READING GUIDE WEEK 5 (Christian Concepts of the Middle Ages)
1. The Nicene Creed
Introduction: This simple statement of faith was produced by an empire-wide
synod of bishops held in Nicaea in 325 CE. Keep in mind that the
Roman emperor Constantine had only legalized Christianity thirteen years
previously, and that the emperor himself presided over this synod.
Constantine was particularly interested in producing a uniformity of belief
and faith, and therefore in ending the bitter conflict between Arians and
non-Arians. Arius and his followers argued that the second part of
the trinity (God the son, or Christ) was lesser than God the Father; in
essence they thought of Christ as not fully divine. They were opposed
by another segment of the Christian population, who eventually prevailed
and therefore called themselves ‘orthodox' or‘catholic'. As violent
controversy concerning the two positions rocked the Roman Empire during
the mid fourth century, the emperor wanted to clear up this point of disagreement
and produce a uniform set of beliefs. At Nicaea in 325, the assembled bishops
argued long and hard before deciding in favor of the non-Arian position.
The Arians eventually came to be considered heretics, and the non-Arian
position became the standard, or orthodox one. The Creed produced
in 325 (from the Latin word credo, meaning "I believe") was thus an important
theological and political statement of anti-Arian orthodoxy. It is
still used in many Christian churches today (the Episcopal Church, for
instance). It was the standard creed for medieval Catholic
Christians as well.
a. Why does the Creed start with a statement about the Trinity? What
is the Trinity?
b. Why did church leaders and the emperor both think it was important
to produce a Creed?
c. Did Christians of the fourth century accept the possibility of an
ecumenical Christianity (that is, did they think it OK if there were lots
of different varieties)? Why or why not?
d. Does anything in this creed surprise you? why?
2. St Vincent of Lerins defines orthodoxy, 434
Lerins was one of the first monasteries founded in the Western half
of the Roman Empire. It produced a series of fine scholars and theologians,
of whom St Vincent is one. Part of the process of formalizing and
organizing what it meant to be a Christian in the 4th and 5th centuries
meant setting up definitions. Vincent's definition of what it meant
to be ‘orthodox' or ‘catholic' is not the only example of its kind, merely
one of the clearest and best known. It sets forth what would become
the fundamental pillars of medieval Christianity (and, incidentally, of
modern Catholicism). Look carefully at what Vincent sees as proper sources
of Christian authority. Although this text was written in the 5th
century, the ideas contained within it about orthodoxy and heresy continued
to be held by medieval Christians.
a. What does ‘orthodox’ mean? Why does St Vincent think it necessary
to define orthodoxy? What is heresy? Why does St Vincent consider heresy
to be ‘degraded’ and dangerous? Was he alone in thinking this? Why or why
not?
b. St Vincent’s second point is absolutely critical for any understanding
of early and medieval Christianity. What authorities underlie an
‘orthodox’ Christianity? What does he mean by the ‘interpretation of the
church’? What does St Vincent say to those who insist that scripture
is sufficient authority? [In point two, he lists the names of many men
- all espoused theological opinions that were declared incorrect, or heretical,
by men such as Augustine]
c. Remember that before “Catholic” was a denominational description
(ie., the modern Catholic Church), the word ‘catholic’ meant simply ‘true
and correct’. So, when St Vincent describes the ‘catholic church’ he in
fact is referring to that one universal church of those who believe correctly
about Christianity.
d. St Vincent’s fourth point is also absolutely critical. He brings
up the obvious point the scripture is open to lots of very differing interpretations.
How is the ‘catholic’ Christian to know which is correct? What should such
a person do when encountering other interpretations? Note especially the
value that St Vincent assigns to ‘antiquity’ over ‘novelty’. What does
this mean?
3. The Seven Sacraments
This collection of short documents is meant to illustrate some of the
medieval ideas about the sacraments. As the online introduction to these
texts makes clear, the word sacrament was originally applied to the ritual
of baptism, especially in the sense that baptism introduced a new covenant,
or oath, with God. Slowly other rituals came to hold the same sort
of special prominence in medieval Christian religious practice, although
the precise number of sacraments was not fixed in the West until the 12th
and 13th centuries. Eventually there came to be seven official sacraments.
The documents at this website are disparate in time and place, but are
useful in showing the ways in which the medieval church explained its notion
of the sacraments to others who were unfamiliar with them. The first text
contains the statement of faith required of the Byzantine Emperor when
he converted to Roman Catholicism in 1274 (remember the Byzantine Empire
was the eastern half of the former Roman Empire; its inhabitants largely
spoke Greek and, by at least the 1000s, had come to possess a version of
Christianity different in many ways from that of the western, Latin speaking
Europeans. This eastern Christianity is today known as Greek Orthodox Christianity.
The Latin West criticized the Greek East for a long time for failing to
recognize the Truth of the Roman Catholic interpretation of Christianity;
the conversion of the emperor in 1274 was thus a momentous event, and the
statement of faith he had to swear was thus a crucially symbolic document.
It also happens to be one of the first times that the seven sacraments
were articulated as such. The second text describes the sacraments in detail
for the benefit of the Armenian Orthodox Church (in 1439). Here again the
purpose is to demonstrate True Belief for the benefit of Christians who
were, to medieval catholic eyes, misguided. You needn’t worry about
the third text.
1. What were the seven sacraments as listed by the Council of Lyons
in 1274?
2. The 1439 council divides the 7 sacraments into two types (5 of one,
2 of another) - what are they? Why is this distinction important?
3. According to the council, what three things were necessary to perform
the sacraments?
4. Three of the sacraments were thought to ‘impress an indelible spiritual
sign’ on a person. What does this mean? Why was it important? What about
the other four?
5. How did baptism occur? What function did it perform (ie., what was
its ‘efficacy’)?
6. What is confirmation? Who performed it? How? For what purpose?
7. Why did the council harp on the mixing of water and wine in the
Eucharist? (hint: it has to do with claims to the superiority of the Roman
tradition).
8. What happened during the Eucharist? What effect did it have?
9. The ‘matter’ of penance is described as the ‘acts of penitence’;
these are further divided into three components. What are they? Why did
the Roman church insist on all three components?
9. What was the effect of penance?
10. What was extreme unction? When did it occur? How? What benefit
did it confer?
11. What is ordination? Who performed it?
12. Medieval people saw marriage as a sacrament because they felt it
analogous to Christ’s union with the church. Make sure you understand this
analogy.
13. What is the ‘efficient cause’ of marriage (this means the method
by which a couple are actually married)? What did the couple have to do?
What didn’t they have to do?
14. What were the three ‘goods’ (or benefits) of marriage?
15. Could a marriage ever be dissolved?
4. Tales of Confession
As the lengthy introduction to the online text reveals, the three stories
included here come from sermon stories composed by three medieval writers
in the 13th century. Sermon stories were (true) accounts gathered by writers
to serve as examples for inclusion in sermons preached to ordinary Christians.
a. By Confession a Guilty Priest escaped exposure
1. Notice that one of the concerns of this
tale is the morality of the priesthood. This subject was of great concern
to ordinary Christians. What is the moral about
sinful priests
in this tale?
2. Explain why the soldier thought that the possessed
man might help expose the priest’s sin.
3. According to this story, what was one of the
social benefits of confession? How might confession have helped to maintain
social harmony?
4. The tale is unusual in that a servant performs
the sacrament of penance (ie., of confession and assigning penance). What
was the author’s point in making this
exception to the usual rule?
5. Why does the story distinguish between what the
demon said in German and what he said in Latin?
6. What is the moral about confession to be gleaned
from this tale?
b. Through Confession the Devil’s Record is Blotted Out
1. What does this tale reveal about medieval people’s
belief in the ways in which the devil could act?
2. How did the clerk (ie., clergyman) escape the
Devil’s trap?
3. What’s the moral here?
c. Through Confession a Forgotten Prayer Erased from the Devil’s Book
1. In this story ‘to say the none’ means to recite
the liturgy appropriate for the 9th hour of the day (this hour was called
‘nones’). Especially in monasteries, proper
observance of the heavy
liturgical burden of prayers and psalms was considered essential to monk’s
work.
2. What happened here? How does it reveal the power
of the sacraments?
d. A Heretic Healed by confession relapsed and was burnt
This story assumes some knowledge about medieval
notions of heresy. For the medieval church heresy was obviously a
bad thing; what was worse, however, was
the heretic who, after having been informed of his
heresy and encouraged to repent, returned (or relapsed) to his previous
heresy. Such a person was considered
incorrigible; these were the poor souls who met
a fiery end by being burned to death. The key to such seemingly cruel punishment
was, again, the belief in a single
Truth; since the heretic had refused to accept the
Truth after being warned and counseled of it, he was obviously (to medieval
people) hopeless and, what was
worse, a potential danger to the salvation of his
friends, neighbors, and family. For this reason, such relapsed heretics
were treated with great severity. Notice too
that in this case the proof of heresy was accomplished
by that old early medieval judicial practice - trial by ordeal. The condemned
heretics in the tale have been
found guilty because they failed an ordeal by hot
iron and thus they still bear the burn marks of their guilt.
1. What benefit did the heretic gain by confessing?
(ie., how did it help him escape being burned to death?)
2. What role does the heretic’s wife play in this
tale? How does her role confirm medieval stereotypes about women? Is her
role reminiscent of any other famous
Christian temptresses? What
does this say about this particular medieval view of women?
3. What happened when the heretic followed his wife’s
advice?
4. What was the moral of this story?