The span of time between Gregory the Great and the beginning of the scholastic era (from 600 to 1050, in other words) was not distinguished for developments in the field of theology. Nevertheless, one thing about this period was remarkable: the enthusiasm with which the newly Christianized peoples devoted themselves to the cultural resources made available by Christianity and antiquity. The era of the Carolingian Empire was the golden age in this respect. This era also included a number of important theologians, such as Alcuin (d. 804), Babanus Maurus (d. 856), Badbertus (d. 865), Batramnus (cl. after 868), and Hincmar of Reims (d. 882). But their activity did not take the form of a new orientation of theological thought; they rather collected and reproduced the older tradition. Among the church fathers, they referred particularly to Augustine and Gregory. Even the study of Scripture was pursued in the traditional way. In the so-called catenae (chain commentaries) these men compared the patristic interpretations of various Bible passages. Of greatest importance to the future was the commentary usually ascribed to Walafrid Strabo—the so-called Glossa ordinaria. In this work, quotations from the church fathers are applied to various facets of the doctrine of faith. These quotations proved to be a valuable source for theological activity in subsequent years. Two significant Anglo-Saxon theologians who were active in this period were Theodore of Canterbury (d. 690) and the Venerable Bede (d. 735). The latter is best remembered for his Ecclesiastical History of the English People.
The theology of this period formed the basis for subsequent developments by preserving the heritage of the patristic age and of antiquity. Dogmatic discussions did arise on certain points, some of which deserve closer attention.
The adoptionist controversy was a reecho of the Christological debates of the early church; it involved, in a special way, the interpretation of the Formula of Chalcedon. A Spanish theologian, Elipandus of Toledo, set forth the idea that the man Jesus was united with the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, in such a way that He could be called Filius adoptivus. By virtue of God’s prior decision and will, He had been chosen to be called God’s Son. By saying this, Elipandus desired to do justice to the idea that Christ is as one of us. The word adoptivus itself was taken from the “Mozarabic” liturgy. The chief opponent of this Christology was Alcuin. He compared the adoption concept to the Nestorian idea of two persons in Christ. Elipandus’ mode of expression made it necessary to think of “two sons” (according to Alcuin): the divine Logos, who was God’s Son according to His essence, and the man Jesus, who was adopted as Son.
Adoptionism was condemned by a number of Frankish synods (Regensburg, 792; Frankfurt, 794; Aachen, 799). As a result, the way was prepared for the acceptance of the Byzantine Christology in the West as well. As was true of Leontius or John of Damascus, Western theologians came to think of the divine Logos as the bearer of the personal unity, having taken the human nature up into His person. As Alcuin put it: “When God assumed fleshly form, the human person disappeared, but not the human nature.” ( Migne, PL 101, 156)
The “Filioque” controversy and the picture controversy. One of the earliest additions made to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed in the West was the word Filioque: “The Holy Spirit … proceeds from the Father and the Son.” The Frankish theologians deliberately supported this alteration, and sought to justify it theologically. The above-named Ratramnus was among those who defended this usage in the face of opposition from Patriarch Photius. Ratramnus found support for his stand in ideas derived from Athanasius and Augustine. The Eastern point of view was considered Arian with respect to the Holy Spirit. In the Greek Church it was thought that the divinity of the Father was superior to that of the Son and the Spirit and formed the source of the divine essence. As a result, the Holy Spirit could proceed only from the Father. The question of authority was also involved; the Greeks argued that changing the creed in this way was unwarranted. Rome adopted a wait-and-see policy for a long time, but when the Nicene Creed was inserted into the Mass in the 11th century, the use of the Filioque was approved.
The Frankish theologians were also involved in another controversy with the Eastern Church. The Seventh Ecumenical Council, held in Nicaea in 787, had consented to the reverent adoration (προσκυvησις) of pictures of Christ and the saints. The explanation given was that such adoration is directed not to the pictures themselves but to those represented by the pictures. The actual worship (λατρεια) of pictures was repudiated. Nevertheless, at the synod held in Frankfurt in 794 the Frankish Church rejected this decision. Charlemagne and his theologians maintained that pictures should not be the object of any kind of adoration. They should rather be thought of merely as decorative objects or as pedagogical devices. In this matter the point of view of the Frankish Church was not universally upheld in the West. Rome never rejected this Nicene decree, and later on (e.g., at the Council of Constantinople held in 870) the Church of Rome recognized the adoration of pictures in the same sense as the Council of Nicaea. (See above, p. 105)
The predestination controversy. A Saxon monk named Gottschalk, who after reluctantly entering monastic life resided at the cloister of Orbais in France, concluded that it was his responsibility to proclaim double predestination in its strictest form. He claimed (with some justification) that he found support for his teaching in the writings of Augustine, and he accentuated his point of view by avoiding all mention of human freedom. Predestination is based on God’s unchanging nature. Gottschalk did not say, however, that certain persons are predestined to evil. What is rather decided beforehand is that the ungodly will receive the punishment which they deserve, just as the righteous will receive eternal life. In both cases, therefore, the right thing is done. But rejection has its cause in the eternal decree of God. The atonement wrought by Christ applies only to those elected to eternal life. The following quote from Gottschalk’s confession summarizes his message: “For just as the unchangeable God, prior to the creation of the world, by His free grace unchangeably predestined all of His elect to eternal life, so has this unchangeable God in the same way unchangeably predestined all of the rejected, who shall be condemned to eternal death for their evil deeds on judgment day according to His justice and as they deserve.” (Migne, PL 121, 368 A).
Gottsehalk presented his doctrine at a religious conferenee in Mainz, where he was opposed by Rabanus Maurus, one of the leading theologians of that period. At a synod held in Chiersy in 849, Bishop Hincmar of Reims, in whose diocese the cloister of Orbais was located, condemned Gottschalk to house arrest in the monastery. Certain contemporary theologians sought to defend Gottschalk, even though they did not agree with him on all points, but his teachings were officially condemned. Gottschalk lived as a prisoner in the monastery for 20 years, all the while insisting that his position was correct. Some of the poems which he wrote during this time have been preserved. In an age when Gregory’s interpretation of Augustine, with its emphasis on freedom of the will and cooperation with grace, strongly influenced the theological climate, Gottschalk stood, for the most part, alone.
The theology of this period formed the basis for subsequent developments by preserving the heritage of the patristic age and of antiquity. Dogmatic discussions did arise on certain points, some of which deserve closer attention.
The adoptionist controversy was a reecho of the Christological debates of the early church; it involved, in a special way, the interpretation of the Formula of Chalcedon. A Spanish theologian, Elipandus of Toledo, set forth the idea that the man Jesus was united with the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, in such a way that He could be called Filius adoptivus. By virtue of God’s prior decision and will, He had been chosen to be called God’s Son. By saying this, Elipandus desired to do justice to the idea that Christ is as one of us. The word adoptivus itself was taken from the “Mozarabic” liturgy. The chief opponent of this Christology was Alcuin. He compared the adoption concept to the Nestorian idea of two persons in Christ. Elipandus’ mode of expression made it necessary to think of “two sons” (according to Alcuin): the divine Logos, who was God’s Son according to His essence, and the man Jesus, who was adopted as Son.
Adoptionism was condemned by a number of Frankish synods (Regensburg, 792; Frankfurt, 794; Aachen, 799). As a result, the way was prepared for the acceptance of the Byzantine Christology in the West as well. As was true of Leontius or John of Damascus, Western theologians came to think of the divine Logos as the bearer of the personal unity, having taken the human nature up into His person. As Alcuin put it: “When God assumed fleshly form, the human person disappeared, but not the human nature.” ( Migne, PL 101, 156)
The “Filioque” controversy and the picture controversy. One of the earliest additions made to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed in the West was the word Filioque: “The Holy Spirit … proceeds from the Father and the Son.” The Frankish theologians deliberately supported this alteration, and sought to justify it theologically. The above-named Ratramnus was among those who defended this usage in the face of opposition from Patriarch Photius. Ratramnus found support for his stand in ideas derived from Athanasius and Augustine. The Eastern point of view was considered Arian with respect to the Holy Spirit. In the Greek Church it was thought that the divinity of the Father was superior to that of the Son and the Spirit and formed the source of the divine essence. As a result, the Holy Spirit could proceed only from the Father. The question of authority was also involved; the Greeks argued that changing the creed in this way was unwarranted. Rome adopted a wait-and-see policy for a long time, but when the Nicene Creed was inserted into the Mass in the 11th century, the use of the Filioque was approved.
The Frankish theologians were also involved in another controversy with the Eastern Church. The Seventh Ecumenical Council, held in Nicaea in 787, had consented to the reverent adoration (προσκυvησις) of pictures of Christ and the saints. The explanation given was that such adoration is directed not to the pictures themselves but to those represented by the pictures. The actual worship (λατρεια) of pictures was repudiated. Nevertheless, at the synod held in Frankfurt in 794 the Frankish Church rejected this decision. Charlemagne and his theologians maintained that pictures should not be the object of any kind of adoration. They should rather be thought of merely as decorative objects or as pedagogical devices. In this matter the point of view of the Frankish Church was not universally upheld in the West. Rome never rejected this Nicene decree, and later on (e.g., at the Council of Constantinople held in 870) the Church of Rome recognized the adoration of pictures in the same sense as the Council of Nicaea. (See above, p. 105)
The predestination controversy. A Saxon monk named Gottschalk, who after reluctantly entering monastic life resided at the cloister of Orbais in France, concluded that it was his responsibility to proclaim double predestination in its strictest form. He claimed (with some justification) that he found support for his teaching in the writings of Augustine, and he accentuated his point of view by avoiding all mention of human freedom. Predestination is based on God’s unchanging nature. Gottschalk did not say, however, that certain persons are predestined to evil. What is rather decided beforehand is that the ungodly will receive the punishment which they deserve, just as the righteous will receive eternal life. In both cases, therefore, the right thing is done. But rejection has its cause in the eternal decree of God. The atonement wrought by Christ applies only to those elected to eternal life. The following quote from Gottschalk’s confession summarizes his message: “For just as the unchangeable God, prior to the creation of the world, by His free grace unchangeably predestined all of His elect to eternal life, so has this unchangeable God in the same way unchangeably predestined all of the rejected, who shall be condemned to eternal death for their evil deeds on judgment day according to His justice and as they deserve.” (Migne, PL 121, 368 A).
Gottsehalk presented his doctrine at a religious conferenee in Mainz, where he was opposed by Rabanus Maurus, one of the leading theologians of that period. At a synod held in Chiersy in 849, Bishop Hincmar of Reims, in whose diocese the cloister of Orbais was located, condemned Gottschalk to house arrest in the monastery. Certain contemporary theologians sought to defend Gottschalk, even though they did not agree with him on all points, but his teachings were officially condemned. Gottschalk lived as a prisoner in the monastery for 20 years, all the while insisting that his position was correct. Some of the poems which he wrote during this time have been preserved. In an age when Gregory’s interpretation of Augustine, with its emphasis on freedom of the will and cooperation with grace, strongly influenced the theological climate, Gottschalk stood, for the most part, alone.
No comments:
Post a Comment