The Ecclesiopolitical Trajectory of the Late Medieval Age: A Precursor to the Reformation
I'm going to do something that is absolutely riveting: I'm going to read a long paper for you, part of it. This is 30% of chapter three, what I'm reading you tonight. So, I'm going to be going fast. Please write down any questions you have; we'll save them for after. Without further ado, tonight we are looking back at history. Why look back? Simply put, history has an abundance of riches to teach all who are willing to look at them.
One could possibly dispute this claim by asking what benefit there is to gain from examining an era of history referred to as the Dark Ages. This is a common question among the modern church. It is not to be, though, shrugged off too quickly by those of us who disagree and have come to appreciate the history and the traditions of the church. Even if this modern anti-historical posture is an overreaction that uses the popular phrase "Dark Ages," what is being reacted to should be examined and understood. By and large, when we think of this era of history leading up to the Reformation, the categories of mystery, corruption, disease, heresy, compromise, political power, war, and poverty are often the only categories popularly present concerning this era. Naturally, these things lead many to a dreadful view of the era.
While well-intended, such a posture displays an attitude of superiority in which one believes their own time to be categorically above all others. One author responded to this, making the claim that using the label "dark"—I'm talking about the dark era, dark age—betrays a deep-rooted ignorance by practically functioning not so much as a description but a disapproval of the era. Though one could argue like this, as many have, in asserting the Dark Ages to be a time immersed in gross superstition and barbarism, some recent arguments have been made against this view. These maintain that while there is some truth to the popular caricature, most of what is commonly believed about this era is not true.
One such argument, published a few years ago, called Bullies and Saints, states the term "Dark Ages" itself was invented to be used as propaganda to help pave the way for the Renaissance to come. But of course, standing against these more recent arguments is another modern agenda that is bent toward affirmation and reparation. The truth of the matter most likely lies between these two extremes. Nevertheless, if we are to rightly understand the Reformation, we cannot ignore the cultural context out of which it arose. Why? Like all events in organized human society, the Reformation was embedded in the social reality of people's lives. This means the roots of the Reformation existed in seed form in the hearts and lives of men, women, and families during the late medieval age, long before they sprang through the ground and began growing. Therefore, these roots ought to be examined and understood. We are, after all, historical beings. The past establishes and forms much of our present condition. This is as true theologically and ecclesiastically as it is culturally and politically.
Now, at this point, I would say there are really good arguments and things to be seen when we look at the cultural and theological landscape of the late medieval age. I'm thinking like 1200 to 1430-ish, right around there. That's what I'm calling the late medieval age. I think it starts about 800. That's the beginning of the medieval age to about 1200. But we do not have time tonight to do the cultural or theological landscape as fascinating as it is. So what I'm going to do for you is just explain the ecclesiastical landscape, the ecclesiological landscape, which just means we're going to talk about the church in the late medieval age. This helps us prepare for what the church would become in the Reformation. So let's turn to the ecclesiological landscape.
Perhaps the ecclesiological landscape is more vital than any other landscape to see to understand this era of history because this is the stage on which all of culture and theology was lived out. For better or worse, this drove much of the life and society of this time. The fruit of all the ideas and practices carried out in the church, resulting in a variety of consequences felt by all, from peasants to popes alike. Perhaps, though, it's more accurate to not use the phrase ecclesiological landscape, but rather to use the phrase ecclesiopolitical landscape. Because in the late medieval age, church and state were so interwoven, it's nearly impossible to discuss one without the other.
Now, there are ecclesiological patterns that emerge, like where could we begin to talk about this, right? There are patterns that emerge that help us see this era clearly and neatly and orderly with some structure. These matters, I think, are three: authority, clergy, and councils. Those three—authority, clergy, and councils—if we look at each one in turn, helps us understand the ecclesiological landscape of the late medieval age. These are separate matters, surely, but they overlap greatly. As soon as we mention the medieval ecclesiastical authority of the pope, the priests come into view. As soon as the priests come into view, the clergy comes into view. And as soon as the clergy comes into view, church councils come into view. Overall, in these three matters, we will see a steady ecclesiastical decline, a steady ecclesiastical decline, and diminishing will be obvious, reinforcing not only our understanding of this age, but our awareness of why the Reformation was soon to break out.
Matters of authority first. The question of authority has always been a pressing issue in the church. In the earliest days, the debate was centered on the witness and sufficiency of the New Testament writings, but as the first few centuries progressed, the debate began to be focused more and more on the apostles themselves and those they passed on their ministries to. One author states, "What is certain is that a hundred years after the ascension of Christ, his church was almost all being led by elected bishops and that congregations founded by the apostles had a special responsibility over all the other churches to preserve and defend their common legacy."
This state remained until Constantine decreed the famous Edict of Milan in 313 A.D., legalizing religion in the empire. After this, Christianity went so public and so popular, there needed to be a council to clarify the witness of the church in light of the error of Arianism and other voices. After this council, though, one would presume that unity was arrived, but the errors condemned at the council continued to spread, which gave need for further councils in the years following. Thus, another imperially sanctioned council was summoned in Constantinople in the year 381 A.D., where two pivotal decisions were made that would prove very consequential for the future of authority in the church. First, the council chose to divide the known world into five regions. Second, the bishop, pastor, the bishop in the largest city in each of those five regions was given the label patriarch of that entire region. The five regions were Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.
And sailing would occur for a time once this pattern of authority was established with these five patriarchs over these five regions, until another imperially sanctioned council would arise in 451 A.D. at Chalcedon, where the majority of Eastern churches refused to heed the result of the council. Fast forward, due to the rise and spread of Islam by 700 A.D., only the regions of Rome and Constantinople remained. The other three had disappeared, and they began to contend for who is the most prominent. One author states that Rome believed that they deserved prominence because of their apostolicity as well as the historical claims of the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul. Constantinople, on the other hand, believed that they deserved to be the most prominent region in the church due to it being the home of the emperor and the location of numerous previous councils that have been held.
Neither wanted to break off from the other until a skirmish prompted Rome to act. The Lombards attacked Italy and were nearing Rome, provoking the Bishop of Rome to ask the Franks for help. They not only helped, but they also defeated the Lombards and, quote, established the Roman Bishop as the ruler of Italy in the year 754. This is through what's called an edict called the Donation of Pepin. This was the official beginning in history known as the beginning of the Papal States. These territories ruled by the Roman Bishop would grow, increasing this Bishop's power, which also increased a contest for prominence with Constantinople. While it might be an overstatement to say this political arrangement opened the door for corruption to slowly enter in.
As long as it can be effectively argued that man's true end is supernatural and that his home is a heavenly community, those that administer directly to that higher end and community were in a position to assert their superiority over those who merely tended man's temporal needs. Such was the attitude that the Bishop in Rome came to embrace. By this point, he had commonly accepted the title as Pope. The word Pope being a nickname for Papa or father of the church. This word was used to refer to the Roman Bishop from the early days until about 1,000 or 1,100 AD when it became the official title for the Bishop in Rome. This Pope presided over the coronations of emperors, which gave the impression that they became political rulers with this man's approval and affirmation. With this Bishop having the power over the Papal States mixed with visible power over the emperor and spiritual power over the church, corruption quickly ensued and spiritual diminishment quickly followed. Such that the Roman Bishop eventually became a, quote, "plaything of the Roman aristocracy."
So while this ecclesiopolitical corruption declined, the patriarch in the West, the East continued to decline from the rise of Islam and the pressure that was put on Constantinople. The situation was deteriorating so badly in Rome, the cultural mood of the empire swung toward reform. Many desired it, but it was a group of monks in Cluny, France who first began a series of reform attempts in history. One author called these Cluny monks the first great contest between royal and papal power. These monks did the following: They believed that a new stronger Pope who would reassert Rome's authority over Constantinople was needed in order for Rome to be saved. So they campaigned to have their own Pope made Pope. In Leo IX, they got just that.
But from Leo's reassertion of Roman power, the East, I think Constantinople, they became further disillusioned with Rome, ultimately leading to the schism of 1054 when both patriarchs, the one over Rome, the one over Constantinople, excommunicated the other from the church. This moment would eventually come to be recognized as the infamous schism when East and West separated permanently. That's the first thing the monks in Cluny did to establish reform. The second thing the monks did was use their sway with the ruler, Nicholas II, to establish something called the College of Cardinals. These would be solely responsible for electing the Pope. While this would have positive outcomes initially in the removal of aristocratic power, it did create a religious seat of power so strong in the papacy that a later Pope, Urban II, was able to wield that power to begin the Crusades.
Power increased in the subsequent century to such a degree that in Rome, it was common to view the papacy as divinely instituted by God for protection of the church until the end of time. With the installation of the next Pope, Innocent III, the power of the papacy reached its climax. This is 1198 to 1216. This man, Innocent III, said this when he came into office: "You see then who is this servant set over this household? Truly I am the vicar of Jesus Christ, successor of Peter, anointed of the Lord, a God over Pharaoh, set between God and man, lower than God but higher than man. I judge all but am judged by no one."
Trends like this would continue with the popes that they would elect, the College of Cardinals that is, until a certain attack on the church's claims arrived from a political philosopher named Marsilius of Padua. In his work, The Defender of the Peace, Marsilius' words would strike a blow. He wrote this work aiming to arrive at tranquility and peace and redemption for the civil sphere but concluded that Europe was by and large absent due to the clergy and the papacy, absent of peace that is. He stated the pope's, quote, "insatiable appetite for temporal things caused them to be discontented with the things which the rulers have granted them. These bishops have set themselves up as rulers and legislators in order to reduce kings and peoples to intolerable and disgraceful slavery to themselves. Consequently, they become insufferable to all the faithful."
Marsilius also attacked the commonly held authority structure of the late medieval age, which believed in a divinely instituted hierarchy from God to pope to king to people. He would turn this on its head in his work, The Defender of Peace, and he taught a better model would flow from God to the people followed by two different spheres of society, one belonging to the citizens and their king and the other belonging to the faithful and their pope. Isn't that nuts that in the end of the 1200s we have the beginnings of what we would come to call one day the separation of church and state? In this new model, Marsilius showed that it would legitimately pave a way out of the abuses of authority that was so present in the papacy so far. Marsilius' writings caused such a sensation among the people that the papacy labored to suppress this work and would even later blame Marsilius and his work for causing the Reformation and spoiling what these popes have so long enjoyed.
Historians, though, have wondered if and how Marsilius' work against the abuses of the popes impacted figures like Zwingli, Luther, Cromwell, Calvin, and later creeds and councils like the Peace of Augsburg. Yet one author strikes, I think, a needed balance with this when he comments, "Even if it did not directly influence them, Marsilius' teaching clearly anticipated and assisted major developments in the 16th century political thought that were very favorable to the Reformation." So that's authority in the late medieval age. Let's now turn to the impoverished clergy.
As was the case with the rise and fall of papal authority, so is the case with the late medieval clergy. It possessed a beginning filled with virtue as the apostles passed on their ministry to godly men and those men passed it on to others. While there are patterns of decline and reform throughout the history of the church, ultimately as the centuries progressed, the clergy would succumb to an end filled with vice. The Fourth Lateran Council, think 1215 AD, there was a pronouncement called the "cure of souls," decreeing that clergy were to be, quote, "capable in knowledge and of fit morality to be appointed to churches."
Following this decree, this is 1215 AD, there was a high stress placed on the morality, integrity, temperance, simplicity, and abstinence of priests. Yet due to the high volume of the number of churches arising as well as being built, the standards for clergy were slowly and surely relaxed to ensure that each local parish had a priest. These relaxing of standards was more easily seen, at least initially, in the popular culture of the day rather than in the established canons of the church. So while the church continued to present themselves as uprightly maintaining high and virtuous standards, the wider culture started to embrace and hold a diminishing view of the church and its clergy. Why? Because the abuses of the clergy were obvious.
It would be hyperbole to state that the entirety of the clergy at this time in the church was corrupt; there were good priests, there were healthy parishes, healthy churches, but it would be dishonest to state that those healthy movements were the majority. They were by far the minority. Historian after historian, both Protestant and Catholic, described the clergy in this era to be miserable. Abuses abounded: widespread immorality, simony, absenteeism, corruption, and more created the common view that entering the cloister to be trained as a monk and a priest was a sign of weakness, a sign of significant social and maybe even physical handicap. One modern author says, "Although contemporary Catholic parents did not consider the cloister to be a danger to the souls of their children, they did tend to view it as a place for the weak or, in some way, failed child who needed special protection."
Luther, when he entered into the Augustinian order at Erfurt in 1505, admitted that his own entrance into the cloister was a, quote, "act of weakness stemming from a nervous temperament brought about by the strictness of my parents." What a quote. The low view of clergy was not helped when, in response to the actual quality of the clergy, the Synod of Cologne in 1260 AD lowered the bar even further by decreeing that every priest should only be able to properly read the liturgy and sing the church service. And then the Synod of Oxford in 1281 demanded a cessation of all preaching, lest error be spread. Years before these synods, Peter Damiani concluded that the morals of the priests are similar to the darkest of the cities. Bernard of Clairvaux, a theologian during the late medieval age, would criticize priests for many things, including the following: The wearing of military dress, political performance, stating the priests had neither the courage nor the virtue of a soldier.
This was not only limited to monasteries; it extended to convents as well. In some cases, convents were no better than brothels where nuns held exhibitions of dancing that the clergy would come to enjoy. It would be cliché to put it this way, but the popular opinion was that churches were not overflowing with the worship of God, but were, quote, "filled with the rolling of dice, the drinking of wine, and the brewing of beer." One historian goes as far as to say the clerical standards in life were so low it was impossible for it to go any lower in any appearance of true religion to remain. In 1490, a man named Felix Faber of Ulm commented that, quote, "the well. One prominent one is Erasmus of Rotterdam, the famous Catholic theologian of the Reformation era, was highly critical of the priests in his day, who stated that the licentiousness of the clergy was legendary and exceedingly vast."
Now, why is this the case? Surely we've talked about the slow and sure diminishing of standards that's been mentioned, but are there other reasons that we can give for accounting this decline? Yes, there are many, but let's just highlight two. First, the requirement of celibacy, and second, follow me here, this is a sentence, the aristocratic practice of acquiring ecclesiastical positions for sons regardless of moral or intellectual fitness. While the nepotism, that's really what the second one is, of the latter is in no need of proof, perhaps the former is. One author agrees in his own assessment, declaring celibacy as the cause of great burdens paving the way to great scandal among the clergy. Among the many consequences of celibacy, concubinage stands out as the leading grievance among the age. While some priests, most had one concubine that he faithfully loved, had children with, but never married, many other priests had many concubines dwelling within his home.
Among the priesthood, it was seen as an honorable thing, culturally, to have concubines in his care, despite the Pope's and Council's decreeing otherwise. The Fourth Lateran Council, that we've mentioned, prohibited all such actions, but the church still secretly accepted financial compensation from these priests when they would confess this sin in the booth. For these things, Bonaventure, the theologian, said, "Very many of the clergy are notoriously unchaste, keeping concubines in their homes and elsewhere, or notoriously sinning here and there with many persons." There are certainly exceptions. The evidence proves and displays a very low quality of clergy in the late medieval age. It was commonly seen among the church and the wider public. It was so clearly evident that even though this first call for reform was put to death for the calling out of the sins and abuses of clergy, many within the church soon began doing the same. This would only lead to one thing: attempted reform.
Let's linger on that. Lest one believes that no reform attempts were ever attempted until Luther's famous mallet moment at Worms, it should be noted that many had already called for reform in previous ages. Mention has already been given of the patterns of straying and renewal throughout the history of the church, going as far back to the first ascetics, the desert fathers, and then those Cluny monks seeking to reform to a more faithful clergy order. But others like Bernard of Clairvaux would criticize the worldliness of the pope and priests. So by the time of the late medieval age, the low living of the clergy had reached its highest point. This led to church councils: The Council of Pisa in 1409, the Council of Constance in 1414, and the Council of Basel in 1431.
These three councils were notably convened to address three large matters of concern to Catholics at this time. First, they wanted to talk about heresy, and they would define heresy as John Huss and the Hussite movement, the Bohemian Czech reformer who was getting out of hand, we need to squash him. They wanted to talk about schism. There were three popes by this point that each had a claim to be the true pope. They needed to choose one of them or none of them and bring a new one. And lastly, reform of the church in its head, pope, and members, clergy. The Council of Pisa marked the first formal attempt at reform. Yet it's generally remembered, if you look it up by historians, to be at best a desperate measure by those who did not know what to do, and at worst, a failure amid an ecclesiastical emergency.
Basel, the council, was the last council to attempt to address these issues, and while it did solve the schism issue, it really did not succeed in much else. The abuses and low living of the clergy continued and would only increase in the subsequent years ahead. Councils of future generations would even vote to dismiss and get rid of altogether the councils and decisions of Pisa and Basel. With only a few remaining in attendance, the final decisions were made at the Council of Basel so quietly that it was not even among the noticeable events of the day. But in between these two councils of Pisa and Basel is the infamous Council of Constance. Infamous for its decisions as well as infamous for its press in the wider culture.
The purpose behind the Council of Constance was the same as the other councils. As its attendants, they gathered to address abuses, scandal, and schism. Yet unique to Constance was the trial and the execution of the Bohemian reformer John Hus, a troubler to some, a hero to many others for his translation of the scriptures into Czech and his rejection of the infallibility of church councils. This happened at Constance. It was officially begun on November 1st, 1414. And during the four years of its many meetings, thousands of clergy, kings, princes, professors, bankers, artists, tourists, and more would frequent the city to join in, contribute to, or just watch the sessions of the council.
The first number of sessions debated and discussed the heresies of John Wycliffe and John Hus, and ended with Hus' execution. The following sessions turned to three rival popes: John XXIII, Gregory XII, and Benedict XIII. They removed John, and it was clear the council intended to remove all three and install a pope of their own making. This plan slowly succeeded, and Cardinal Otto Colonna, under the name Martin V, was elected as a new pope. This negative effect of this act was that popes were really no longer seen as those who could be counted upon to properly handle the affairs of the church. Martin V would be remembered as, quote, "a creature of the council," due to his election and creation at the Council of Constance, effectively leading some historians to believe that Constance itself and the new regular push for reform councils came to be the new seat of true authority over the church, rather than the pope.
Standing against the high hopes and aspirations of Constance are widely circulated tales, not altogether proven untrue. Constance itself, the city, was turned into something of a spectacle with all the travelers coming to it and seeking to witness these sessions and these meetings. Not only did the council attract many godly people from all over the region for godly purposes, it also attracted the powerful and the wicked among the church as well, which is seen in the infamous budget line items of the Council of Constance. You will look near the bottom and you will see a budgetary line: prostitution. They had to take care of all the people in attendance, hence the problem. The writing seems to be on the wall here. Constance met to address the issues of the absence of morality of the day, but they also reflected these abuses of the day, the blemish and irony we really don't need to further mention.
Ultimately, while not truly addressing all and reinforcing unhealthy doctrine, the Council of Constance would pave the way forward for much in the Protestant Reformation. Here, Constance is a council that not only convened directly against papal authority, or sorry, and abuse, but one that freely debated and discussed many items never yet allowed, and one that truly represented how disenfranchised the wider culture was with the church. One thing remained after the Council of Constance and its infamous decisions: the church needed reform. And it was only about 50 years later in 1483 when Luther would be born. And the echoes of reform coming down from those first monks at Cluny would continue to resound.
I just covered a lot, I know that. We focused, let me wrap up a little bit, on the social reality of the late medieval age. We did not talk about the cultural realities of the late medieval age, or the theological realities of the late medieval age, but the ecclesiological or ecclesiopolitical trajectory of this time and how it contributed toward a greater understanding of the impoverishment of the church during this age. Into this context, not only was Martin Luther born, but Martin Bucer was born, John Calvin was born, and they picked up the torch for needed reform. All these reformers were children of their own time, and the church I described to you was the church that these men were born into. It was not the church, by God's grace, that they left upon their own death. That was a work of grace to recover the truth that had been hidden for ages. Thoughts, questions, comments, that was a lot, I know.
