from the Greek askesis, meaning exercise, training. It was applied by the Greek philosophers to moral training, often with connotation of voluntary abstention from certain pleasures. It thus denotes practices employed to combat vices and develop virtues and the renunciation of various aspects of normal social life and comfort. It had a special place in the Indian religions, Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism. Pythagoras lived a very ascetical life. He and his disciples did not eat certain kinds of food, entertain any erotic relationships, and even excluded themselves often from the public view. Philosophy was the realization of the spirit and it was possible only through suppression of “matter” and its cravings. Socrates and Plato practiced asceticism without which virtue and true knowledge could not be attained. Aristotle added that only such a life could be called human. The Stoics and the Cynics advocated asceticism. All these philosophical schools believed that only an ascetic life enabled human beings to realize the spirit, the divine, in them, which was held prisoner by matter which was basically evil. Judaism also knew the ascetic ideal. Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BC-c. AD 50) in his De Vita Contemplativa describes the life of a group of pre-Christian Jewish ascetics known as the Therapeutae who were severe in their discipline and lived in seclusion near Alexandria. Once again our source is Eusebius’ History of the Church. Eusebius mistakenly thought that Philo was referring to Christian ascetics because their life seemed quite similar to the life of the Christian community described in Acts 2:42-44; 4:32-34. But from their extreme negativism towards the body for whose needs only some part of the night was reserved, we can easily recognize their non-Christian roots. Nowhere has the New Testament spoken of the body in such disparaging terms. Christianity does not know such radical body-soul dualism. The famous monastic writer of the fifth century John Cassian (c. 360-432) also referred to the Therapeutae as the first Christian monks basing himself on Eusebius’ erroneous assumption. From Judaism there emerged also the ascetic sect of the Essenes, originated in the second century BC and came to an end in the second century AD. They withdrew into the desert and had a highly organized community life in the Qumran caves near the Dead Sea, with severe restrictions on candidates, and with oaths of obedience and secrecy. They abstained from all but the simplest forms of earning their livelihood and insisted upon the most scrupulous carrying out of the Law. From the story of the Therapeutae and the Essenes we know that later Judaism had an ascetic tradition. 16

As far back as one can search into the history of religions in India, one finds men who are specialized in the practice of asceticism. The Hindus of India were one of the first to know and practice asceticism. Already the Vedas show the existence of monastic life connected with the social set up of the times. The best families entrusted the education of their sons to religious men and the boys lived a kind of monastic life with their masters in the forest for several years. They believed that through rigour of austerities (tapas) they were sharing in the divine creative power. These hermits of the forest, living with their disciples in ashrams could be considered the forerunners of the Desert Fathers of Christianity. There were also wandering ascetics, whom the Upanishads describe as renouncers (sanyasis) and mendicants (bhikus). Jainism was a monastic religion. Already by the time of the death of Mahavira about 486 BC, there were thousands of men and women who had forsaken everything to become monks and (sadhvis – women ascetics) and practiced extreme asceticism. Buddha, who after his enlightenment set out to preach his doctrine of Dharma, was no different from the numerous wandering ascetics, who with a train of monks travelled the roads of India. This developed into an elaborate monastic life style, which remains attractive even today. Buddha wanted his monks and nuns to follow the middle path: neither the extreme asceticism of the sanyasis of the Jains nor the sacrificial ritualism of the Brahmins, but the path of nonviolence, chastity and poverty as against the capital sins of hatred, passion, self-indulgence. The bhikshu was to discipline himself accordingly. Several schools Buddhist monasticism have hence developed. We have no direct evidence to show that Christian monasticism was influenced by Indian religions. But there existed knowledge of these religions in the West. Clement of Alexandria mentions the Buddha in his Stromata, in fact the first reference to the Buddha in Christian sources, already around the year 200. The Gnostics belonged to a radically ascetical sect. Its adherents almost hated the material world as the creation of an evil god and the human body as a prison, which held the soul captive. Nothing was higher than a celibate life. Asceticism was very much stressed in the Persian Gnostic sect of Manichaeism. Sexuality was the villain in most of these Gnostic sects and hence marriage was normally put in a negative light. In the mystery cults of the Orient, too, some sort of asceticism was practiced. Christianity was considerably threatened by Gnosticism, which produced several Christian Gnostic sects, with heretical ideas. With the fixing of the canon of the Bible numerous writings with Gnostic influences were rejected by the Church. Compare them with the New Testament, and we will see how discerning the Church had been with regard to Gnostic asceticism. So Christianity was born into a world where asceticism and monasticism were taken for granted. They did not originate with Christianity. The whole question is: what influence did they have on Christian asceticism and its development? Did Christianity simply take over these non-Christian concepts wholly and uncritically? Has Christian asceticism an independent profile? Are there Christian sources of asceticism? Christian Roots of Asceticism According to John Cassian, the ascetic ideal in Christianity goes back to the New Testament, namely, to the ideal Christian community of Jerusalem depicted in Acts 2:42-44 and 4:32-34. “The whole group of believers was united heart and soul; no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, as everything they owned was held in common. None of their members was ever in want, as all those who owned land or houses would sell them and bring the money from 17

the sale of them to present it to the apostles; it was then distributed to any who might be in need” (Acts 4:32-34). This, according to Cassian, is real Christianity, Christianity without compromise; everything else is Christianity for a “discount,” a Christianity of concessions and compromises. Therefore, the monastic life is the real and original form of Christian life. According to Cassian, the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) is the beginning of the watering down of Christianity because here the first concession was made to the Hellenistic Christians. Of course this is difficult to accept. We have no evidence to show that such a community as depicted in the Acts ever existed. It is far more a theological construction of Luke who wanted to project an ideal Christian community. But these texts became one of the core texts of monasticism. Monastic writers began to see in them the radicality of the Christian faith as opposed to the laxity that had crept into the Church with the increase in the Christian population. Therefore, there was need to go back to the early Christian community and imitate it. There are also other texts in the New Testament, which call for radical renunciation as the expression of faith in the Kingdom of God and the following of Christ. It all begins with John the Baptist himself and his ascetic life style (Mt 3:1-4) and Jesus being led into the desert before his public ministry (Mt 4:1-2). Leaving everything and following Christ has its own price to pay (celibacy for the Kingdom in Mt 19:10-12) but also its rewards (Mt 19:29). The story of the rich young man and Jesus’ devastating answer to him to renounce everything and follow him (Mt 19,16-22) came to be seen as a personal invitation by many ascetics. The renunciation demanded from the missionaries in the mission commands in Mt 10, and Lk 10, and the conditions for following Christ in Mt 16:24 and Lk 9:23ff are a call for a life of hardship and suffering. Paul also advocated celibacy for the sake of the Gospel. So renunciation is clearly presented as a sign of faith in the Kingdom of God and not merely as a functional value. But renunciation was only a first step in the spiritual journey of the monk. His ultimate goal was union with God. But man’s predicament since the First Fall made the journey to God difficult. Original Sin had left man’s reason darkened and his senses in disorder. Human passions choked the life of the spirit. Thus the real life of the Kingdom could only be realized by the continual mortification of the natural appetites and the purification of the mind. This was best achieved by solitude and continual prayer. In other words, according to the New Testament, there is a clear spiritual motivation for renunciation and asceticism. But it is also a call, a special vocation. “Let anyone accept this who can.” (Mt 19:12). “By human resources, he told them, this is impossible; but for God everything is possible” (Mt 19:26). In conclusion, Christian preaching with its high moral standards, call for a virtuous life, conversion, repentance and prayer, did not fall into a barren land but on the soil watered and nourished by the Greco-Roman ascetic tradition, which might have been influenced by other religious traditions from the East, like Hinduism and Buddhism. The Greco-Roman world was not a totally permissive or morally decadent culture as some have thought it to be, but a spiritually dynamic one where the ascetic ideal was taken for granted. But surely there was bound to arise conflicts between the non-Christian and Christian ideals and there was constant need for discernment. There was the need to Christianize what was not Christian and to enrich the Christian ideal with elements from the non-Christian. There was need to keep asceticism balanced and integrated into the life of the Church and reject all forms of absoltization and extreme forms of asceticism.

18

So the Church condemned the Encratites (a title applied to several groups of early Christians who carried their ascetic practices and doctrines to extremes which were considered heretical), who said that only the ascetic is a true Christian und rejected marriage and did not eat meat or dank wine. They would not take part in the Eucharist if it was celebrated by married men. The Church saw that the danger with such absolutization was that asceticism is made an end in itself and salvation is seen not as the work of God, but the reward of human work. Hieracas of Leontopolis (around 300) who gathered a group of ascetics around him was condemned for rejecting marriage for Christians. It was necessary in the time of the Old Testament, he maintained because it was necessary for the Messiah to be born; but after the coming of Christ it is neither necessary nor permissible. The real gospel is the gospel of continence and celibacy, and without them nobody can enter the Kingdom of God. He even said that children are not saved because they have not proved that they can live a life of celibacy and continence. In the East Syrian Church baptism was linked with full continence till the end of the 3 rd century, and so married people could only be catechumens. One can clearly see here the influence of Manichaeism, which originated in Persia. Eustathius of Sebaste from Asia minor (4th century) also rejected the Eucharist celebrated by married men, and as a sign of asceticism he and his followers always wore dirty clothes and hardly washed themselves. They fasted even on Sundays and maintained that nobody who had possessions would be saved. There were other bizarre forms of asceticism being practiced, which could be considered completely un-Christian and even inhuman. There were ascetics who rejected laughter in order to remind people about the seriousness of the human situation. Does not Lk 6:25 say after all: “Woe to all who laugh now”. Jesus had never laughed but the scripture says that he wept (Jn 11:35). There were others who rejected sleep as far as possible because the monk should live always in consciousness because when he is not in control of himself he is delivered into the hands of the devil. Then there were those who rejected washing and cleaning of their clothes and bodies. It is extremely difficult for us today to make any sense of this spirituality in dirt. The understanding of all these ascetics was that the Christian message is basically for a select group of ascetics and salvation is earned by ascetical practices and not by the grace of God. The Church’s struggle with these false forms of asceticism went on for centuries and it rejected all of them as un-Christian and inhuman. There was always a tension between the Christian ascetic ideal, which places it in the context of radical discipleship of Jesus, and the nonChristian, which emphasizes individual ascetic practices for freeing the spirit from the body/matter. There was always the danger of mixing up the two, which could lead to extreme forms of asceticism as mentioned above. Thus Church was very careful to fight off all degenerate forms of asceticism. Once such dangers were fought off, the ascetic ideal was fostered in the Church because it was considered to be part of a genuine Christian spirituality, in tune with the surrounding world. But its development in the Church seems to suggest that the balance had often been lost; the Christian ideal was often forgotten and the temptation to extreme forms of asceticism gained upper hand time and again (for example in the barbaric ascetic practices of Celtic monasticism). 19

Another danger was the preferential treatment given to these people in the Church, as if they belonged to a separate class altogether. This is specifically a non-Christian influence because it was precisely in these cultures that asceticism was seen as the prerogative of the elite and the best of the society: the learned, the philosopher, etc, who were considered to be different from ordinary people. The Church too seemed to have accepted this difference. This begins already with the Church Fathers who extolled these people and their virtues. Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258) called the ascetics the blossoms of the Mother Church. The Parable of the Sower in Matthew 13:4-23 was interpreted by him in such a way that hundred fold fruit was produced by the martyrs, sixty fold by the virgins, and thirty fold by the married people. For Jerome (c. 345420), the virgins produced hundred fold fruit, the widows sixty, and the married people thirty. This was indeed an endangering of the Christian ideal through asceticism by introducing division in the community of the Church. But the Church Fathers had also warning for the ascetics. They were the ones who were easily prone to create divisions (remember Martin Luther was a monk) because they often thought that others were not up to the mark. They were impatient with the Church and its “average” Christians. Many of the divisions in the early Church were created by rigourist groups: Christian Gnostics, Montanists (2nd half of the second century), Priscillianists (started by Priscillian around 370), Donatists (4th century) etc are examples of this. Ignatius of Antioch warned the celibate to consider his vocation as giving glory to God and not to himself. If he prides himself in his works or puts himself above the bishop he should be condemned. Two things are particularly demanded from the ascetics: humility and submission to the authority of the Church (bishop). Humility recognizes that his call is a grace and a charism, not based on personal merit. Benedict would call humility the chief virtue of a monk. Secondly, respect for the authority of the Church, especially the bishop, is an expression of humility because in the early Church bishops were often married. It demanded real humility from the part of the celibate monk to respect the bishop. The rules of monasticism of the early Church: rule of Pachomius, rule of Basil, rule of Benedict, rule of Augustine, rule of Caesarius of Arles, the Regula Magistri etc. were attempts to help the monks to go back to the gospel ideal of asceticism, to Christianize the non-Christian ideal as much as possible and to show that the call to asceticism is a grace, and not an opportunity to show oneself off. Its goal is the close following of Christ. One should accept this grace in humility and obedience and with respect for others who are not called to such a life. The same God has given the gifts in different measures to all and in everything Christians do, they are to be governed by the primary law of love. Thus far we have discussed the background of the origin of asceticism in the Church; now let us see why, where, and how these ascetics began the first monastic movements in the Church. Egyptian Monasticism The Anchorites and St. Anthony of Egypt Why did the flight of ascetics into the desert take place? We have no clear answer but some probable explanations. In the first place, it must have been one of the consequences of the growth in the number of Christians. One of the first places this happened was Egypt, the oldest civilization in Africa, and one of the oldest in the world. By the year 300 the whole country was Christianized. The Copts, the inhabitants of Egypt lived along the river Nile and within sight of most settlements was the desert. No wonder, when people wanted more solitude and silence, they 20

began to move into the desert. Earlier the ascetics were the centre of the community although without any fixed rule, but as the Church grew and different services and structures emerged, they felt left out and the community was no more the place where they could experience God. In the family, too, it was increasingly difficult to live the ideal because the temptation was too great to get involved in family matters and so there was the need for moving away and creating a world for themselves. Was it an anti-ecclesiastical and anti-hierarchical movement, a protest against the softening of the moral fibre of Christianity after Constantine gave freedom to the Church? This was the claim of Adolf Harnack (1851-1930). According to him, one fled not only the world in every sense of the word, but also the worldly Church. Cassian warned that the monk ought to flee women and bishops. That monks ought to flee women is easily understandable. But why bishops? It is a warning that monks are not to succumb to the temptation of seeking clerical office, not because he is against the Church but out of humility and a desire to bring spiritual help to others. It was a warning to prevent the domestication of monasticism. Neither Cassian himself nor the monk of later times was able to keep this rule. It would happen that most bishops, in course of time would be monks and most monks clerics. So there was no general anti-hierarchical attitude among monks although there would be conflicts either because the Church would try to control extreme forms of asceticism or the monks took sides in the doctrinal controversies of the time against Church authorities. The flight into the desert was possibly related also to the social situation in Egypt at that time. Egypt had become populous and exploitation of the poor by the rich and the powerful was rampant. Taxation and compulsory military service also made life difficult for many people. This might have motivated some to escape into the desert. Still others wanted to escape persecution. Still others found it an alternative form of martyrdom, chances for which had dwindled after the persecutions ended. Added to all the reasons, there must have been a more important motive for these “single combatants” as Benedict calls them, to retire into the desert. The desert is the place where one fights against the devil and encounters God because Jesus went into the desert to commune with God and to ward off the temptations of the devil. That is why Benedict calls them fighters. The desert is the place where the devil is supposed to have retired to after the triumph of Christianity. They had been driven out from all other places as Christianity was established all over. In the biography of Anthony of Egypt, Vita Antonii written by Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373), the devil complains that he has no place to go to and no weapon. Everywhere there are Christians and now even the desert is filled with monks. So the one who goes into the desert has to battle with the devil and face his temptations through prayer, fasting, and penance. Anthony of Egypt, the pioneer of this movement, was born in c. 251 and was converted through the listening to the gospel story about the rich young man (Mt 19:16-26); he gave away his wealth and started to live as an ascetic alone in a hut before his house. Surely he was not the first one to do this because according to the Vita, he put himself under the direction of an older ascetic. Around the year 285 he goes off into the desert and lives there for 20 years, alone in a hut, never coming out of it and constantly fighting with the demons. After 20 years some people forcibly opened the door of his hut and there came out Anthony filled with holiness and enthusiasm for God and his mysteries. Then for some time he is seen actively helping other hermits, fellow Christians and even non-Christians but around the year 313, he retires into the 21

desert once more, to the “Inner Mountain” and dies there in 356 at the age of 105 years. Two things are noticeable here. First, his continuous fight with the demons and second, the attraction his life had for the people. He is full of wisdom and knowledge that Christians and nonChristians alike flock to him. What Athanasius emphasizes in the biography is Anthony’s fight with the demons as if it is the main occupation of a hermit. For Athanasius the monk is primarily a fighter. But according to Anthony himself, as handed down in the Apophthegmata Patrum or Sayings of the Fathers (5th century), the desert is not merely a battlefield but a place of silence and spiritual experience. It is the place of separation from the world and union with. In fact, the devil has a positive function to perform for the monk, namely, to test him, so that he may not fall into arrogance and too much self-confidence. The primary focus of the desert motive is to show that it is the place of genuine encounter with God. The movement begun by Anthony is generally called anchoritism, from the Greek anachorein meaning to withdraw. The anchorites and anchoresses were people who withdrew from the world to live a solitary life of silence and prayer and mortification in search of God. It was also called eremitism (from the Greek eremia meaning desert) referring to Christians who began living a solitary life in the desert (hermits). The transition from wandering and community asceticism to anchoritism, which took place in Egypt was the first major step in the establishment of monasticism in Christianity. Following the example of Anthony many colonies of hermits sprang up in the deserts of Egypt from the beginning of the 4th century. The 4th century is the golden age of Egyptian monasticism. In the next century, barbarian invasions destroyed many important colonies of monks and with that the next form of monasticism emerged, namely, coenobitism, or community life of monks. The transition was natural. Already during Anthony’s life time monks grouped themselves either in semi-eremitical communities. It was simply practical. They had to gather for worship in a Church or around a priest. They had to earn their living by work and sell their products, which was best done in groups. They also needed the guidance of an Abba or a senior hermit, and often this also brought monks into contact with each other. Popularly called lavras (literally street or alley), some of these monastic colonies had as many as 5000 monks. Pachomius and Coenobitism. The lavras mitigated some of the difficulties of eremitical life but could not avoid them altogether. So the initiative toward a complete community life was taken by Pachomius (c. 290346) who founded his first community in 320/25 in Tabennisi in the Thebaid in southern Egypt. The reason was not the rejection of eremitism but its dangers. Coenobitism emphasized the ageold maxim that only those who can live with other human beings can live alone, and the fundamental Christian principle is loving service of one’s neighbour. Pachomius realized that only a few are able to live the kind of life that is demanded by eremitism. Very often it led to competition and showing off of one’s abilities. And as St Basil, another champion of coenobitism, asked, living alone, whose feet would the monks wash or how would they practise love of neighbour alone? Therefore Pachomius introduced community living for monks. This came to be called coenobitism (from the Greek koinos and bios, meaning living in a community).

22

According to an anonymous book, Life of Pachomius, Pachomius was converted because he experienced the love of neighbour practiced by Christians during a journey through the Nile as a forced conscript. They were being brought down the Nile halting at night in military camps and prisons. At the prison of Antinoe, Christians of the neighbourhood came and offered food and drink to the poor young men who were without both. Pachomius asked for the reason and he was told that they were Christians. He was converted and became the disciple of a holy ascetic Palaemon, an aged anchorite, to be trained in the monastic life. One day while meditating, Pachomius wandered until he found himself in an abandoned village called Tabennisi and there he heard a voice speak to him: “Dwell in this place and build a monastery for many will come to you”. That is how, it is said, he began the first community of monks, or coenobitic monasticism, which can be called monasticism proper. Fact and fiction are much confused in the life of many great personalities of early times and Pachomius is no exception. But Pachomius introduced a major paradigm shift in monasticism. The anchorites needed some form of community but it was out of necessity, as a mere help for their individual life. But the coenobites see community and service in the community as the proper goals of monasticism, after the example of the ideal Christian community of Acts of the Apostles (2:42-44; 4:32-34) where the believers were of one heart and one soul. Life in the Pachomian community was regulated by a rule. The monastery of Pachomius was a large place protected from the outside world. There were many houses where monks lived according to the kind of work they did. All did some form of manual work and through the sale of their produce they lived. When someone wished to join the community he came to the entrance and made known his wish to the receptionist who was also the novice master. He was asked to live there for some days. That was the novitiate and then he was introduced to the community and was given a habit. So the novitiate, in the beginning, was not for a fixed period and there was no uniformity. Benedict made it one year and that became somewhat a norm till Ignatius of Loyola introduced two years of novitiate. Many of the candidates were catechumens, and thus, for them to become a Christian was to become a monk. They would be baptized on Easter day. The community life was expressed best at prayer and at table. At morning and evening the monks prayed the psalms and read the scriptures. According to Pachomius, to be a monk was to live from the scriptures. Those who did not know how to read had to learn it in order to be able to read the scriptures. Eucharist was celebrated only Saturdays and Sundays, for which priests came from outside. No one was allowed to be ordained because it would create inequality in the community. But later on some were ordained priests but they were in no way considered special. The life was extremely ascetic but it was also the life of the poor people around. Normally the food was a little bread and salt. But there was also a balance. For example, those who worked in the hot sun were exempted from some prayer. Relatives could visit them occasionally. In the Pachomian community all elements of monastic life were present, like seclusion, common prayer, work, spiritual reading, strict community life, and common dress. According to Pachomius, the community is the central motive for monasticism. The goal of monasticism is not helping an individual to attain sanctity but the creation of a community after the model of the community of Acts of the Apostles. Another important element was the ideal of poverty. The hermits had emphasized absolute poverty and extreme lack of want except for subsistence for the sake of freedom from external things. But with Pachomius poverty is also for the sake of creating 23

a community where everything is shared. For the hermits the ideal is the call to the rich young man to sell everything and give it to the poor but for Pachomius it is selling everything and putting it at the disposal of the community. There is no hating of material goods but its careful use for the common good. The monk gets everything from the community and there is equality there. Whatever was surplus had to be given to the poor. Poverty is seen as strict common property and that is something new. In the place of individual lack of want, which could easily become egocentrism and pride, there is Christian life in a community in the real sense of the word. There was of course a danger here. In principle the individual possessed nothing but in reality he possessed everything and lived rather comfortably, often even better than others. This has been one of the dangers of poverty as practised in monasteries and religious orders. Pachomius’ direction that that the surplus goods should be given to the poor was seldom listened to. Instead, it usually landed up in a bank. The poverty of the individual, living in a spacious and wealthy institution like a medieval monastery was psychological rather than material. Centuries of endowments turned many monasteries and religious houses into rich and powerful corporations displaying all the characteristics of group acquisitiveness. As the famous Cistercian Peter the Venerable said, the monks exist as having nothing, yet possessing all things. Another ideal was the ideal of obedience. Obedience to someone who is equal to you but placed above you has always been a problem and still remains a problem. For the hermits this did not arise. But here there is obedience which is absolute, and for ever. Among the hermits there was obedience. The disciple would come to a senior hermit for advice and to learn from him but that was only for a limited time. Later on he himself would become a senior hermit and others would come to him. In a community abbot is the embodiment of the rule and obedience to him is essential. The abbot was not elected. The rule did not stand above the abbot but the Abbot above the rule. Of course the danger of obedience becoming blind was always present. Pachomius founded not only the first monastery but also the first centralized religious order in Church history where there was even a general abbot and a general procurator for all the monasteries. Twice a year there was a also a general chapter. This structure would be perfected by later monastic and religious orders. The movement begun by Pachomius too became a mass movement. By the time of his death he had established nine monasteries for men and two for women (headed by his sister Mary) with thousands of members. The danger was that many people who were not fit to be monks also entered the monasteries and that was the reason for the downfall of the Pachomian monasteries. Many had joined in order to escape the consequences of the barbarian invasions. The size simply became too unwieldy and it was impossible to lead such monasteries. So in many communities the observance of the rule collapsed. The monks also got involved in inner Church struggles. The patriarch of Alexandria made use of monks to vent his feelings against the patriarch of Constantinople during the council of Ephesus in 431 and the Robber Synod of 449. After the council of Chalcedon the Egyptian Church separated itself from the main Church and with that Egyptian monasticism, too. As in the case of Anthony of Egypt whom we call the founder of Christian monasticism only with certain qualifications, we can call Pachomius the founder of coenobitism only with certain qualifications. Communities of ascetics were already in existence in the form of the lavras. So community life was not totally unknown among ascetics. While both were influential in the development of Christian monasticism what they did was at best innovations, not creations. 24

Anthony’s innovation was that he made individual asceticism into a movement. Pachomius’ innovation was the organization of the monastery under the guidance of a common rule. Both drew on previously existing institutions. The 4th and 5th centuries saw the spread of monasticism into the whole Church both in East and West. The variety of monastic observances during this time is really fascinating, some of them even bizarre. We have hermits who never washed or bathed, communities for aristocrats, large communities with thousands of people, great rich monasteries, small monasteries, family monasteries where the whole family lived as if in a monastery, double monasteries of men and women, gyratory monks, loose alternative groups who followed their own rules etc. But the real contribution of Egypt is that the ideal of family and community asceticism was made into a new form of life and charism in the Church, namely eremitism and coenobitism. Spread of Monasticism in the East. East Syrian monasticism arose from the already existing rule of celibacy for all baptized. This rule had to be changed by the end of the 3rd century and those who continued to be celibates built smaller communities and came to be called “Sons and Daughters of the Covenant.” They continued to observe strict rules, like not drinking wine or eating meat; wore a habit and lived in a community within the frame work of the Christian community and played an important role in the liturgy. Often the clergy would be chosen from among them. West Syrian monasticism was known for bizarre practices of asceticism. Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, (c. 393-460), a monk himself, has given a vivid description of it in his Religious History, a collection of biographies of monks. Some battled it out in the community while others chose eremitism. Some praised God by living in tents and huts while others lived in holes and caves. Still others preferred to go about free in the open. Some liked to freeze in the cold while others endured the heat of the sun. Some preferred to stand and pray while others did it sitting. Some made a wall around them to protect themselves from the gaze of the onlookers while others had problem if seen by others. A specific phenomenon of West Syrian monasticism was the Stylites (from stylos meaning pillar) or Pillar Saints. These were people lived on pillars erected for the purpose. Apart from prayer, the Stylites gave much time to spiritual instruction and even engaged in theological controversies from the pillars. Naturally it turned out to be a great attraction for people. Simeon Stylites (d. c. 459) is considered the founder of the movement. He seems to have stood on a pillar, nine meters high, for thirty years in adoration and intercession and converted thousands of people from the pillar. The movement seems to have lasted several centuries. Another group of ascetics were the so-called Dendrites (from dendron, meaning tree). These were people who lived on trees or holes in the tree or in a hut made on a tree. Of course the Church often criticized such sorts of asceticism branding them as sensationalism. But then it was defended by the monks saying that even in the Bible we have examples of such extraordinary things; the prophets of the Old Testament often did shocking things to convey a message. But not all monks lived on pillars. Majority of them lived on solid ground and were at the service of the Church. The bishops were now increasingly being chosen from among monks. The monks were also great missionaries. They also had a social role to play like looking after guest houses and establishing hospitals, especially for pilgrims. 25

Another place where monasticism flourished was Palestine. Here there was a particular motive for it, namely, to wander about visiting the holy places of Palestine sanctified by the footsteps of Christ and the apostles. After their wanderings they would settle down near to these holy places in Jerusalem or Bethlehem. The Church Father Jerome (c. 345-420) helped revitalize monasticism in Palestine when he arrived there with his circle of women and settled down in Bethlehem in order to pursue his interest in the study and translation of the Bible. Melania the Elder (c. 342-410) started a double monastery on the Mountain of Olives together with Rufinus (c. 345-411) and then came Paula (347-404) and her daughter Eustochium who had to run away from Rome because of the opposition of the Roman clergy towards Jerome and his group of women. Jerome and Paula founded a double monastery in Bethlehem. One of the important services of the monasteries of Palestine was to take care of the pilgrims to the Holy Land. In Asia Minor (today’s Turkey) lived one of the greatest figures of early monasticism in the East, Basil the Great (c. 330-379) who contributed greatly towards a new orientation in monasticism. First of all, he had it integrated into the life of the Church. His rule (c. 360) the so-called Asceticon was the main rule followed in the Eastern Churches and he is rightly called the Father of Eastern Monasticism. It is not a rule in the real sense of the word, but a collection of admonitions to monks about their way of life, giving them guidelines. He was outraged by the excesses of some of the ascetics of the period and began to study the scriptures himself and produced numerous texts which he felt applied to monastic life. The Asceticon came out of them, which became a sort of handbook for monks. While being strict, it avoided extreme austerities like that of the hermits. It conceived asceticism as a means to the perfect service of God, to be achieved in a community under obedience to an abbot. It, like most other rules of monasticism, is known for its balance and rejection of unnecessary rigidity and is marked by elasticity and flexibility. But two elements are special which influenced monasticism and religious life later on. For Basil the best form of monasticism is coenobitism and he bases his argument theologically not pedagogically. Basil does not dwell much on celibacy, prayer, interiority etc. which were taken for granted as part of monasticism. He developed things which he felt were neglected, for example, the primacy of charity. Accordingly, he claimed that coenobitism is the ideal form of monasticism because it is sociologically the best form to practise charity. Human beings are not monads but social beings and only in society can human beings realize themselves; and as the great theologian of the Holy Spirit, he clearly saw that there are different charisms in the Church and monasticism is one of them to be used for the community of the Church. No one has all the gifts and so we need each other. If you live alone whose feet will you wash, asks Basil. The hermit misses out on the charisms of the other and is not able to adequately develop his own. The community life was not to be structured like a lavra but the monks were to live under one roof. Secondly, for Pachomius the monastic community is modelled after the ideal Christian community of Acts which remains as a model for the Church but existing parallel to it. But for Basil the monastery is the spiritual and social centre of the local Church through its spiritual life and social and charitable work. He in a special way emphasised the importance for monks to serve the poor. He said further that the monastery should be under the control of the bishop and for service to the local Church. He introduced into monastic life as a major component the celebration of the liturgy to which private prayer was subordinated. His sister St. Macrina (c. 327-380) and mother St. Emilia put into practice his ideas on monasticism for women by 26

establishing convents for them. Eastern monasticism in general declined with the rise of Islam and the widespread destruction of monasteries. The Beginnings of Monasticism in the West It was Athanasius’ many forced exiles into the West in the wake of the Arian controversy that first gave glimpses of this new way of life to the people of the West and its beginnings can be put around the year 360. His Vita Antonii was particularly influential in this regard. Even St. Augustine’s crisis of conversion was brought on by listening to the Life of Anthony. But there were also travellers and pilgrims who had visited monasteries in the East and carried back good impressions about them to the West. But even in the West there were other influences that had prepared the ground for it. The first was the tendency among the aristocracy in the Roman empire to move away from the city into rural areas for peace and a simple life. Jerome in his many letters to his friends speaks of the tumult of the cities and recommends the simple life of the villages with their calm and beauty. Thus it was normal from the 3rd century for the elite of the Roman society to withdraw from the cities. This was further facilitated by the barbarian invasion, which created a crisis in the Roman empire. Further, monasticism was encouraged by famous figures of the Western Church, like Martin of Tours, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine etc. In Italy we have the beginning of monasticism in the so-called “House Monasteries”, where aristocratic men and women lived together. One important figure here is the widow Marcella (c. 325-411) who was one of the members of the theological circle of Jerome and who founded a community for women in 385. She, together with other aristocratic women, like Melania the Elder and Paula who, too, belonged to Jerome’s inner circle can be considered some of the first known women figures in monastic history. Jerome, who, himself could hardly live in a monastery, but who was always a monk at heart, was an energetic supporter of asceticism and monasticism. Giving advice to monks and nuns through letters was one of his chief apostolates. Jerome also stressed the importance of intellectual work. Many colonies of hermits and monks could be found in many islands of Italy from at least 360. According to Ambrose (c. 339-397), in these islands the roaring of the waves was intermingled with the singing of psalms and the music of the heavenly choirs joined with the chanting of monks. Ambrose wrote much on ascetical subjects and encouraged monasticism. But a visitor to one of these islands, Rutilius Namatianus (5th century), the prefect of Rome and champion of the old imperial cultus, leaves a very unfavourable impression about these monks: “A filthy island filled by men who flee the light. Monks they call themselves, using a Greek name, because they will to live alone, unseen by man. Fortune’s gifts they fear, dreading its harm; mad folly of a demented brain, that cannot suffer good for fear of ill.” In Italy there began also another development which would change monasticism drastically. Till then monks were lay people. Some of them used to be ordained for service in the monastery, often unwillingly. But now a bishop, Eusebius of Vercelli founded the first clerical monastery in 363 where he wanted his priests to live a monastic life. This may be considered the beginning of the clericalization of monasticism which had its beginning in the West. Martin of Tours (d. c. 397) founded the first monastery in France at Liguge in 361. He is the first monk bishop in the West. With Martin there is a stronger emphasis on prayer and less concern for manual work. Martin also introduced the element of mission into monasticism. With him the fight against demons characteristic of monks is replaced by the fight against the non-Christians and their cults. The famous monastery of Lerins and St. Victor, where the famous John Cassian 27

himself was abbot were other important monasteries in France. From these two monasteries we have two monastic rules, one of John Cassian (the Institutes - 415) and the other of Caesarius of Arles (470-542). Cassian’s Conferences were his recollections of Eastern monasticism written down for Western readers. It became a classic of Latin spirituality. They together with his Institutes did much to form the spirit and shape the pattern of early Western monasticism and continued to provide inspiration through the Middle Ages. In Spain monasticism began with strong ascetical tendencies, which led to its being suspected of heresy. The result was the execution of the ascetic Priscillian and his companions in 385, the first execution of heretics in the Church. In North Africa, Augustine (354-430), after his conversion and after being made bishop of Hippo lived with his priests a semi-monastic life. He also wrote a Rule, which is actually a letter of advice to his priests. Augustine too was moved by the texts of Acts of the Apostles describing the primitive Christian community. These scripture texts are the basis of Augustine’s monastic theology and spirituality. He did not regard asceticism greatly but emphasized grace of God and fraternal charity as the chief elements of monasticism. In fact, according to Augustine, brotherly love is the definition of a monk. He even says that the etymology of monk (from monachos, meaning single), should be understood not as living a single life but as living a life with one heart and one soul in a community as in the texts of the Acts. The monastic community is the Church in microcosm and it is the place where Christ is to be found. All differences in social standards should disappear in the monastery which advice, unfortunately, was often not heeded to. For Augustine monasticism is not possible without inner freedom. Augustine also emphasized the importance of study, the lectio, especially the study of the Scriptures. Augustine’s Rule was rediscovered in the Middle Ages and it became the guiding principle of many religious orders. The beginning of the Christological and Trinitarian controversies was in the third century with heretical doctrines of Adoptionism and Modalism emerging. But next two centuries would see the church bringing forth clear formulations of the doctrines of Trinity and Christology. There were also controversies surrounding the understanding of sin and penance. The church in the third century saw two groups emerging, one advocating a compassionate approach led by the bishop of Rome and another a strict group, involving some clergy of the church of Rome and the church of africa. The questions involved were very practical, forgiving the three capital sins, murder, adultery, and apostacy, treatment of heretics who wished to return to the church and treatment of people who had fallen away during persecutions. Finally what prevailed was the position of the church of Rome led by pope Stephen I saying that forgiving sinners was according to the gospel message. This is the century also of considerable development in the science of theology. This began with Origen (185-254), one of the greatest church fathers. In 217 he became the head of the theological school of Alexandria which was founded towards the end of the second century in Alexandria. He used Greek philosophy for a systemaic exposition of the Christian faith and is called the first theologian of the church and the first biblical scholar. He was also the church’s foremost apologist in this century along with Tertullian and Cyprian.

28

Fourth century The fourth century is in many ways decisive for the church which brought in radical change for Christianity. The effects are still with us today. The catalyst was the conversion of emperor Constantine to Christianity. As a result of it and many other factors Christianity moved from being the religion of a persecuted minority to the official religion of the vast Roman empire. Peace brought many possibilities for institutional developments in the church and ushered in for Christianity a revolution. But the century began with the most violent of all persecution by Diocletian in 303-305. There were many martyrs. Diocletian had also reorganized the empire by dividing it into East and West. In the power struggle between Constantine and Maxentius to be emperor of the West, Constantine emerged victorious. He attributed his victory at the battle of the Milvian bridge in 312 to the power of the Christian God and the cross which he had imprinted on his royal standard. In 313 he forced his counterpart in the East Licinius to sign the Edict of Milan granting religious freedom to the Christians as a sign of gratitude. In 324 he reunited the empire and became the sole ruler and in 330 he also shifted his capital to the East, to a city called Byzanz which he renamed as Constantinople, todays Istanbul in Turkey. He enacted a number of Christian friendly acts. In 315 crucifixion was abolished. In 321 Sunday was declared public holiday. He became an ardent supporter of Christians and erected a number of basilicas (the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, the Lateran Basilica of Rome etc). Some other Christian-friendly acts of the emperor were freeing the clergy from paying taxes and from public services, elevating bishops to the status of state officials. He died in 337, probably after being baptized at deathbed. This was the first step towards Christianity becoming the official religion of the empire. It was done by his successor Theodosius I in 381 who forbad all pagan cults. In 394 he also forbad the Olympic games which restarted only in 1869. In 395 he divided the empire once again into East and West and with that also the church. For a brief period emperor Julian, a nephew of Constantine tried to reintroduce paganism (361-363) without much success. He only gained the title Julian the apostate. The church was thoroughly institutionalized and the imperial church emerged. The high moral and spiritual standards of Christianity declined. The emperors would freely interfere in the affairs of the church when it pleased. They would even support heretical groups for political reasons. The best example for the tussle between church and state is the one between emperor Theodosius I and Ambrose of Milan. In 390 Ambrose, the bishop of Milan compelled emperor Theodosius I to do penance for the massacre of thousands of innocent people in Thessalonica before being admitted to communion with the words: “The emperor is in the Church, not above the Church.” But such bishops were rare. It is in protest against the “State Church” that more Christians who wanted a more radical form of Christian life decided to withdraw and that is the reason for the flourishing of the nascent monastic ideal in the fourth and subsequent centuries. It was also seen as an alternative form of martyrdom, chances for which had become rare after Christianity became the official religion. The life of Anthony in the desert attracted many to follow the life of a hermit in the desert, but still more important was the development of communities of monks and nuns. This movement was started by Pachomius (290-336) who around 320 founded his first monastic communities at Tabennisi in Egypt. They were called “cenobites” (from the Greek word for life in common). He 29

also gave a Rule for his monasteries, and thus with him began monasticism proper with life in a community under the supervision of an abbot or abbess. At the time of his death he had under him nine monasteries with about 5000 members. In 340, his sister Mary founded a convent for women. Another famous witness to monastic life during the fourth century was St. Basil (330-379) who integrated monasticism into the organization of the church. He was the bishop of Caesaria and brought the monastic communities under his control. He encouraged cenobitic monasticism because he said only then could the monks practice Christian virtues. "If you live alone, whose feet will you wash? He introduced fixed rules, novitiate, vows, strict obedience etc. Another important advocate of monasticism during this period was Martin of Tours who founded a community of men in 361 at Liguge, the first monastic community in the West. Monasticism became a very powerful movement henceforth both in the East and in the West. Its close collaboration with the life of the church also had negative consequences. It lost its prophetic thrust. Development of doctrine and the ecumenical councils. A second development that had important consequences for the church was the development of doctrine and the calling of the ecumenical councils, the first two of which took place in the fourth century. Theological controversies unmistakably stamped the life of the church in the fourth century, especially the Christological and Trinitarian controversies. The early Christians believed in a simple creed. Jesus who was crucified and raised is now the messiah and the exalted Lord over all the earth. The God of the Jews was also the God of Jesus. The power of his Spirit permeated their lives and the whole of creation. This is clearly expressed in Mt 28, the baptismal formula and the regula fidei. It is a soteriological statement not a metaphysical statement regarding the relationship between the persons of the Trinity. Suppose Christianity remained confined to Jews there would have been no dogma of Trinity or Christology as we have it today. For example, for Jews who are strict monotheists, it is difficult to speak of God in three persons etc. The entire problem arose because the church needed to express the faith in Hellenistic philosophical terms. There arose problems like, how can there be one God in three persons, how can Jesus be God and still there be monotheism, if Jesus is God, what about his humanity etc. were bound to occur. There were many attempts at a solution which were rejected as heretical by local bishops, like adoptionism, Modalism etc. The problem became serious when Arius, an Alexandrian priest in his explanation of the relationship between Jesus and God came out with a new theory. He observed strict monotheism and subordinated Jesus to the Father. He was created but before all time, a special creation. In this he contradicted his own bishop Alexander and denied the preexistence of the logos with the father because he said, "There was a time when the Son was not". He is not of one substance with the father (homoousios).

30

In 330 he was condemned at a synod at Alexandria. The deacon Athanasius of Alexandria took up the matter. He was concerned about redemption through Christ and if Christ was not true God, there was no redemption. He understood redemption as divinization understood literally. This was the strongest motivation for monasticism. He did not want to endanger monasticism, which was growing strongly. Emperor Constantine calls the first Ecumenical Council at Nicea in 325. All the Councils of the first Millennium were called by emperors. Constantine wants to safeguard the unity of the empire. He draws up a creed with the Council fathers, the Nicene creed. Jesus is one in being with the father, Homoousios. It was not a biblical word but had material connotations. How this creed came about is not known. No official account of the procedures is available. Some 250-300 bishops attended. It is called ecumenical precisely because of that. The whole known Christian world was represented. In addition the council also had 21 canons which deal with many disciplinary matters which throw light on the life of the early church. The hellenization of Christology reached its first climax here and there followed 50 years of disputes with the succeeding emperors taking various positions. Constantine himself changed position later on and exiled the anti-Arians, including Athanasius. Meanwhile the dispute was extended to the divinity of the Holy Spirit, whether the Spirit was consubstantial with the Father which was disputed by many especially the pneumatomachi (enemies of the spirit) who attributed lesser divinity to the holy spirit. Emperor Theodosius I (379-395) called the Second Ecumenical Council in 381, I Council of Constantinople. The fathers proclaimed a new creed, an improved version of the Nicene creed, and it is the Nicene creed which we recite although the precise title is niceno-constantinopolitan creed. It also defended the divinity of the Holy Spirit by proclaiming that the Spirit proceeded from the Father. The dogma of the Trinity became a fact. Subsequently and controversially the Western church added in its latin translation the word filioque to the creed ( and the son) meaning that the spirit proceeds from the father and the son which the non catholic Eastern churches till today rejects. The fourth century is called the golden age of patristic literature. Some of the most famous Christian writers of all time lived and worked during this time. The Cappadocians, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem. Ehpraem, Ambrose, and many others. It is estimated that at the end of the fourth century, the Christian population was about 20 million out of the Roman empire’s total of about seventy million. Fifth century The most important event of the fifth century is the collapse of the Roman empire and the gradual acceptance of Christianity by the invading Germanic tribes. This led to numerical expansion as well as many fundamental changes, political, cultural, and theological. End of the empire One of the most important events in the fifth century was the collapse of the Western Roman empire at the hands of the invading Germanic tribes. This so-called “Migration of the Nations” (movement of the Germanic of Teutonic tribes into the Roman empire) had started already from 31

the second century. In 410 Rome was plundered by Alaric, the West Goth, which was the occasion for Augustine’s famous book: City of God. In 452 pope Leo I pleaded with the Huns not to attack Rome and in 455. He did the same with the approaching army of the Vandals, who out of consideration for the pope, plundered it only for fourteen days! In 476 the German general Odeacer deposed Romulus Augustus, the last emperor of the Romans. The West-Roman empire was plunged into confusion, and in the long run it changed the face of the Church. The Christianization of today’s Western, southern and central Europe was accelerated because of this. It produced one of the seismic shifts in European and world history. It resulted in a Europe which has remained predominantly Christian till today and which became the powerhouse of Christianity. In 496 Clovis, the king of the Franks, a powerful Germanic tribe, received baptism and his successors controlled the affairs of the church and of Europe for about four centuries. By the middle of the sixth century the Franks would become the leading power in Western Europe and their rule would have far reaching consequences for Christianity and European society in general. Why these people accepted Christianity en mass is a mystery. Perhaps the tribal structure played a role. The doctrines of Christianity, especially the person of Christ and his life must have played a role. The church as it existed in the Roman empire with its structures might have attracted them too. Usually, invading people try to impose their religion but here the other way round was the case. The conversions took place from 5th to seventh centuries. Another significant event in the century was the doctrinal development. Two significant ecumenical councils were held in the century, Ephesus 431 and Chalcedon in 451. The crisis started with Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople (from 428-31). As a follower of the Antiochian school, which emphasized the humanity of Christ, he preached that Mary should be given the title Mother of Christ (Christotokos) rather than Mother of God (Theotokos). Theotokos was a popular title for Mary in the Egyptian church and so Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria (411-444), follower of the Alexandrian School, which emphasized the divinity of Christ, opposed this. Nestorius concern was Mary would be thought of as if she is a goddess if she is called the mother of God. But Nestorius was accused of heresy which came to be called Nestorianism, that is, distinguishing the two natures of Christ to the extent of dividing him into two persons. Whether Nestorius actually professed this belief is doubted by scholars today. The rivalry between the two important centres of Christianity Alexandria and Constantinople also played a role here. Alexandria which was an ancient centre of Christianity had been bypassed by Constantine as the capital of the empire which had not pleased the church there ever since. The theological differences of the two schools of Alexandria and Antioch also played a role. The Alexandrians’ favourite expression that the “Word became flesh” somehow seemed to the Antiochians that it emphasized too much the divinity of Christ and said that the “Word of God became human” and not just “flesh” and thus emphasized the humanity of Christ. A conflict between the Christology from above and the Christology from below. The third Ecumenical Council was called at Ephesus by emperor Theodosius II in 431 which defined that Mary is the Mother of God. Nestorius was deposed in the absence of participants from Constantinople. When they arrived they condemned Cyril. The deadlocked continued for a month and the emperor dissolved both councils and detained both Cyril and Nestorius. Nestorius accepted his confinement and finally died in exile. Cyril escaped and later bribed the court with expensive gifts including 16 ostriches to regain his episcopate.

32

Then it was the turn of the Alexandrians themselves to fall into heresy when they taught that in Christ there was only one nature, the divine nature. This was the heresy of Monophysitism propagated by the monk Eutychus in 448. Because of protest from Constantinople emperor Theodosius II called s council again at Ephesus in 449 but it was so dominated by the Alexandrians who ill treated the representatives of Constantinople and the pope and therefore Pope Leo the Great rejected the council calling it a “Robber Synod” and wanted the emperor to call another council which he refused. The emperor was killed in a hunting accident and his sister became empress Pulcheria and she called a new council at Chalcedon in 451. Some five hundred to six hundred bishops were present at the council, making it the largest gathering so far. It deposed the patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscorus for his conduct at the robber synod. It reaffirmed the teaching of the original Ephesus council that Mary is the mother God and agreed with the deposition of Nestorius. Then it taught that in Christ there is one person but two natures, which exist without confusion, change, division and separation. The council took pains to emphasize that his divinity and humanity are real. The same word that was used in Nicaea to explain Jesus divinity homoousios or consubstantial was used now to explain his humanity and thus his humanity was real and not an appearance. Only that the council did not explain how this could happen in actuality but it remains the teaching of the church ever since. Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon also decreed that the bishops of Rome and Constantinople have the same dignity against which pope Leo I protested strongly, without success. A direct fallout of the council of Chalcedon was the first schism in the church. The church of Alexandria broke of communion with Rome and Constantinople and formed itself as the Coptic church (Coptic comes from the Greek word for Egypt Aigyptos). Called monophysites, non Chalcedonians etc., they constitute the churches even today in Egypt, Ethiopia, Syria, Armenia, and India (and there are about 3 million monophysites in India known as Jacobites). Officially though they are known today as the Oriental Orthodox Churches. Towards the end of the century the second schism took place in Persia, when it also separated itself from the rest of the Church by accepting the teachings of Nestorius as part of its theology and founded a patriarchate of the Nestorian church in Seleucia Ctesiphon, the then capital of the Persian empire, today’s Bagdad in 497. Known as the Assyrian Church of the East it exists till today (a community of 50,000 followers of this church live in India). Both these churches today profess the same faith of the Catholic church after reconciliation with the Catholic church towards the end of the 20th century but a full communion has not been achieved). In the Western church too there were many heresies threatening the Church. It happened mainly in Africa where the Donatists, a group of rigorists had maintained that the sacraments conferred by the traditores (people who had surrendered their bible during persecutions) were invalid, and broke away from the Church. The group became violent in Africa, and against them Augustine developed his theology of the Church and the sacraments. He taught that the validity of the sacraments does not depend on the worthiness of the minister. He also taught that the Church is a pilgrim Church consisting of saints and sinners. Augustine also argued for the use of force to bring them back into the Church, thus becoming the exponent of the “Just War” theory. The second crisis was also in the church of Africa, the heresy of Pelagianism propagated by the British monk Pelagius in 411. In essence, he denied the necessity of grace. Human beings are fully free to decide between good and evil. The sin of Adam has not corrupted human nature. 33

Thus Pelagianism also seemed to negate the concept of Original Sin. It was against Pelagius that Augustine developed his theology of grace, original sin, free will, predestination etc, which have remained very influential in Christian theology ever since, even with a lot of negative influence (for example, his view of sexuality that it is only for procreation). Pelagianism was condemned at a council in Carthage in 418 and at the Council of Ephesus in 431. A compromise was worked out in the form of Semipelagianism (from 425) which had influential supporters like the monk Cassian (d. 435), known for his influential writings on monasticism, and Vincent of Lerins (d. 450), who was the first one to give the clear criteria for differentiating between true and false traditions, the so-called Vincentian canon: “What has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.” This century also saw some famous theologians, Augustine, JeRome, Theodore of Mopsuestia and also missionaries like St Patrick who founded the church in Ireland. In the fifth century saw the first real conflict between Rome and Constantinople. The immediate cause of the tension between the two churches the following. In order to mediate between the warring parties which originated after the Council of Chalcedon, the patriarch of Constantinople Acasius drew up a formula called the Henoticon in 482 to prove that not all anti-Chalcedonians were monophysites. The formula was fully orthodox although it rejected Chalcedon. Pope Felix II (483-492) rejected it saying that it repudiated Chalcedon and excommunicated Patriarch Acasius in 484. This created the first schism between the two churches. Although after 35 years, a reconciliation took place in 519, the problem remained and the two churches increasingly became alienated and it ended in the Eastern Schism in 1054. In this context some background information about Eastern churches would be helpful. Roman empire was divided into East and West by Diocletian in 295. In 321 Constantine abolished it and became sole rule. 395 emperor Theodosius I divided it again. The boundary ran between today’s Greece and Italy. This divided also the church into East and West. Eastern churches are those churches which originated in the Eastern part of the empire and dependent upon them and also those churches which were outside the Roman empire like the church of Persia and India. But for convenience sake we shall leave out those churches and consider only those inside the Roman empire. The leading churches were the ancient patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople. The leader of these churches was Constantinople. The patriarch of Constantinople was called Ecumenical Patriarch and Constantinople was considered the second Rome or new Rome. The language was Greek. The leader of the Western church was Rome and the language was Latin. From the earliest times, the Eastern churches had an important role in Christianity. Christianity originated in the East. The greatest centres of theology in the early church were all in the East: Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa. The first Christian literature was produced in the East. All the councils of the first millennium were held in the East.

34

Monasticism began in the East. Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 said that the churches of Rome and Constantinople are equal in dignity although Rome protested in vain. Constantinople also claimed apostolicity saying that apostle Andrew and even John died there. One problem with the church of Constantinople was that the emperor had excessive control over the church. The patriarch of Constantinople had only spiritual power, unlike the bishop of Rome who because of the political developments there had considerable powers and privileges. Another distinguishing mark of Constantinople was the Byzantine liturgy, one of the ancient and colourful liturgies of the church. Of course there were other liturgies, the Alexandrian or Coptic, the East Syrian, the West Syrian, etc. The Eastern churches looked upon the church of Rome as the first of the Patriarchates not because of a special promise made to Peter nor because of apostolicity which they also claimed, but because it was the place where the tombs of the two greatest apostles were located. A primacy of honour not of jurisdiction. But the Roman church in the course of centuries began to claim the right of control over these churches. That was one of the main reasons for the gradual alienation between the two. Other factors contributed to it like language, culture, liturgy and spirituality, and later on even theological differences. So the most important cause of the schism was the conflict between Old Rome and New Rome. The early Church was a communion of churches. The churches both in the East and the West were ancient churches, most of them with apostolic heritage, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Ephesus, Caesaria, Carthage, Jerusalem etc. Only Constantinople came a little later. From these, there developed the Pentarchy, the 5 Patriarchates of Rome in the West and Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem in the East. All these churches had diverse liturgies, customs and traditions though they all shared the same apostolic faith, the sacraments, and the hierarchical organization. But we have seen how the bishops of Rome developed a remarkable initiative in the domain of doctrine and jurisdiction, and an increasingly distinct awareness of duty and a corresponding claim to leadership within this communion. The bishop of Rome claimed some sort of superiority over the others. 1. Clement of Rome writes to the church of Corinth in 96 AD to defend the presbyters who were maltreated by a group of youth. Why did he take the initiative? 2. Easter Controversy: Bishop Victor (189-98) Asia - date of Easter 14th Nissan Sunday or not. Rome - Sunday after 14th Nissan Rome demands that Asia keeps this date and threatens it with excommunication. Irenaeus of Lyons intervenes and Victor relents.

35

3. Bishops from neighbouring dioceses visit Rome to show respect: Polycarp, Cyprian. 4. Two bishops from Spain Basilides of Emerita and Martialis of Austrica had fallen away during the persecution of Decius and therefore had been deposed. They appeal to the Bishop of Rome Stephen (254-257) 5. Bishop Cyprian of Carthage who was such an independent bishop asks bishops Stephen to depose bishop Marcion of Arles who became a follower of Novatian. Novatian was a rigorist Roman priest who refused any leniency towards people who fell away during the persecutions. 6. Heretical baptism: Rome, Alexandria, Palestine argued that baptism given by a heretic is valid. Asia Minor and Africa argued that it was not. Bishop Stephen (254-257) threatens them with excommunication. Cyprian does not give in. He said that Rome's primacy was not juridical but symbolical. 7. Pope Dionysius (260-268) corrects bishop Dionysius of Alexandria who had supported subordinationism. 8. Paul of Samosata (3rd century) was a bishop of Antioch. He was deposed for heresy. He appeals to emperor Aurelian who rules that only those bishops who are in communion with Rome have the right to the property of the church. In all these cases we see Rome acting as a sign/symbol of unity, not as a juridical head. That went beyond the church's self understanding at that time. It was more of a symbolical primacy or a primacy of honor than juridical. The NT does not speak of a bishop of Rome who has juridical power nor do the earliest post NT writings. Clement of Rome who writes in AD 96 was not a bishop He does not identify himself as the bishop of Rome. Monarchical episcopate existed in Rome probably only from the middle of the second century (150 AD). Of course, Rome had enjoyed a special status from the beginning. It was the capital of the empire It was old, large, and prosperous It was the site of the tombs of the two greatest apostles Peter and Paul It was famous for its charitable activities (primacy of love) It had always tried to safe-guard the apostolic tradition Many church fathers stressed the supreme apostolicity of Rome and its status as the guarantor of apostolic tradition. But for the other churches, the Roman church was a local church like any other although it enjoyed some predominance because it was the place of the martyrdom of the two greatest apostles Peter and Paul.

36

But the bishop of Rome claimed that he was the legal successor of Peter and therefore he had primacy. Bishop Stephen I (254-257) quoted Matthew 16:18 to justify this position. Innocent I (402-417) said all important matters should be presented after discussion to him for final decision. Rome is the supreme judge (so Augustine said, Roma locuta causa finita – Rome has spoken, the case is finished). Boniface I (418-422) forbids further appeal calling it final court of appeal. Pope Leo the Great (440-461) was the second significant pope who contributed towards the development of Roman primacy. He was a great theologian, lawyer, pastor, politician. He used the NT passages referring to Peter in a legalistic sense. He said Peter was given the fullness of power to govern the whole church of Christ. Now his successor has the same power. But did Peter ever nominate a successor? He claimed to be Peter's legal successor, and his vicar. He called himself vicar of Peter. The bishop of Rome takes the place of Peter as his heir, though he does not inherit his personal characteristics and merits. But he does inherit the official authority and function transferred by Christ to him. That means even a completely unworthy successor to Peter - there were to be many of them - nevertheless, remains a legitimate successor. Leo was convinced that Peter spoke personally through him. He called himself Pontifex maximus supreme priest, a pagan title. He protested against the Council of Chalcedon which accorded Constantinople a privileged place among the churches of the East and the status of second Rome in its canon 28. What is peters relationship with the church of Rome? In AD 57 there was a flourishing Christian community in Rome (Paul's letter). Did Peter found this community? No proof. Did he go to Rome and die? Yes, because of a unanimous witness of the early fathers, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus of Lyons etc. There is also archaeological evidence. In 1941 a grave believed to be of Peter was unearthed under the Vatican Hill. Scripture speaks much about Peter and his preeminence, but not much about his missionary work. first to witness the resurrection first place in the list of apostles spokesman and leader of the group only one whose name was changed by Jesus At the beginning of the church he is active as we see in the Acts; he is the spokesman of the group, he converts Cornelius, even goes up to Antioch. But the last thing that the Acts says about Peter is in 12:17 that Peter departed and went to another place. The Jerusalem community is ruled by James. It is not clear whether he went to Rome.

37

Even if Peter was the head of the community of Rome, his successors are not known or mentioned except in a list of bishops produced by Irenaeus of Lyons. He produced a list of bishops in Rome down to Eleutherius (174-189). Writing about 180 he says that Peter and Paul committed the episcopate to Linus who was then followed by Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus sixth from the apostles, Telesphorus who was gloriously martyred, Hyginius, Pius, Anicetus, Soter and Eleutherius, now in the twelfth place from the apostles. Whether this list is historical is not sure. His purpose might have been to trace back the apostolicity of the church. When clement writes in 96 to the church of Corinth in the name of the Roman church he does not say that he is the bishop of Rome. He is possibly the leader of a group of presbyters who were in charge of the church of Rome. Upto 150 there seems to have been no monepiscopacy in Rome. The first bishop of Rome might have been Pius I (140-154) The Eastern churches saw the promise to Peter as a reward for his personal confession of faith and as an authority for forgiving sins which is also given to other apostles in Mt 18:18. According to them, it cannot be seen as a personal jurisdictional power given to Peter to be exercised by a successor in Rome. So in the beginning there was considerable resistance to the claims of the bishops of Rome to jurisdictional authority over other churches. But in the following centuries use of Roman primacy would become widespread and the culmination of it is the definition of Papal primacy and infallibility as dogmas at the first Vatican Council in 1870. Sixth Century An important things happened in this century is Germanization of Christianity. The word is not frequently used but for want of a better word it has been used here. In the early centuries of Christianity we had the process of hellenization of Christianity. That was adapting Christianity to the thought patterns of the Greco Roman world. This was done by the theologians of the time. But Germanization was more institutional and pastoral than intellectual. What is meant here is the adaptation of the Christian message to the thought patterns of the Germanic tribes which affected the church in many ways. Of course it was not something that happened in the course of one century but several. One important consequence of Germanization was the dependence of the papacy on the secular rulers. After the collapse of the empire in the West, the popes had become quite powerful in the absence of a single ruler in the West. But with the rise of prominence of the Franks with the baptism of the Frankish ruler Clovis in 496 this changed. The Pope became the emperor's vassal although he was acknowledged to be the successor of Peter. The church had to fight hard to regain its independence. Characteristics of Germanic Christianity The Germanic tribes introduced the idea of the Christian nation since there was no empire any more. When the chieftain accepted Christianity the tribe too accepted it. Everything was subjected to him, including religion. So interference in ecclesiastical affairs by kings, and nobles became a common feature. This was the beginning of lay control over the church which lasted till the 12th century. The Germanic peoples also introduced novel forms of piety and church practices. 1. Adult baptism disappeared. Baptism of infants becomes a rule. 38

2. Clerical liturgy. 3. Veneration of saints, relics 4. Belief in spirits, warding off of spirits through prayer, gifts, work. 5. Enforcement of celibacy for the clerics, deacons, disappearance of the ministry of deaconesses. 6. Founding of monasteries for spiritual and material purposes based on the German legal system of monetary compensations for wrongs done to persons or things. 7. further strengthening of the episcopate. 8. Feudalism and lay Investiture Feudalism was a an administrative structure developed in the middle ages. Lay investiture was a practice which arose from this. The king was the supreme head, the vassal of God. He had vassals who administered the land and it was hereditary. The conferring of vassalship was called investiture. The land was called fief or feud. The land was worked by serfs. The king and the nobles constituted the nobility and they enjoyed power. The people suffered. The church too had to fit into this system. Thus bishops, abbots, abbesses etc. became vassals and part of the nobility. They also had to undergo the ceremony of investiture by which they obtained their offices. Thus it is called lay investiture: Lay investiture is “bestowal by a layman of ecclesiastical office upon a cleric.” Thus lay control over the church and its administration began. Dioceses, monasteries and parishes became the properties of aristocrats or nobles. They could buy and sell, possess many dioceses or monasteries, appoint bishops and priests. This led to privatization of churches, plurality of benefices, and simony. The spiritual care suffered. 5th ecumenical council The most important political figure of the sixth century was emperor Justinian I (527-65) who although known for his orthodoxy was known for meddling too much in ecclesiastical affairs. It was this that led to the calling of an ecumenical council Constantinople II in 553 which is called by historians an unfortunate adventure. He somehow wanted to please the Egyptian church which had rejected the council of Chalcedon and bring it back and so in this council he forced the condemnation of three men associated with Nestorius who had died long ago, who were important theologians of the Eastern Church, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret and Ibas, all theologians of the Antiochian church. The council also condemned some of the teaching of the church father Origen. Justinian codified the Roman law known as the code of Justinian which has been an important document on Roman law ever since. Towards the end of this century lived the only other pope who is given the title Great after Leo, pope Gregory the Great (590-604). He combined both spiritual power and great administrative ability, and laid the foundation for the secular power of the papacy in the later centuries. But at 39

the same time he was a great pastor who called himself “servant of the servants of God” while his predecessors from Leo I had claimed for themselves the pontifex maximus, the supreme priest. His regula pastoralis enjoyed the same fame among the clergy as the Rule of Benedict in the monasteries. Gregory was also a missionary pope who organized the first mission to England under Augustine of Canterbury (596) The title pope which means father, from the Greek papas, was used for all bishops in the Greek church. It began to be used for the bishop of Rome only in the sixth century and came to be used exclusively for the bishop of Rome in the Western church only in the eleventh century. Development of monasticism and the Rule of Benedict Another significant development in the sixth century was the consolidation of monasticism with the Rule of Benedict By the 6th century monasticism became a powerful institution both in the East and the West. It gave the Church, which had become a large mass movement, a spiritual impulse which was deteriorating slowly. The monasteries were supposed to keep the spiritual experience of Christianity alive. And the monk bishops (many bishops were now monks) tried to do the same for the wider Church. In the West, the success of monasticism was also due to the situation arising from the collapse of the Roman Empire and the resulting confusion. The ancient civilization of Rome disappeared and many people lost all hope for the future and in disappointment chose a solitary way of life as a good alternative. It was thought best to concentrate on life after death. This contributed to making monasticism a new important social factor, which had tremendous consequences. Monasticism got a privileged place in the Church and society. It came to be regarded as a superior form of Christian life. The earlier distinction between Christians and non-Christians gave way to the one between monk and ordinary Christian. Real conversion was the conversion to become a monk. So Cassian said that only in the monastery one lived the real spirit of the Gospel; outside one still lived under the Law. But still monasticism was a “movement” comprising all sorts of groups and orientations, and not a firm institution. It still had not become a “state of life” in the Church with its own fixed rules and regulations with a specific role in the Church and society. There were still the wandering monks who were particularly disliked by the Church because they were subject to no authority. There were men and women living together in families or in a village; monks living in hermitages, and finally small groups of men and women who lived independently of any authority. Men and women living together under a single roof was a particularly dangerous form of asceticism according to many bishops. To ward off this danger there emerged the “double monasteries” where they lived separately under one head who could be a man or a woman. There were Rules formulated to help stabilize monasticism and to bring the monks and nuns back to their vocation. But none played a more decisive role in this than the Rule of Benedict. No one else has influenced monasticism and its development as substantially as Benedict. All we know about Benedict comes from Pope Gregory the Great (540-604), who made the second book of His Dialogues into an account of Benedict’s life, written about the year 593, some forty-five years after Benedict’s death. Benedict was born about the year 480/90 in Nursia; while a student in Rome, he was so dissatisfied with all that was going on around him that he took refuge, first among the fervent Christians of Affile, and then in a cave at Subiaco. There he 40

received the monastic habit from a monk called Romanus, who brought him food. The monks in the neighbouring monastery asked him to succeed their recently deceased abbot. He accepted it and wanted to reform the monastery because he was dissatisfied with what went on there, especially the extreme penance. Unable to stand Benedict’s discipline, they, it seems, even tried to poison him and it is then that he decided to begin a new kind of community. He established twelve little monasteries around Subiaco. He founded a fully communitarian life at Monte Cassino in 528 where he developed his ideas of a monastery and wrote his Rule (c. 540). In 550 or 560 he must have died. He was perhaps never a priest. Gregory writes that Benedict wrote a Rule but says nothing about its content but at the beginning of the sixth century, his Rule is known in many places. He developed his Rule to guide his community, but had taken a lot of elements from other existing Rules, especially from the Regula Magistri (Rule of the Master) written by an anonymous author from around the year 500. So Benedict had a model for his Rule, and it was a synthesis of both Eastern and Western Rules. But Benedict is credited with providing some important insights into the principles of monastic life and for its spiritual and material administration. His Rule is marked by prudence and humanity and its goal is to lead the monk through obedience and humility to the perfect following of Christ. The prologue and the first seven chapters of the Rule comprise an exhortatory treatise on the ascetical life, explaining its aims and the characteristic virtues the monk should strive to cultivate, foremost among them, obedience and humility. The following thirteen chapters contain detailed instructions for the order of divine service. After these are the chapters dealing with such constitutional matters as the election of the abbot and the role of other monastic officers, and other matters like, manual work, reading, monastic discipline, etc. Attention is given also to the reception and training of recruits. All in all, it was an eminently practical guide, both for the government of a monastic community, and the spiritual life of the monk. The chief aspects of the Rule of Benedict may be summarized as follows: 1.

2. 3.

4. 5.

The balance between prayer (Opus Dei), which is the chief act of a monk, manual work, and reading or study (lectio divina). Prayer meant praying the psalms and Scripture reading at different parts of the day. Eucharist was celebrated only on Sundays. The lectio divina was sacred reading and involved also study, copying and illumination of books, especially the Scriptures. Daily manual work was part of the life of a monk. Only those are truly monks who live by the work of their hands. The principle of stability (stabilitas loci). The place of the abbot in the monastery who is not an autocrat but a friend and father to whom absolute obedience is necessary. He should make no distinctions among the people in the monastery. He consults the monks before taking decisions. The Christological character of the Rule. The abbot is representative of Christ; Christ is to be seen in every monk, but in a special way in the sick, the guest, the old and children. Flexibility, moderation and prudence in everything. Everything in the monastery is characterized by Christian humanism, which shows a special consideration for the weak. Benedict says in his Rule that he would ordain “nothing that is harsh or burdensome.” The Rule also emphasized adaptability to the differing circumstances. This prudence was shown in the regulations regarding food, drink, work, etc. For example, two cooked dishes were to be provided so that if one could not eat one, he could eat the other. If the monks had worked harder than usual, then an increase in food had to be considered. Drink had to be given depending on local conditions, the strain of labour, or excessive 41

heat. The sick and the frail were to be given work accordingly. Suitable clothing was to be given to monks according to climate. The abbot had to see that the clothes fitted properly, etc. 6. Humility is the chief virtue of the monk. The Rule contains the famous twelve steps of humility. To climb all twelve steps is the goal of the monk. 7. Obedience is the first degree of humility. 8. Silence is mastery of words and thoughts so that God can make himself heard. 9. Hospitality is a monastic virtue. All guests who come the monastery should be received like Christ. Out of consideration for the guest, a fast may be broken. Special care must be taken of the poor and the pilgrims. 10. There is no place for private property in the monastery. The monastery is a community and individual desires have no place there, as in the community of Acts 4:32. It has often been said that the chief contribution of the Rule of Benedict has been that it provided a definitive frame work for monastic life with its emphasis on prayer, work, lectio, the principle of stability, and absolute obedience to the abbot. But the fact is that all these elements were present in monasticism already before Benedict. Benedict’s chief contribution has been the humanism and Christocentrism of the Rule. The humanism of the Rule, in fact, is derived from the Christocentrism. The abbot is to be obeyed because he is the representative of Christ and he should show it in his actions. The monk is to see Christ in all and in every situation. Secondly, Benedict left plenty of room for flexibility and adaptation in the running of the monastery. Thirdly, the purpose of the Rule is to show the interior attitude of the monk rather than prescribing the minutiae. This fluidity and balance ensured that the Rule spread first throughout the West and later through the entire world, remaining valid to the present day, and at home in every culture. Benedict’s sister Scholastica (c. 480-543) was a consecrated virgin and was one of his first disciples. She is usually honoured as the foundress of Benedictinism for women although she did not begin any monasteries. Women’s monasteries were there under the control of the local bishop. Now they began to adopt the Rule of Benedict and new communities began to be founded according the Rule. In course of time, large number of women came to be attracted to Benedictinism, especially women from the aristocracy. This may be the best place to say something about women in the ascetical movement. Women and the Ascetical Movement The Christian movement, from its very beginning was not an exclusively male movement but also a history of women who followed Jesus and embraced his radical message. According to present day research, there can no longer be any question that women played a considerably important role, not only among the disciples of Jesus, but also in the earliest Christian community. This was the case also of women in the ascetical movement. Only that it is poorly recorded. Few women ascetics wrote about it themselves. For most part, the experience of the women in the monasteries and in the various ascetical movements is communicated to us by celibate men, who cannot be considered adequate spokespersons for women. No history of monasticism has done justice to the phenomenon of women ascetics, who were full partners in the apostolate of the early Church and in the ascetic and monastic movements. They were equally attracted to the ascetic and monastic ideals as men. Large number of women decided against a traditional family 42

life, and chose to live as virgins and widows, playing important roles in the Christian communities and created alternative forms of life for women in the Church and society. It is perfectly possible that at lEast some of them were not motivated by the religious and ascetic foundations of this renunciation but saw it as a possibility to be free form biological constraints. But slowly, a spiritual interpretation of virginity and sexual purity came to be evident, taking clues from the words of Jesus and Paul. Slowly these widows, virgins and deaconesses who had great spiritual authority in their communities lost their autonomy and increasingly came under ecclesiastical supervision. In the beginning, the practice of virginity did not involve the kind of asceticism that came to be associated with it later. These virgins lived in their homes, possibly forming small “House Churches” with other virgins and their dependents. They lived a perfectly normal social life, and as could be expected, it scandalized Churchmen, and hence the many warnings to them from the Church Fathers. The rather free social life of these consecrated women became more institutionalized already from the second century onwards. The freedom that the House Churches provided was lost. Their free movement was restricted, and the clerical hierarchy began to reintegrate the communities of devout women with the larger Church. Some of them became wandering prophetesses. Many virgins became conspicuous in the eyes of the persecutors because of the intensity of their convictions and their bold embrace of a new life beyond all social boundaries. Thus we have many virgin martyrs from the early Church. Some of these virgins and widows were aristocratic women of the day who played important roles in the Church. The single concept that appears to have attracted all these active religious women was the power of celibacy to free them from all the disabilities of womanhood in those times. But they did not want to withdraw from the world. They were active and many of them were very generous with their charity. The lives of the great theologians of the age and their female virgin friends were closely intertwined. Often their mothers, sisters, patrons and in a few cases wives, belonged to the virginity movement. JeRome is perhaps the best example of this. It is difficult to say whether all these virgins and widows underwent a ceremony of consecration and wore a distinctive habit. But the question of living arrangements for these consecrated women became a central concern of the hierarchy from very early times. What has been resisted always was any close contact between men and women, which in the case of some of these communities was indeed the case. The first Council of Nicaea in 325, followed by all Councils, repeatedly prohibited the cohabitation of women with men except in the case of marriage, particularly with clergymen. The Church Fathers have reserved some of their most vitriolic attacks for such behaviour. According to them, it was better for people to marry in earnest than to attempt such “spiritual marriage” as it came to be called. The result was that by the fifth century, women who had escaped the confinement of the gender system by renouncing sexual activity were again restricted to a life of considerable constraints in the institutional life of the Church. This is the reason why many women now joined the growing exodus of Christians who sought to return to the freedom of the desert. Desert was that symbol of freedom from all constraints of the body and the flesh, spiritual purification. That the virgins, who had already passed the first test of asceticism were capable of the physical disciplines of asceticism in the desert was confirmed by the many women who embraced this way of life. But this did not mean that all these women really fled into the desert. The desert was more ideal than real, a landscape of the mind. The desert was often a closed chamber or even a discreet household where women lived with other women but it is also possible that there were women anchorites in the desert. But as communities 43

of ascetics emerged with Pachomius, women became an active part of this movement. Mary, the sister of Pachomius, the founder of communitarian monasticism, founded communities for women ascetics at Tabennisi. Contemporary records speak of thousands of men and women who had embraced the monastic life in the fifth and sixth centuries. Many of them lived in the socalled double monasteries, which were a pragmatic response to the needs of women in the desert for the spiritual and material services of men. But once again, the concern of the orthodox now became the proximity of men and women and the attempt to develop ways and means to separate them. The constitution of monastic communities of women was not that difficult. The friendship of a few like-minded women sometimes expanded into a fair-sized community which normally had the same social distinctions practiced outside. It is impossible that all these communities had a uniform rule. An adaptation of the Rule of Pachomius or Benedict might have been the basis of their common life. Manual labour, intrinsic to ascetic life, was surely practiced. Common table was another important aspect of community life. But the real labour of the ascetics was the opus Dei or prayer. For wealthy women poverty was practiced in their charity or spending their wealth for the poor and the needy. After all, sharing of goods is the keystone of the monastic life. It seems quite probable that poor girls found admittance into the monastery quite difficult. By the beginning of the early Middle Ages, most consecrated women lived within the orbit of their bishop who was responsible for them. The process of recruitment was often haphazard, a combination of episcopal initiative and individual vocation. Many women seemed to have snatched the opportunity to free themselves from marriage and childbearing in the dangerous situation that arose after the collapse of the Roman empire in the wake of the barbarian invasions. By its nature the monastery was a place of peace and protection. Even a marriage properly arranged by her parents might force a girl to act as a hostage in an unfriendly household. A monastery was surely a better place for many of them. Both legend and reality are full of desperate tales of women fighting to retain their virginity at all cost and entering a walled enclosure that would guard them from the lusts of men and the ambitions of their families. So monastic Rules of the time clearly stipulated for enclosure and stability of place which came in handy for women. The success of the Rule of Benedict in many communities of women might have been caused by these elements, which Benedict clearly emphasized. Monastic literature of the period clearly shows that the outside world is a threatening place where no woman might hope to be safe. And even the cloister had to be reinforced with strong ecclesiastical legislation to keep women safe from outsiders. Thus it is clear that women were active in the ascetic and monastic movement from the beginning. Women’s monasteries were as numerous and powerful as men’s, in subsequent centuries and experienced the same kind of decline and revival. The only difference was that they had to struggle with more exclusion, segregation and discrimination from a Church that came to see them as the chief obstacle in the way of a celibate clergy. We should also say something about another monastic tradition that grew up in Ireland around this time. It was a Church outside Roman and Greek influences. Christianity reached Ireland with St Patrick (d. 461). Although we do not know how monasticism reached Ireland, or what outside influence it had, alongside the secular hierarchy, the ascetical movement also gained ground and these ascetical colonies gradually became the nucleus of the ecclesiastical structure. Since the Church was centred around the monastery, there was no need for a movement away into the 44

“desert” as was the case in early monasticism. The abbot was the head of the Church and under him was the bishop(s) who merely performed the functions reserved for a bishop, like ordination. Some abbots even had the power to ordain bishops. Thousands of monks lived in the monastery. The reason for this peculiar Church structure was the different social situation in Ireland where the Church was not organized around a city under a bishop, but within the primitive structure of a clan bonded by the ties of tribe and kindred. Monasticism formed a part of this structure, and instead of being a counterculture movement against the spirit of the city, it formed an integral part of the Church and society. The monastery formed the centre of the Church in every respect. The entire clan was responsible for the monastery and the material upkeep of the monks. The chief of the clan was often a monk and simultaneously also the abbot whose office was hereditary. Thus, being a monk entailed no radical change for the person, as he remained embedded within the clan and its structures. But the desire of radical discipleship of Christ by abandoning family and society was a key element in monasticism, and there was constant urge to fulfill this need. So with the Irish monks there begins once again the ideal of wandering monasticism or the peregrinatio, leaving everything behind for Christ’s sake and imitating his wandering preaching; but it was a wandering with a specific purpose, namely, preaching and mission, and it was positively encouraged by Celtic monasticism. These wandering monks were members of specific communities, who were imbued with a deep desire to give themselves to evangelism. So from the end of the sixth to the eighth century Irish monks began breaking out in groups, first, purely out of the motive of peregrinatio, but later, also for the sake of mission. Often they travelled in groups of twelve or thirteen, to remind themselves of the twelve apostles or the apostles together with Jesus. This was undertaken in strict asceticism and with the permission of the abbot; sometimes it would also be given as punishment for misbehaviour. These wandering monks greatly contributed to the Christianization of Europe. Irish asceticism as we can gather from the rule giver of Irish monasticism, Columbanus (d. 615) and his penitential sermons, was harsh, uncompromising and even barbaric. The life of the monk was a heroic and unremitting warfare to conquer his own self-will and sensuality and therefore, the practices were of merciless severity. A brother who drops food or spills drink while serving is to do penance in the Church, lying prostrate and motionless during the singing of twelve psalms; breaking the rule of silence at meals is to be punished with six lashes; forgetting prayer before or after work with twelve lashes; smiling during the divine office with six lashes; using the words mine or thine with six lashes; contradicting the word of another with fifty lashes; for coughing in the Church or a false note in the choir with six lashes; other penances included staying in ice cold water during the praying of several psalms, hundreds of genuflections, praying for hours with outstretched arms, etc. The object of this ferocious discipline was to hurry the monk along the road to the unitive experience of God, which was the object of all contemplative effort. Through affliction of the flesh and contrition of the heart, through the toil of the body and the humiliation of the spirit one had to acquire perfection. “If you remove the battle you remove the crown as well,” Columbanus reminded his monks. But there are hints to show that the actual life in the monastery was more compassionate on human weakness. The Irish monks were known for their love for the poor, the needy and the prisoners; for making peace, for love of animals, and for appreciation of the natural world. The abbot often showed solicitude for his monks. Irish monasteries were also centers of learning and culture. But the most important characteristic of Celtic monasticism was its independence from episcopal control. 45

Doubtlessly, the most colourful personality of Irish monasticism was St Columbanus, who in 590 landed in mainland Europe with twelve companions, and founded many monasteries there. The ideas of Celtic monasticism were thus widely diffused in continental Europe with strong patronage from the royalty and the nobility. The attraction it had for the nobility had one special reason, namely, its independence from episcopal control, but the continuing control of the family which endowed it. The Rule that was followed in these monasteries was a “mixed Rule” of Benedict and Columbanus. The Rule of Benedict mitigated some of the cruelties of the Rule of Columbanus and added to it many practical guidelines for the management of the community. The missionary work of the Celtic monks resurrected the idea of universal mission. These wandering monks from Ireland were responsible for the conversion of large parts of Europe. They were influential in making Benedictine monasticism missionary oriented and many national Churches in Europe came to be founded by monks, for example, the Church in Germany, in the Netherlands, in the Scandinavian countries, etc. They were also the forerunners of the later European missionaries who left everything and went to far away places in the Middle Ages, and in the wake of the great missionary movement in the sixteenth century. Its immediate impact can be seen in the initiative of Pope Gregory the Great, who himself was a monk, in fact, the first monk Pope in history. He sent forty monks to England in 596 under the leadership of Augustine of Canterbury to convert the Anglo-Saxons. Still another contribution of the Irish monks was individual confession. Already from the time of Egyptian anchoritism, it was a practice in monasteries to confess to an abba, as part of spiritual direction. Often one received spiritual advice and a penance to perform. It was not connected with priesthood. The Irish monks introduced this practice into continental Europe and it gradually evolved into today’s practice of auricular individual confession made to an ordained priest. A phenomenon that became popular in Europe the “double monasteries” were contributions of Irish monasticism. They were not mixed communities but consisted of separate communities of men and women living in proximity, in some cases using a common Church for liturgical functions, and directed by a single head. There were historical precedents for this already from the time of Pachomius. The point of this arrangement was that women required the liturgical ministrations of priests; the male community also provided help with manual tasks and managerial skills that were thought to be beyond the capacity of women. Thus these were essentially communities of nuns to which communities of monks were attached in order to provide priests and heavier manual services. The head of the joint congregation was invariably a woman. The inspiration for these foundations must have come from the mission of Columbanus. There were double monasteries in the Celtic and Anglo-Saxon lands. These abbesses ruled their communities with supreme self-confidence. They had much the same role of an abbot in a male community, including the power to hear the confessions of her nuns and to absolve them. Seventh Century The seventh century offered the first external challenge to the church after the persecutions of the early centuries and it was far more devastating and lasting even to the present day, the challenge from Islam. Politically and religiously it was a catastrophic century especially in the Eastern part of the empire and for the Eastern churches. The West was not spared either because the church lost the north African church completely. 46

Muhammad was born in Mecca in Arabia. Arabia lay between Rome and Persia and consisted of numerous Arab kingdoms. Christianity was not unknown because many Aramaic speaking Arabs had accepted Christianity. Qutar and Yemen were Christian kingdoms. Through the Arab soldiers in the Byzantine army Christianity was known among the Arabs. But the majority of the people were idolators. Mecca was the centre of the cult centred around the Kaaba (holy house), shrine of the gods the black stone which is the centre of Islam even today. It was later named as the place where the Angel Gabriel appeared to Hagar. Born in 570 in Mecca, Muhammad began his prophetical career in 610. In 622 he fled (hejira) to Medina because of opposition, and he died there in 632. The opposition was because he preached against idolatry, the wealthy etc. But by then he had laid the foundation for a new religion, Islam, which would unite the Arabs in faith in the one God. The pagans saw in him a prophet and Mecca became the centre of the new religion and a holy city. From 632-634 the revelations to Muhammad were written down as the Koran. Though there were some similarities he wanted his religion to be completely different from Judaism and Christianity. There began a wave of conquests. In the first wave of conquests under the four “just” Caliphs, and in the second wave of conquests under the Umayyad Caliphs, Islam became a world power establishing an empire stretching from Spain to the Himalayas. Christianity lost many of its traditional centers: Palestine (its loss in 637 was the most painful for Christians and was the cause of the Crusades in the Middle Ages), the great patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch, North Africa (the Church of Tertullian, Cyprian and Augustine), the Church of Persia etc. In the West Islam established itself in Spain. Only Constantinople managed to hold on despite several attempts by Islam until it too succumbed to the Turks in 1453. The places where Christianity originated and grew were lost. The capture of Jerusalem in 638 was the most painful to Christians. The first wave of expansion lasted for a century, up to 750. Why did Christianity fail? Violence: In the beginning the aim of Islam was uniting the Arabs under one religion/state, not primarily Islamization of non-Arabs. Islam was not imposed. Conquered people were subjected politically. Jews and Christians were dhimmi (protected people) but had less political rights, had to pay extra taxes, later on Zoroastrians and Hindus also were included in this group. For the Arabs, Islam or death, for non Arabs, Islam or dhimmi (separation). Generally there was a three tier society, Arab Muslims, non Arab Muslims and non Muslims But slowly religious motivations and religious fervour too began to emerge. Once the pagan Arabs were converted, the non-Arabs were the new pagans. They had to be brought in and they had the military to support this and therefore the idea of the Jihads or holy wars, the weapon used by political Islam world wide. Holy war is a Western formulation. It does not exist in Arabic. Jihad means neither holy nor war but effort, dedication - in moral terms (greater jihad) or in terms of war (lesser jihad). Thus a moral effort is superior to effort in terms of war. The Muslims have interpreted it in the latter sense and it has given rise to violence against nonMuslims, it has contributed to the victorious progress of Islam. Convert or submit. Those who die in the process are transported to paradise. 47

The world was divided into dar-al-Islam (the sphere of Islam) and the dar-al-harb (non-Muslim sphere) and they were supposed to use force if needed to make it Islamic. So the goal of Islam is the victorious extension of their religion throughout the world. At any rate more aggressive than Christianity. Islam rules, it is not ruled over. Internal problems of Christianity. One wonders how the north African church could so easily be lost, the church of Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine etc. There are many reasons. The high point of the church in north Africa was reached by the fifth century. After that it was beset with divisions and it was weakened even before the Muslim invasion. Some suggest that Christianity was not inculturated well into the culture of north Africa and its theology was too elevated and abstract compared to the simple and direct theology of Islam. The church of Egypt after the council of Chalcedon moved into schism and the treatment meted of out to it by the emperor Justinian was heavy handed and they found the Muslim invaders friendly liberators rather than as conquerors. Perhaps the same reasons can be quoted for the collapse of the churches in Asia too. Divisions in the church were rampant on account of heresies. People felt Islam was a coherent and comprehensive message formulated in the Koran, which was proclaimed by fervent and well organized followers supported by the military power. The new Muslim rulers were normally tolerant and quite respectful to Christians. However conversion to Islam was encouraged by exemption from taxes which Christians and other non Muslims were obliged to pay and by better possibilities of advancement in social and political life. For some time the Christians remained numerically powerful in the conquered territories but as the number of Muslims grew the Christians were reduced to a minority and life became more difficult and conversion was the only possibility. Doctrinal Challenge In the beginning Christianity misunderstood the nature of Islam and its militant doctrines. It hardly took any notice of it or attempted to dismiss it as a Christian heresy. They laughed it off as footnote to the book of Genesis or revelation. But this was of no use. Islam developed into a powerful world religion and a great historical confrontation began and is still going on. Christianity could offer little inner resistance to Islam. Islam was close to Christianity in many respects. Muslims accepted the Old Testament. Christ was respected as a great prophet, and Mary was honoured as the mother of Jesus. Islam appeared to many Christians as a form of Christianity rather than a new religion. Islamic tradition claimed that it was the purest form of monotheism, the oldest, the original religion of Abraham from which Judaism and Christianity developed. Because of the inadequate foundations of the dogmas of Christology and Trinity and the divisions they caused the church could not challenge it adequately.

48

Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian but a (Muslim) man of pure faith who submitted himself to Allah (the Arabic word for supreme being) In time mankind strayed away. Prophets came to call them back, pre-eminent among them being Moses and Jesus. Jesus was a prophet whose task was to bring glad tidings of a prophet after him (Muhammad). Muhammad comes with a twofold task: to restore to the Arabs the pure religion of their ancestor Abraham; to give mankind the ultimate revelation the Koran. Therefore, he is the seal of the prophets, the vehicle of the last and greatest of God's revelations (integration of the Pentateuch and the gospel). There is less of NT in the Koran because there was no Arabic New Testament available at that time. In contrast there is plenty of Old Testament. Koran was written after his death. Only that the biblical stories are narrated completely different than in the bible. Abraham took Hagar and Ismael to a barren valley of Mecca where Gabriel opened for them a spring of water (the sacred Well of Zamzam) where Abraham and Ismael founded a sanctuary (the Ka'ba) and established the rites of pilgrimage (Hajj). Ismael lived there as the progenitor of the Arab race and language. Even today the hajj pilgrims celebrate the rituals related to this legend. Mecca was the naval of the world. Adam is buried there as against the Jewish Christian claim that Jerusalem in the naval of the world and that Adam is buried there. Abraham sacrifices Ismael, according to Islam. Abraham sacrifices Isaac, according to Bible. It developed rites and practices to challenge or distinguish itself from Jews and Christians. After capturing Jerusalem in 683 they built the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome on the Rock in 680 and 690/1 respectively to challenge the temple and to Islamize it. It's doctrine of pure monotheism was a direct challenge to Christian doctrines like Trinity, divinity of Christ, resurrection etc. People who were fed up with heresies, and divisions on account of them found it simpler to believe in the one God of Muhammad. He emphasized unity and that attracted many. Islam considers theology a peripheral thing and hardly necessary. It has limited dogmas and definitions. The law or Sharia has taken the place of dogma which helps to establish the perfect Muslim community. Strained relationship between Christianity and Islam The popular belief is that Christianity is the religion of the lamb, the dove, and Islam is the religion of the sword, Jesus is meek and humble, non violent, Muhammad is battle happy, promiscuous, having many wives etc. To be a Christian is to be civilized, to be a Muslim is to be uncivilized. This negative attitude has continued all through and there was no real dialogue between the two religions in any serious sense till today. 49

Islam did pose a real threat to Christianity. The assault continued intermittently for many centuries, especially on Constantinople. The West was protected except the presence of Muslims in some parts of Spain, Portugal, and Italy. But Constantinople was threatened constantly. The turning point came in 1071 at the battle of Manzikert where the Byzantine army was defeated by the Muslims. The emperor appealed for help from the Christian West and the Crusades were born. The Crusades and the subsequent developments have strained the relation between Christianity and Islam considerably and today it is an open enmity. We shall deal with it when we speak about the Crusades. Theological controversies still continued to plague the church in spite of threat from Islam. The occasion was the heresy of Monothelitism, the teaching that there is only one will in Jesus, the divine will, something that contradicted the teaching of Chalcedon. So the 6th ecumenical council of Constantinople III was called in 681 to expand the teachings of Chalcedon on the two natures in the one person of Christ by declaring that Christ had both a human will accompanying his human nature and a divine will accompanying his divine nature. Interestingly among those who were condemned was Pope Honorius (625-38). According to documents the pope had supported the theory of Monothelitism. His error was cited during the debate on papal infallibility at Vatican I in 1870 by the opponents of the dogma of infallibility. They were rebuffed by a counter argument that Honorius was giving a personal opinion and not giving a teaching on faith. How convincing it is is difficult to say. Supporters of Roman primacy say, this was an exception, because almost always the Roman church had managed to give the correct teaching on doctrine, even when all the other churches fell into error at various times. And they say, the Holy Spirit was behind this. But how could the Spirit make even a single mistake? Because the condemnation of a pope by a council was really exceptional and was unthinkable. Eighth Century The eighth century is a very important period in the history of Western Christianity. It had lost two important centres of Western Christianity, Africa and Spain, to Islam. But Islam was stopped from further incursion into Europe by Charles Martel, the ruler of the Franks at the battle of Poitiers in 732, and thus Europe was saved from the advancing Muslims. That led to the revival of and strengthening of the Frankish kingdom. This had far reaching consequences for the Church in the West. An alliance was forged between the Church and the Frankish rulers. The first major step was taken when in 754 Pope Stephen II (752-757), unable to defend himself against the Lombards, who were attacking Rome and no help coming forth from the Byzantine emperor, travelled to the headquarters of the Franks and requested for help. The Frankish ruler Pippin checked the advances of the Lombards and secured the territories under the control of the pope. He also gave the pope further territories in Italy. This was the so-called “Donation of Pippin” and the origin of the Papal States. In order to justify its existence even before this period, there arose the story of the “Donation of Constantine.” It is a record of the privileges Constantine gave to pope Sylvester I (314-345), for curing him from some skin disease, some say leprosy. The most important part of this donation was dominion over Rome, and all the provinces, places, and civitates of Italy and the Western region. The document was proved to be a forgery in 1439 by Lorenzo Valla. One of the sons of Pippin who became king in 771, Charles the Great (742814) would become the most famous Charlemagne of the Carolingian dynasty. Thus for the papacy, the century is important from two standpoints. On the one hand, the founding of the Papal States by Stephen II gave the papacy enormous material and political 50

power in subsequent centuries; on the other hand, it made the papacy a vassal of the Carolingian kings and contributed to its decline in subsequent years. It was a mutual arrangement of convenience but in practice, the papacy was at the receiving end. Charles the Great developed a theocracy in which the pope had only a subservient role (the duty to pray for the emperor). The protection of the Papal States necessitated the popes dabbling in dirty politics and even open warfare. This happened at the cost of the spiritual responsibilities of the papacy. The Papal states were abolished forcibly by the Italians in 1871 and the pope was left with only the Vatican thereafter. The reign of Charles the Great or Charlemagne as he came to be known is remembered for many important events in the history of the Church. He initiated the Carolingian Renaissance (from 781) a period of revival and reform of church life in general but some of his other actions had negative consequences. He had an exaggerated idea about his role in the affairs of the Church. His brutal expansionism and forced conversions are sad chapters in the history of Christianity (for example, the massacre of 4800 Saxons in 782). Two of his actions had negatively affected the relationship with the Eastern Churches. At the Council of Frankfurt in 794 he supported Iconoclasm thus alienating the Eastern Churches, and leading to the Eastern Schism. In the Synod of Aachen in 799, he added the “filioque” to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed (repeated in 809), another contentious point till today between the Western and Eastern Churches. The expression “filioque” (“and the Son”) indicating the double procession of the Holy Spirit was not part of the original Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed. It was added to the Creed by the Western Church at the Third Council of Toledo in 589 but had remained practically unknown but now with Charles’ action it became widely accepted. As a footnote let us also note a recent discovery that the earliest introduction of the filioque clause may have come at an Eastern council that was held in Seleucia Ctesiphon in Persia around the year 410. It was also argued by the West that it was meant only for the West and was meant for combating the residuals of the heresy of Arianism which was persisting in some places. But the East argued that the pope has no right to change the creed which was made by an ecumenical council, a valid argument. A second major event of the century was Iconoclasm and the calling of the seventh ecumenical council, the second council of Nicaea in 787. This is the last council recognized by the Catholics and Orthodox as ecumenical. The council defended religious art against the iconoclasts or image breakers. The veneration of icons was popular in the church, especially in the Eastern churches. Icons are images, flat pictures usually painted on wood or other materials to represent the Lord, the Blessed Virgin Mary or the saints which are venerated in the Greek church. From the Greek word eikon = image. Iconoclasm = image breaking; iconoclast is an image breaker. Iconoclast heresy is the controversy regarding the veneration of images which lasted from 725-843. Emperor Leo III (717-741) thought that veneration of icons was an innovation, bringing back old pagan customs. He did not believe in icon veneration. It hindered the conversion of the Jews and the Muslims he argued. In 726 he forbade the veneration of icons and ordered their destruction (Iconoclasm). Pope Gregory III condemned it in 731, and rejected the emperor’s right to interfere in theological questions. The famous theologian John Damascus energetically defended the veneration of icons 51

giving theological arguments, saying that with the incarnation God has sanctified matter, and that it can be used for representing God, and therefore, icons can be venerated. But emperor Constantine V claimed for himself the highest spiritual authority and declared iconoclasm as a dogma of the Church in 754. In 766 he made people take an oath against the veneration of icons. The monks who were the advocates of the veneration of icons, also for economic reasons, opposed these directives, but were brutally persecuted. This conflict caused the calling of the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 (seventh Ecumenical Council and last for the Orthodox Churches) by empress Irene. Veneration of icons was allowed but not adoration of them. The council condemned iconoclasm as a heresy but it was not acceptable to Charles the Great in the West although papal legates were present and endorsed it. In 794 at a Council in Frankfurt he rejected the decrees of the Council of Nicaea II, and the papal legates were forced to agreed with this. This was seen by the Eastern Churches as a lack of respect by the Western Churches for the traditions of the East. Whatever may be, the decree of the council has remained fundamental for catholic art and devotion ever since. Thanks to this council we have such art work all over the world in churches and outside, and master pieces like the paintings of Michelangelo in the Sistine chapel for example. Iconoclasm was revived again in the Eastern church in 814 but it was restored by empress Theodora in 843. The Eastern church instituted a fEast in honour of icons called the fEast of orthodoxy on the first Sunday in lent which is observed even today. Icons were accepted as a heritage, and part the separate identity of the Eastern Church. Ninth and Tenth Centuries On Christmas day in the year 800, pope Leo III personally crowned Charlemagne Holy Roman emperor. We know that the Western Roman empire had collapsed in the fifth century after the attack by the Germanic tribes but there was an emperor in the East who was nominally at least emperor for the whole of Europe. So this action irritated the Eastern church. It argued that after the collapse of the Western empire only the ruler of the Eastern empire could truly claim the title of emperor. Charlemagne might be considered a king but not an emperor. That the pope was directly responsible for this unwelcome act once again brought in the question of the pope’s power. Charlemagne saw it as a conferring of divine powers on him and continued his theocratic policies. He died in 814 and by the end of the century his dynasty, the Carolongian dynasty came to an end. The period after that till the next emperor was crowned in the person Otto I in 962 was a period of total chaos in the West both politically ecclesiastically. Warring nobility of Rome controlled both the affairs of the state and of the church. The popes tried to assert their rights with the help of a forged document called the Pseudo Isidorian Decretals, which originated sometime around 850 falsely attributed to the Church Father Isidore of Seville who died a century earlier. Its purpose was to protect the rights of the diocesan bishops against the metropolitans and the laity and argued for papal supremacy as their guarantee. It argued that the papacy was to be the last court of appeal and the pope alone had the right to call synods and to confirm their decisions. Civil laws which went against papal directives had no validity. The document was proved to be a forgery only in the fifteenth century but till then it was used well to protect papal power. The popes used it to depose bishops and for annulling the decisions of synods.

52

But this power was of no use. The ninth and tenth centuries proved very unfortunate times for the papacy. There were many antipopes and disputed elections. A few powerful families of Rome dominated the papacy which they almost regarded as their personal property. By the end of the ninth century papacy entered one of its darkest periods which lasted practically till the end of the tenth century and even beyond. The tenth century particularly is known as the “dark century” “saeculum obscurum” of the papacy. It all began with the murder of John VIII in 882, the first pope to be murdered. From 880-1046 there were 48 popes in succession. In the corresponding period in modern period (1846 to the present) we had only 11 popes. We know how precarious it was to be a pope in those times. Many of them were murdered. Towards the end of the century there took place some of the most bizarre incidents in the entire papal and Church history. The most macabre story was the one connected with pope Formosus (891-96). He was killed by a warring mob but that was not the end of his sufferings. A year after his death a gruesome trial was to take place, the so-called “cadaver synod.” His dead body was disinterred and in full pontifical dress brought before a synod. His elevation to the papacy and all his official acts were declared null and void. His crime was said to be committing “spiritual adultery.” He had been bishop of another diocese before becoming bishop of Rome. Since a bishop was said to be wedded to his diocese, this was considered spiritual adultery according to the law of the time. Finally his corpse was cast into the Tiber. It was recovered by a hermit and reinterred. This gruesome trial did not remain unavenged. Formosus’ supporters rose up against pope Stephen VI who conducted the trial, and had him strangled in the same year. To this period also is attributed the legend of the female pope Joan or sometimes called Johanna. The legend is proved to be a fabrication which first appeared in the thirteenth century. Her reign was assigned to the mid ninth century, after Leo IV whose death was in 855. According to several chronicles of later years, she reigned successfully for two years and seven months as a pope disguised as man, but when her true sex was discovered through her giving birth to a child, she was stoned to death. There were many other highly unfortunate episodes connected with the popes of the subsequent period. A revival and reform of the papacy would take place only in the eleventh century with pope Gregory VII. The ninth century saw the last ecumenical council of the first millennium, the fourth council of Constantinople (869-70) in which both East and West participated. But it is accepted as ecumenical only by the catholic church (8th ecumenical council in its list of 21) because the council condemned and deposed the patriarch of Constantinople, Pothius whose election to the post was not regular. This led to the Potian schism. The approval of this action by the pope once again irritated the Eastern church as an interference in the affairs of the church of Constantinople by the pope. The schism was healed but the stage was now set for the final break between the two churches in 1054. The ninth and tenth centuries were very important as far as expansion of the church was concerned. The Eastern part of Europe, inhabited by the Slaves, the most prominent among them being the Russians were not Christians. Their Christianization was achieved during the two

53

centuries and also of the northern part of Europe, known as the Scandinavian countries, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc. Thus by the end of the first millennium the entire Europe is Christian. The initiative for the Christianization of Eastern Europe went out from Constantinople and that is why they accepted the Eastern form of Christianity, today orthodox Christianity, except in Poland, where the initiative was taken by the Western church and so there we have the Latin Christianity. The persons responsible for it were two brothers, Cyril (or Constantine, 826-69) and Methodius (815-85), the so-called “Apostles of the Slavs”. They became the founders of Slavonic literature by inventing the alphabet for the language, pioneered inculturation by adopting Slavonic also for the celebration of the liturgy, and circulating a Slavonic version of the Bible. Unfortunately, the permission to use Slavonic as the liturgical language was withdrawn by pope John VIII. Particularly important was the conversion of Russia in the year 989. Wladimir of Kiew was baptized, and thus Russia became Christian. Moscow would later become an important centre of Byzantine Christianity, especially after the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 to the Turks. It claimed the status of “Third Rome” after Constantinople (“Second Rome”) was lost to the Muslims. Relations with the Roman Church would experience the same ups and downs that marked the relations between Rome and Constantinople. This is also the period when Christian mission was undertaken to Poland by the Western Church. In 966 the ruler Mieczyslav accepted Christianity. The enmity between Poland which had a Western form of Christianity and Russia also increased the hostility between Russia and Rome. Mission to the Scandinavian countries was undertaken by the monk Ansgar (801-65), who in turn is called the “Apostle of the North.” Harald Klak of Denmark was baptized with 400 nobles in 826, an important step towards the Christianization of Scandinavia. Ansgar accompanied him to Denmark and contributed much toward the evangelization of the peoples of Northern Europe. The German empire After the collapse of the Carolingian dynasty under the Franks, power now moves into the hands of the Germans. The new emperor Otto the Great from Germany was crowned in 962 by pope John XII. He continued the policy of his predecessors of interfering in the affairs of the Church. The papacy was too weak to resist. In order to suppress the rebellion by the nobles, Otto invested the bishops and abbots with princely rank and corresponding wealth, an arrangement which would last till 1803 till Napoleon abolished it. Lay investiture which would become a crucial issue between the pope and the emperor in the eleventh and twelfth centuries became an even more widespread practice threatening the independence of the church seriously. It concerned the kings’ right to confer upon bishops and abbots the ring and crosier that were their symbols of office. It led to lay domination over the Church and widespread abuses. The spiritual cause suffered and corruption, nepotism and unbounded sensuality marked the functioning of the Church, especially its bishops and abbots. A theological controversy which would resurface in the eleventh century and would be a key contention in the Reformation began here, namely the Eucharistic devotions and the understanding of the Eucharist. It is to be understood against the background of the increasing popular piety, which really wanted more “substance” to their devotions. So the massive 54

veneration of saints, icons, images, relics etc. began, encouraged by the church. This also was a consequence of the liturgical developments. Liturgy had become a massive show with lots of externals and pomp in a language which people understood little and their participation in it was nominal. So they wanted something substantial, to be seen, to be touched, and so the rise in popular devotions. Thus there arose the teaching that the Eucharistic symbols of bread and wine were not mere symbols but really the body and blood of Christ, the precursor of the theory of transubstantiation. Its chief proponent was Paschasius Radbertus (790-860), and his opponent was Hrabanus Maurus (780-856). In 844 Radbertus published his De corpore et sanguine Domini. In the host is the same flesh that was born of Mary. Hrabanus Maurus, the Archbishop of Mainz, said that Christ is present in the Eucharist in essence but not in appearance. The controversy reappeared in the eleventh century when Berengar of Tours revived it and the church would propose the theory of transubstantiation. It would play a key role in the Reformation and in fact would divide the Reformation itself. Corruption of monasticism Monasticism began as a lay movement, but soon it became the bastion of the clergy as most monks became clerics. But now there occurs a re-entry of the laity into monasticism, although through a backdoor, called endowments, which had disastrous consequences for monasticism. These monastic benefactions undertaken by the royals and aristocrats had mixed motives – religious, economic and political. The primary motive was religious, the safeguarding of the soul of the benefactor and of his or her relatives, in tune with current doctrines regarding salvation based on the idea of vicarious merit, and the need to make satisfaction for sins. The merit that accrued to an individual through prayer and good works could also be applied to other people, including the dead. This concept played a crucial role in medieval religion. To found and endow a community of monks or nuns meant ensuring for the donor an unceasing fund of prayer and intercession, which would avail him and his relatives, both in this life and after death. The concern with vicarious merit was associated with the belief that people could and should make satisfaction for their sins. Repentance attracted divine forgiveness, but without satisfaction it was not enough. Compensation must be paid to the wronged party, and in case of sin, it was God. And the nature of such penance was clearly recorded in the early medieval penitential manuals compiled for the guidance of priests. Medieval piety was haunted by the severity of the penances enunciated in these manuals, and the thought of having died without performing them. It soon came to be believed that these penances could be performed by the living on behalf of their dead through various practices. This is also the context of the emergence of the practice of indulgences. There were also economic, social and political reasons for endowing monasteries. They brought in rich revenues. They also made provision for members of their families who could not otherwise be accommodated – surplus male children who could not be adequately set up in land without a dangerous diminution of the dynastic estate, and women of the family for whom no suitable marriage alliances could be found. They could be placed in monasteries, where they might live with the dignity and esteem that was proper to their rank. In many cases they were given to the monasteries as children together with the land. They naturally excluded those who were not of noble birth. The monks and nuns were also expected to pray for the stability and safety of the empire. They were the spiritual counterpart of the secular armies. The monasteries were also bases from where new areas were colonized and christianized. The monks in the 55

Carolingian empire often performed this missionary task, and were actively engaged in destroying paganism and christianizing the people. The standard Rule for monasteries now became the Rule of Benedict which Charles the Great, considered the best plan for a well-ordered monastery. In 787 he even sent for an original copy of the Rule from Monte Cassino. Charles the Great also made some useful distinctions in monasticism. Those who took vows and followed the Rule of Benedict were monks; other congregations of men and women who lived a communal life of a quasi-monastic kind were called canons and canonesses. Many communities had to make a choice between the two, and not a few chose to be the latter. In 794 at the Council of Frankfurt, Charles the Great ordered that the Rule of Benedict should be the standard Rule of monasticism in his kingdom. There were some changes made in the Rule of Benedict to which many monks protested but without avail. The most conspicuous deviation was regarding the autonomy of the monastery. There was now an “abbot general” which Benedict did not envisage. Benedictine communities were independent entities. A large number of additions were made also to the divine office. Community mass became a daily affair, and also private masses of individual monks. The elaboration of liturgical activity disturbed the old equilibrium of work, prayer and study. There was no time for manual work for which they employed servants. With this emphasis on prayer they did satisfy their donors. Strict rules of enclosure were enforced. The reform, however, did not outlive its initiators. The system collapsed with the collapse of the Carolingian empire. In the violence that ensued, monasteries without adequate protection could not survive. Uncontrolled lay power demoralized many monasteries and monastic observance simply collapsed. Monasteries were used for all sorts of secular purposes. The king used the abbeys as a form of property with which he could reward royal servants and relatives. There was widespread secualarization of the abbeys. Very often the abbeys would be given to secular priests or lay vassals and the recipient of the grant became the “lay abbot” or “lay abbess” and could lay claim to most of the rights of the real abbot. Many of them were not sympathetic to the monastic cause. They would exploit the monastic buildings and lands ruthlessly and disrupt community life by moving their entire household with women, servants, and animals into the monastic buildings. The resulting confusion disrupted regular observance of the Rule and impoverished the monks and nuns who either dispersed or adopted the easier life of canons or canonesses. The monasteries also antagonized ordinary people because of the privileges and immunities monasteries enjoyed, for example, freedom from taxation and legal immunity. The abbots were very powerful people, with a lot of privileges. They were normally nominated by the emperor or aristocrats. The ideal of choosing the abbot by the monks as stipulated by the Rule of Benedict was often abandoned. Free founding of monasteries with free nomination of abbots reduced monasteries to mere financial enterprises. Such a system was bound to disintegrate sooner or later. Most of the monks were in the monasteries as children of six or seven years, called “oblates” (oblatus - offered). They were children offered to monasteries by parents to be brought up there. This way parents got rid of their extra or illegitimate children, or daughters who could not be married off or who were handicapped. Some pious parents also wanted their children to be given 56

a disciplined upbringing and therefore, put them in a monastery. How far were they equipped to observe the strict Rules of monasticism is a moot question. The clericalization of monasticism was also a danger. From earliest times monastic Rules had provisions for some priests to take care of the sacramental needs of the monks. But the Rules saw to it that there was no distinction between priests and the brethren. In the Rule of Benedict, the abbot determined the number of would be priests. As more monks became involved in the Church and its activities, especially the sacramental functions, it was necessary that they be endowed with the priestly office, especially for administering the sacraments of penance and Eucharist, but in a special way for the celebration of private masses, mostly celebrated for the dead. Thus priesthood and the monastic vocation came to be linked, and this created a new distinction in monasteries. Only a priest-monk was elected abbot. By the tenth century, most of the monks were priests, and only with the emergence of lay brothers in the following centuries was there a group of non-clerics in monasteries, who were, however, clearly subordinate to the others. Thus we have ideals and institutions emerging in monasticism, which were totally alien to the original spirit of monastic observance. By this time, the monastery had also transcended itself from being the abode of shabbily clothed monks to a place of learning and culture. Monasteries came to possess enormous cultural treasures; the buildings were well built and beautiful, and the lands produced a lot of wealth. The monks were in the forefront of agricultural development, brewing technology and various other activities useful to society later on. For this purpose they had to employ a large number of slaves. But by doing this, another old ideal that the monks should live by the work of their own hands was lost. But this was not practical any way, especially in big monasteries, and Benedict himself had allowed some work by slaves. One special activity of the monks was copying and preservation of books. The scriptorium was an important place in the monastery. In case of fire, the monks were supposed to save two things: the relics and the books, and it seems that the books were at times more important than the relics. In the fire of 577, which destroyed Monte Cassino, the monks apparently escaped with the books leaving the relics of Benedict behind. It was said that a monk, upon reaching heaven, found that his sins and his good works were weighed on a balance, and it was found that the number of words he had copied during his work in the scriptorium was just one more than the number of his sins, and so he was saved. So intellectual activity was, after all, a worthwhile thing. Although their school was not to admit outsiders, they could be proprietors and directors of schools outside the monastery walls, which were open to lay and clerical candidates, thus pioneering education. But there was also a general feeling that the original spirit of monasticism as foreseen by the Rule of Benedict was lost and the observance of the Rule had practically disappeared in many monasteries. The attacks from outsiders, like the Vikings and the Saracenes, who plundered monasteries and their properties also contributed to the downfall of many monasteries. The Cluniac reforms of monasticism was an attempt to restore the observance of the Rule of Benedict. The Reform of Cluny This was the first reform of Benedictine monasticism. It started from a monastery in Cluny, in France, founded in 909 by William of Aquitaine, and grew into a vast monastic empire in the 57

next two centuries consisting of several hundred houses spread throughout Western Europe. The idea was to go back to the old monastic ideal of extra mundum, that is, monasteries should be cut off from contact with the outside world and free from all external pressures and obligations so that the monks may find time for the observance of the monastic Rule. This was clearly expressed in the foundation charter, which authorized the monks to choose their own abbot after the death of the first one without interference by any outside influence, either lay or ecclesiastical. In order to guarantee this immunity, the founder of the monastery also vested the proprietorship of the establishment in the Apostles Peter and Paul and thus placed it under the immediate protection of the Apostolic See. This bond later developed into a special relationship of mutual advantage, which enabled the Cluniac monasteries to achieve a unique position of independence, privilege and power. Much that was characteristic of the Cluniac ideal was the creation of St Odo (c. 879-942), abbot form 927-42. He gave the monastic vocation a new theology and a new sense of mission. In the face of the evils existing in the society, the only safe way to salvation lay through repentance and conversion and entry into the monastic life. The monks constituted the real Church created by the Holy Spirit. If they utterly renounced the world and were faithful to their calling, they were already living in paradise. The consolidation of the empire progressed under St Odilio (9941048) and St Hugh (1049-1109). Papal exemptions and privileges and the extrication from diocesan authority helped this progress. Freedom from oversight of bishops brought in a flood of endowments, and as a result, the stringency of the early days was soon forgotten and there began the accumulation of wealth and a craving for grandeur and pomp. Soon Cluniac monasteries symbolized a disgraceful aberration from the austere simplicity of the Rule of Benedict. Until the completion of St Peter’s Basilica in Rome, the monastic Church of Cluny was the largest Church in Christendom. The Clunias teaching that the world was irremediably sinful and that the life of the monk was the only sure way to salvation struck a deeply responsive chord in the minds of many men who were oppressed by the need to make satisfaction for their sins and were fearful of the impending Day of Judgment. Those who could not join the monastic life would at least gift land or a child to the monastery. The child would pray for the family for years to come. The liturgical life stressed unending vocal prayer and long hours of choral prayer, occasions for which multiplied year by year. With Benedict thirty-seven psalms were prayed daily; Columbanus prescribed sixty-seven on weekdays and a hundred and eight on Saturdays and Sundays; with the Cluniacs, the number of psalms to be prayed daily were a hundred and thirty-eight. So prayer and praise of God became the chief occupations of the monks. The choir and community prayer replaced individual prayer almost completely. According to Benedict’s Rule, prayer was only one of the three activities of the monks side by side with work and study. But according to the Cluniacs, the monk was to be united with God through the practice of unbroken prayer. The next important virtue was silence. The importance of silence was theologically justified by saying that it was the chief characteristic of God. From the eternal silence of God had the Word of God come forth, and therefore, the silence that engulfed the Cluniac monasteries was supposed to be a participation in the eternal silence of God. With the Cluniac monks, prayer for the dead became a general practice in the Church. The feast of All Souls was first introduced by St Odilio in 998. This was in keeping with the wish of monastic patrons that the monks should pray for their dead. Prayer for the dead existed in the 58

Church from early times and monasteries had begun to practice it soon after the christianization of the Germanic tribes who had seen this as a Christian way to be united with their ancestors than through their pagan cults. The monks used to pray for their dead fellow monks and relatives as an expression of solidarity. But now they had the duty to do this for the dead benefactors. Soon ordinary people also began to give money to the monastery to pray for their dead. Thus the custom emerged as a universal practice. The Cluniac movement lasted for two hundred years, but excessive wealth, the crushing burden of continuous vocal prayer and rituals, and too much emphasis on community and lack of concern for the individual and his need for solitude, brought about its downfall. The quest for more disengagement with the world, simplicity, solitude and poverty began to be felt in monasteries once again. And that gave birth to other reform movements. A Life for God: the Monastic Observance Why did men and women chose a life style and engage in practices, which seem quite oppressive and bizarre to modern sensibilities? A mere look at the architecture of those monasteries gives one an eerie feeling. It is hard to recapture the experience and atmosphere of daily life behind those high walls. We will never be able to penetrate the interior experience that energized those men and women and gave meaning to a pattern of life built round the transience of life and the quest for the supernatural. Some of it are recorded in the so-called “customaries” or treatises recording the established practices of particular monasteries, supplementing the general instructions contained in the Rule. The following information is based on the Cluniac customaries. The monks slept in the common dormitory fully clothed in their habits except for cowl and scapular. This may have been no problem in winter, but in summer it might have been quite uncomfortable. At some time between 2am and 3am, the community was woken by the bell. Next they made their way into the Church assembled in choir to sing the night offices of Nocturns (Matins) and Lauds. A monk who was not in choir in time had to confess his fault and ask pardon in chapter. Staying awake during the lengthy reading and chanting was evidently a problem. A lantern bearer moved around to see if all were awake. If he came upon a monk who had fallen asleep during the prayer, he did not speak, but gently moved the lantern to and fro close to his face until he woke up. Although the day began in the early hours of the morning, it was not unduly long as the community retired for the night at dusk. The longer summer days were punctuated by a siesta that was allowed in the afternoon. As St. Benedict had intended, vocal prayer at the canonical hours formed the framework of the monastic day. These were the three short services of Terce, Sext, and None, the last two sung respectively at about midday and three in the afternoon, and the rather long evening office of Vespers. And the day concluded at dusk with the brief service of Compline. But this was now elaborated with many more additions. For example, the Cluniac community attended two masses daily, and besides these, there were the private masses celebrated at the many side altars in the early hours before daybreak because by this time it had become the practice to ordain a high proportion of monks to the priesthood. It is impossible to assess the psychological impact of these interminable hours spent daily in vocal prayer and liturgical rituals. How much of this was simply mechanical?

59

Outside choir, the most important assembly point of the day was the chapter. Following the morning mass, the community proceeded out of the Church into the chapter house. The abbot or prior presided. After the reading of a lesson and a chapter of the Rule, the head of the house delivered a conference or a sermon. Business matters were also discussed. Individuals who had committed breaches of the Rule or were accused of them by others confessed their faults and were assigned penances. After the chapter, which ended towards 10am, there was a clear period that could be devoted to work or study, lasting until the bell rang for Sext. Manual work had by now been practically eliminated because of the elaboration of liturgical rituals. It also reflected the social situation of the monks. Most of them were simply not accustomed to manual labour. As a famous Cluniac monk, Peter the Venerable said, the delicate hands of his monks were suitably employed furrowing parchment with pens than ploughing furrows in fields. This importance of reading and working in the scriptorium for the monk was underlined by the generous amount of time allotted to it. The scriptoriums were well equipped with books and parchments. They were the factories that until the twelfth century produced the great bulk of the literary works, secular as well as sacred, that filled the libraries of the Middle Ages. It was argued that after prayer and fasting the practice of literary composition did most to bridle the lust of the flesh. Monastic time table allocated two periods of the day to reading or writing, one in the morning before midday, and the second, between the main meal of the day and Vespers. The hour of dinner – main meal – varied according to season. In summer months it was eaten soon after midday following the high mass, and there was a second meal in the evening after Vespers. In the shorter days of winter, the timetable allowed for only a single meal, which was taken rather later in the afternoon, but some form of solid refreshment or a drink of wine was given before Compline and departure to bed. The meal was served and eaten in silence except for the voice of the lector. The preservation of silence is one of the primary aims of all strict monastic observance. There were strict times when conversation was permitted. In the Church, refectory and dormitory silence was perpetually observed. An elaborate sign language was developed so that the monk could express his needs without speaking. A request for bread was indicated by a circular motion made with the thumbs and first two fingers of both hands; fish was signified by a motion of a hand simulating the tail of a fish moving though water; for milk the lips were touched with the little finger because “thus does an infant suck milk.” A monk who wanted to make confession approached a priest of his choice and standing before him indicated his wish by drawing his right hand from his scapular and placing it on the chest whereupon the priest rose and led him into the chapter house to hear his confession. The rule of silence somehow mitigated one of the most oppressive aspects of life in the monastery – the total lack off privacy. Everything was closely supervised communal exercises, even shaving, which was reserved for the eve of major festivals. The brethren sat in lines along the cloister wall and passed round the razors and bowls. The operation was preceded by the recitation of psalms and collects. The Benedictine Rule urged that bathing was a practice to be discouraged except for those who were sick, and the customaries commonly ordained baths three times a year; before the festivals of Christmas, Easter and Pentecost, but always with the proviso that those who did not wish to participate need not do so. And even this moment of solitude was not to be prolonged because the Rule said: “When he has sufficiently washed, he shall not stay for pleasure”. It would be a mistake to think that this lack of privacy existed only in the monastery. Most people lived in one 60

room houses and had little privacy any way. The privacy that we take for granted today is the product of modern affluent societies. Thus, everything was laid down clearly: what every one had to do, when and how. We do not know how well these rules were observed at any given time. There used to be periods of strict observance and then it would slacken as it was human nature to do so. Much depended on the keenness of the superior. There were always those who took advantage of the situation of a weak superior. How many really wanted to be in a monastery was a moot question. Quite many were children when they joined, although this practice tended to disappear by the twelfth century. Many sought to escape a more dangerous and uncomfortable world outside. Others sought the prospect of status and security in society.

61