Christianity in the 11th century


Christianity in the 11th century
Medallion of Christ from Constantinople, circa. 1100.

In 1054, following the death of the Patriarch of Rome Leo IX, papal legates (representatives of the Pope) from Rome traveled to Constantinople to deny Michael Cerularius, the reigning Patriarch of Constantinople, the title of Ecumenical Patriarch and to insist that he recognize the Church of Rome's claim to be the head and mother of the churches. Cerularius refused resulting in the leader of the contingent from Rome excommunicating Cerularius and the legates in turn being excommunicated by Constantinople. Though this event, in and of itself, was relatively insignificant (and the authority of the legates in their actions was dubious) it ultimately marked the end of any pretense of a union between the eastern and western branches of the Church. Though efforts were made at reconciliation at various times, they remained divided, each claiming to be the true Christian Church.

Contents

Investiture Controversy

Henry IV at the gate of Canossa, by August von Heyden

The 11th century saw the Investiture Controversy between Emperor and Pope over the right to make church appointments, the first major phase of the struggle between Church and state in medieval Europe. The Papacy were the initial victors, but as Italians divided between Guelphs and Ghibellines in factions that were often passed down through families or states until the end of the Middle Ages, the dispute gradually weakened the Papacy, not least by drawing it into politics. The Church also attempted to control, or exact a price for, most marriages among the great by prohibiting, in 1059, marriages involving consanguinity (blood kin) and affinity (kin by marriage) to the seventh degree of relationship. Under these rules, almost all great marriages required a dispensation. The rules were relaxed to the fourth degree in 1215 (now only the first degree is prohibited by the Church - a man cannot marry his stepdaughter, for example).

The Investiture Controversy, or Lay investiture controversy, was the most significant conflict between secular and religious powers in medieval Europe. It began as a dispute in the 11th century between the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV, and Pope Gregory VII concerning who would appoint bishops (investiture). The end of lay investiture threatened to undercut the power of the Empire and the ambitions of noblemen for the benefit of Church reform.

Bishops collected revenues from estates attached to their bishopric. Noblemen who held lands (fiefdoms) hereditarily passed those lands on within their family. However, because bishops had no legitimate children, when a bishop died it was the king's right to appoint a successor. So, while a king had little recourse in preventing noblemen from acquiring powerful domains via inheritance and dynastic marriages, a king could keep careful control of lands under the domain of his bishops. Kings would bestow bishoprics to members of noble families whose friendship he wished to secure. Furthermore, if a king left a bishopric vacant, then he collected the estates' revenues until a bishop was appointed, when in theory he was to repay the earnings. The infrequence of this repayment was an obvious source of dispute. The Church wanted to end this lay investiture because of the potential corruption, not only from vacant sees but also from other practices such as simony. Thus, the Investiture Contest was part of the Church's attempt to reform the episcopate and provide better pastoral care.

Pope Gregory VII issued the Dictatus Papae, which declared that the pope alone could appoint or depose bishops, or translate them to other sees. Henry VI's rejection of the decree lead to his excommunication and a ducal revolt; eventually Henry received absolution after dramatic public penance barefoot in Alpine snow and cloaked in a hairshirt (see Walk to Canossa), though the revolt and conflict of investiture continued. Likewise, a similar controversy occurred in England between King Henry I and St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, over investiture and ecclesiastical revenues collected by the king during an episcopal vacancy. The English dispute was resolved by the Concordat of London, 1107, where the king renounced his claim to invest bishops but continued to require an oath of fealty from them upon their election. This was a partial model for the Concordat of Worms (Pactum Calixtinum), which resolved the Imperial investiture controversy with a compromise that allowed secular authorities some measure of control but granted the selection of bishops to their cathedral canons. As a symbol of the compromise, lay authorities invested bishops with their secular authority symbolised by the lance, and ecclesiastical authorities invested bishops with their spiritual authority symbolised by the ring and the staff.

Theology

Western Theology before Scholasticism

With the division and decline of the Carolingian Empire, notable theological activity was preserved in some of the Cathedral schools that had begun to rise to prominence under it – for instance at Auxerre in the 9th century or Chartres in the 11th. Intellectual influences from the Arabic world (including works of classical authors preserved by Islamic scholars) percolated into the Christian West via Spain, influencing such theologians as Gerbert of Aurillac, who went on to become Pope Sylvester II and mentor to Otto III. (Otto was the fourth ruler of the Germanic Ottonian Holy Roman Empire, successor to the Carolingian Empire). With hindsight, one might say that a new note was struck when a controversy about the meaning of the eucharist blew up around Berengar of Tours in the 11th century: hints of a new confidence in the intellectual investigation of the faith that perhaps foreshadowed the explosion of theological argument that was to take place in the twelfth century.

Notable authors include:

Byzantine mystical theology

Monasticism

One of the major developments in monasticism during the eleventh century was the height of the Cluniac reforms, which centered upon Cluny Abbey in Burgundy, which controlled a large centralized order with over two hundred monasteries throughout Western Christendom. Cluny championed a revived papacy during this century, and encouraged stricter monastic discipline with a return to the principles of the Benedictine Rule. Cluny Abbey itself promoted art and literature, and the liturgy at the massive Romanesque abbey church was an incredibly ornate formal affair dedicated to glorifying God. Together with the revived papacy, Cluny would work for greater devotion among men in the Church. Towards the end of the century the wealth and power of Cluny would be criticized by many monastics in the Church, especially those that broke from the Cluniac order to form the Cistercians, who devoted themselves with much greater rigor to manual labor and severe austerity.

Western monastic orders

References

  • Lawrence, C. H. Medieval Monasticism. 3rd ed. Harlow: Pearson Education, 2001. ISBN 0-582-40427-4

Spread of Christianity

Scandinavia

Scandinavia was the last part of Germanic Europe to convert and most resistant. From the High Middle Ages, the territories of Northern Europe were gradually converted to Christianity under German leadership, and made into nation states under the Church's guidance, finalized in the Northern Crusades.

Later, German and Scandinavian noblemen extended their power to also Finnic, Samic, Baltic and some Slavic peoples.

Christian Missionaries to Scandinavia

Migrations of peoples, although not strictly part of the 'Migration Age', continued beyond 1000 CE, marked by Viking, Magyar, Turkic and Mongol invasions, also had significant effects, especially in eastern Europe.

Goths

Many Goths converted to Christianity as individuals outside the Roman Empire. Most members of other tribes converted to Christianity when their respective tribes settled within the Empire, and most Franks and Anglo-Saxons converted a few generations later. During the later centuries following the Fall of Rome, as the Roman Church gradually split between the dioceses loyal to the Patriach of Rome in the West and those loyal to the other Patriarchs in the East, most of the Germanic peoples (excepting the Crimean Goths and a few other eastern groups) would gradually become strongly allied with the Western Church, particularly as a result of the reign of Charlemagne.

East-West Schism

The Second Ecumenical Council whose additions to the original Nicene Creed lay at the heart of one of the theological disputes associated with the East-West Schism. (Illustration, 879-882 AD, from manuscript, Homilies of Gregory Nazianzus, Bibliothèque nationale de France)

The East-West Schism, or Great Schism, separated the Church into Western (Latin) and Eastern (Greek) branches, i.e., Western Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. It was the first major division since certain groups in the East rejected the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon (see Oriental Orthodoxy), and was far more significant. Though normally dated to 1054, the East-West Schism was actually the result of an extended period of estrangement between Latin and Greek Christendom over the nature of papal primacy and certain doctrinal matters like the filioque, but intensified by cultural and linguistic differences.

The "official" schism in 1054 was the excommunication of Patriarch Michael Cerularius of Constantinople, followed by his excommunication of papal legates. Attempts at reconciliation were made in 1274 (by the Second Council of Lyon) and in 1439 (by the Council of Basel), but in each case the eastern hierarchs who consented to the unions were repudiated by the Orthodox as a whole, though reconciliation was achieved between the West and what are now called the "Eastern Rite Catholic Churches." More recently, in 1965 the mutual excommunications were rescinded by the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople, though schism remains. Both groups are descended from the Early Church, both acknowledge the apostolic succession of each other's bishops, and the validity of each other's sacraments. Though both acknowledge the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy understands this as a primacy of honour with limited or no ecclesiastical authority in other diocesesThe Orthodox East perceived the Papacy as taking on monarch type characteristics that were not in line with the church's tradition.

The East-West Schism, or the Great Schism, divided medieval Christendom into Eastern (Greek) and Western (Latin) branches, which later became known as the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, respectively. Relations between East and West had long been embittered by political and ecclesiastical differences and theological disputes.[1] Pope Leo IX and Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius heightened the conflict by suppressing Greek and Latin in their respective domains. In 1054, Roman legates traveled to Cerularius to deny him the title Ecumenical Patriarch and to insist that he recognize the Church of Rome's claim to be the head and mother of the churches.[1] Cerularius refused. The leader of the Latin contingent, Cardinal Humbert excommunicated Cerularius, while Cerularius in return excommunicated Cardinal Humbert and other legates.[1]

In the 11th century the East-West Schism took place between Rome and Constantinople, which led to separation of the Church of the West, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church. There were doctrinal issues like the filioque clause and the authority of the Pope involved in the split, but these were exacerbated by cultural and linguistic differences between Latins and Greeks. Prior to that, the Eastern and Western halves of the Church had frequently been in conflict, particularly during the periods of iconoclasm and the Photian schism.[2] The Orthodox East perceived the Papacy as taking on monarch type characteristics that were not in line with the church's historical tradition.[2]

During the 11th century, the East–West schism permanently divided Christianity.[3] It arose over a dispute on whether Constantinople or Rome held jurisdiction over the church in Sicily and led to mutual excommunications in 1054.[3] The Western (Latin) branch of Christianity has since become known as the Catholic Church, while the Eastern (Greek) branch became known as the Orthodox Church.[4][5] The Second Council of Lyon (1274) and the Council of Florence (1439) both failed to heal the schism.[6] Some Eastern churches have since reunited with the Catholic Church, and others claim never to have been out of communion with the pope.[5][7] Officially, the two churches remain in schism, although excommunications were mutually lifted in 1965.[8]

Ecclesiology

At the root of what became the Great Schism is the question of ecclesiology. The Eastern Churches maintained the idea that every local city-Church with its bishop, presbyters, deacons and people celebrating the Eucharist constituted the whole Church. In this view called Eucharistic ecclesiology (or more recently holographic ecclesiology), every bishop is Peter's successor in his Church ("the Church") and the Churches form what Eusebius called a common union of Churches. This implied that all bishops were ontologically equal, although functionally particular bishops could be granted special privileges by other bishops and serve as metropolitans, archbishops or patriarchs. Early on, the ecclesiology of the Roman Church was universal in nature, with the idea that the Church was a worldwide organism with a divinely (not functionally) appointed center: the Church/Bishop of Rome. These two views are still present in modern Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and can be seen as foundational causes for the schisms and Great Schism between East and West.

Language and culture

Many other factors caused the East and West to drift further apart. The dominant language of the West was Latin, whilst that of the East was Greek. Soon after the fall of the Western Empire, the number of individuals who spoke both Latin and Greek began to dwindle, and communication between East and West grew much more difficult. With linguistic unity gone, cultural unity began to crumble as well. The two halves of the Church were naturally divided along similar lines; they developed different rites and had different approaches to religious doctrines. Although the Great Schism was still centuries away, its outlines were already perceptible.[9]

Papal Supremacy and Pentarchy

Icon depicting the Emperor Constantine (centre) and the bishops of the First Council of Nicaea (325) holding the Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed of 381.

The primary causes of the Schism were disputes over conflicting claims of jurisdiction, in particular over papal authorityPope Leo IX claimed he held authority over the four Eastern patriarchs (see also Pentarchy) – and over the insertion of the Filioque clause into the Nicene Creed by the Western patriarch in 1014.[10] Eastern Orthodox today state that the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon explicitly proclaimed the equality of the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople, and that it established the highest court of ecclesiastical appeal in Constantinople.[citation needed] The seventh canon of the Council of Ephesus declared:

It is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa. But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized[11]

Eastern Orthodox today state that this Canon of the Council of Ephesus explicitly prohibited modification of the Nicene Creed drawn up by the first Ecumenical Council in 325, the wording of which but, it is claimed, not the substance, had been modified by the second Ecumenical Council, making additions such as "who proceeds from the Father".

In the Orthodox view, the Bishop of Rome (i.e. the Pope) would have universal primacy in a reunited Christendom, as primus inter pares without power of jurisdiction.[12]

There were other less significant catalysts for the Schism however, including variance over liturgical practices.

Other points of conflict

Many other issues increased tensions.

  • The Western Church's insertion of "Filioque" into the Latin version of the Nicene Creed.
  • Disputes in the Balkans, Southern Italy, and Sicily over whether Rome or Constantinople had ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
  • As a result of the Muslim conquests of the territories of the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, only two rival powerful centres of ecclesiastical authority, Constantinople and Rome, remained.[13]
  • Certain liturgical practices in the West that the East believed represented illegitimate innovation: the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist, for example (see Azymite).
  • Celibacy among Western priests (both monastic and parish), as opposed to the Eastern discipline whereby parish priests could be married men.

Mutual excommunication of 1054

The dispute about the authority of Roman bishops reached a climax in the year 1054, when Michael I Cerularius tried to bolster his position as the "Patriarch of Constantinople", seeming to set himself up as a rival of Pope Leo IX, as the Popes previously had forbidden calling Constantinople a patriarchate. The disputed ended when the Pope's legate excommunicated Michael I Cerularius and, in exchange, he "excommunicated" the Pope—who by then was already dead, due to sickness. This event resulted the separation of the Churches.[14]

Most of the direct causes of the Great Schism, however, are far less grandiose than the famous Filioque. The relations between the papacy and the Byzantine court were good in the years leading up to 1054. The emperor Constantine IX and the Pope Leo IX were allied through the mediation of the Lombard catepan of Italy, Argyrus, who had spent years in Constantinople, originally as a political prisoner.

Patriarch Michael I ordered a letter to be written to the bishop of Trani in which he attacked the "Judaistic" practices of the West, namely the use of unleavened bread. The letter was to be sent by John to all the bishops of the West, including the Pope. John promptly complied and the letter was passed to one Humbert of Mourmoutiers, the cardinal-bishop of Silva Candida, who translated the letter into Latin and brought it to the Pope, who ordered a reply to be made to each charge and a defence of papal supremacy to be laid out in a response.

Although he was hot-headed, Michael was convinced to cool the debate and thus attempt to prevent the impending breach. However, Humbert and the pope made no concessions and the former was sent with legatine powers to the imperial capital to solve the questions raised once and for all. Humbert, Frederick of Lorraine, and Peter, Archbishop of Amalfi arrived in April 1054 and were met with a hostile reception; they stormed out of the palace, leaving the papal response with Michael, who in turn was even more angered by their actions. The patriarch refused to recognise their authority or, practically, their existence.[15] When Pope Leo died on April 19, 1054, the legates' authority legally ceased, but they effectively ignored this technicality.[16]

In response to Michael's refusal to address the issues at hand, the legatine mission took the extreme measure of entering the church of the Hagia Sophia during the divine liturgy and placing a Bull of Excommunication (1054) on the altar.

The consummation of the schism is generally dated from the year 1054, when this sequence of events took place. However, these events only triggered the beginning of the schism but the schism was not actually consummated by the seemingly mutual excommunications. The New Catholic Encyclopedia reports that the legates had been careful not to intimate that the Bull of Excommunication implied a general excommunication of the Byzantine Church. The bull excommunicated only Caerularius, Leo of Achrida, and their adherents. Thus, the New Catholic Encyclopedia argues that the dispute need not have produced a permanent schism any more than excommunication of any "contumacious bishop". The schism began to develop when all the other Eastern patriarchs supported Caerularius. According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, it was the support of Emperor Michael VI Stratiotikos that impelled them to support Caerularius.[17] Some have questioned the validity of the bull on the grounds that Pope Leo IX had died at that time and so the authority of the legates to issue such a bull is unclear.[16]

The legates left for Rome two days after issuing the Bull of Excommunication, leaving behind a city near riot. The patriarch had the immense support of the people against the Emperor, who had supported the legates to his own detriment. To assuage popular anger, the bull was burnt, and the legates were anathematised. It should be noted here that only the legates were anathematised and, once again, there was no explicit indication that the entire Western church was being anathematised.

In the bull of excommunication issued against Patriarch Michael by the papal legates, one of the reasons cited was the Eastern Church's deletion of the "Filioque" from the original Nicene Creed. In fact, it was precisely the opposite: the Eastern Church did not delete anything. It was the Western Church that added this phrase to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.[16]

"Even after 1054 friendly relations between East and West continued. The two parts of Christendom were not yet conscious of a great gulf of separation between them. … The dispute remained something of which ordinary Christians in East and West were largely unaware".[18] In fact, efforts were made in subsequent centuries by Popes and Patriarchs to heal the rift between the churches. However, a number of factors and historical events worked to widen the separation over time.[19]

References

External links

Christianity and knighthood in the Middle Ages

The nobility of the Middle Ages was a military class; in the Early Medieval period a king (rex) attracted a band of loyal warriors (comes) and provided for them from his conquests. As the Middle Ages progressed, this system developed into a complex set of feudal ties and obligations. As Christianity had been accepted by barbarian nobility, the Church sought to prevent ecclesiastical land and clergymen, both of which came from the nobility, from embroilment in martial conflicts. By the early eleventh century, clergymen and peasants were granted immunity from violence – the Peace of God (Pax Dei). Soon the warrior elite itself became "sanctified", for example fighting was banned on holy days – the Truce of God (Treuga Dei). The concept of chivalry developed, emphasising honour and loyalty amongst knights, and, with the advent of Crusades, holy orders of knights were established who perceived themselves as called by God to defend Christendom against Muslim advances in Spain, Italy, and the Holy Land, and pagan strongholds in Eastern Europe.

This activity brought considerable wealth and power. Wealthy lords and nobles would give the monasteries estates in exchange for the conduction of masses for the soul of a deceased loved one. Though this was likely not the original intent of Benedict, the efficiency of his cenobitic Rule in addition to the stability of the monasteries made such estates very productive; the general monk was then raised to a level of nobility, for the serfs of the estate would tend to the labor, while the monk was free to study. The monasteries thus attracted many of the best people in society, and during this period the monasteries were the central storehouses and producers of knowledge.

The system broke down in the eleventh and twelfth centuries as religion began to change.

Crusades

In 1095, Pope Urban II, inspired by the perceived holy wars in Spain and implored by the eastern Roman emperor to help defend Christianity in the East, called for the First Crusade from Western Europe which captured Edessa, Antioch, Tripoli and Jerusalem. The Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem emerged and for a time controlled many holy sites of Islam.

The Crusades were a series of military conflicts conducted by Christian knights for the defence of Christians and for the expansion of Christian domains. Generally, the crusades refer to the campaigns in the Holy Land against Muslim forces sponsored by the Papacy. There were other crusades against Islamic forces in southern Spain, southern Italy, and Sicily, as well as the campaigns of Teutonic knights against pagan strongholds in Eastern Europe (see Northern Crusades). A few crusades such as the Fourth Crusade were waged within Christendom against groups that were considered heretical and schismatic (also see the Battle of the Ice and the Albigensian Crusade).

Krak des Chevaliers was built in the County of Tripoli by the Knights Hospitaller during the Crusades.

The Holy Land had been part of the Roman Empire, and thus Byzantine Empire, until the Islamic conquests of the seventh and eighth centuries. Thereafter, Christians had generally been permitted to visit the sacred places in the Holy Land until 1071, when the Seljuk Turks closed Christian pilgrimages and assailed the Byzantines, defeating them at the Battle of Manzikert. Emperor Alexius I asked for aid from Pope Urban II (1088–1099) for help against Islamic aggression. He probably expected money from the pope for the hiring of mercenaries. Instead, Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom in a speech made at the Council of Clermont on 27 November 1095, combining the idea of pilgrimage to the Holy Land with that of waging a holy war against infidels.

The First Crusade captured Antioch in 1099 and then Jerusalem.

The Crusades were a series of religion-driven military campaigns waged by much of Latin Christian Europe. The specific crusades to regain control of the Holy Land were fought over a period of nearly 200 years, between 1095 and 1291. Other campaigns in Spain and Eastern Europe continued into the 15th century. The Crusades were fought mainly against Muslims, although campaigns were also waged against pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, and political enemies of the popes.[20] Crusaders took vows and were granted an indulgence for past sins.[20]

The Crusades originally had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim rule and were launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia. The term is also used to describe contemporaneous and subsequent campaigns conducted through to the 16th century in territories outside the Levant[a] usually against pagans, heretics, and peoples under the ban of excommunication[21] for a mixture of religious, economic, and political reasons.[22] Rivalries among both Christian and Muslim powers led also to alliances between religious factions against their opponents, such as the Christian alliance with the Sultanate of Rum during the Fifth Crusade.

The Crusades had far-reaching political, economic, and social impacts, some of which have lasted into contemporary times. Because of internal conflicts among Christian kingdoms and political powers, some of the crusade expeditions were diverted from their original aim, such as the Fourth Crusade, which resulted in the sack of Christian Constantinople and the partition of the Byzantine Empire between Venice and the Crusaders. The Sixth Crusade was the first crusade to set sail without the official blessing of the Pope.[23] The Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Crusades resulted in Mamluk and Hafsid victories, as the Ninth Crusade marked the end of the Crusades in the Middle East.[24]

List

A traditional numbering scheme for the crusades totals nine during the 11th to 13th centuries. This division is arbitrary and excludes many important expeditions, among them those of the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries. In reality, the crusades continued until the end of the 17th century, the crusade of Lepanto occurring in 1571, that of Hungary in 1664, and the crusade to Candia in 1669.[25] The Knights Hospitaller continued to crusade in the Mediterranean Sea around Malta until their defeat by Napoleon in 1798. There were frequent "minor" Crusades throughout this period, not only in Palestine but also in the Iberian Peninsula and central Europe, against Muslims and also Christian heretics and personal enemies of the Papacy or other powerful monarchs.

Analysis

Elements of the Crusades were criticized by some from the time of their inception in 1095. For example, Roger Bacon felt the Crusades were not effective because, "those who survive, together with their children, are more and more embittered against the Christian faith."[26] In spite of such criticism, the movement was widely supported in Europe long after the fall of Acre in 1291. Historians agree that St. Francis of Assisi crossed enemy lines to meet the Sultan of Egypt. Hoeberichts cast doubt on the intentions most Christian historians assign to Francis. From the fall of Acre forward, the Crusades to recover Jerusalem and the Christian East were largely lost. Later, 18th century Enlightenment thinkers judged the Crusaders harshly. Likewise, some modern historians in the West expressed moral outrage. In the 1950s, Sir Steven Runciman wrote a resounding condemnation:

"High ideals were besmirched by cruelty and greed … the Holy War was nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of God".[26]

Historical context

It is necessary to look for the origin of a crusading ideal in the struggle between Christians and Muslims in Spain and consider how the idea of a holy war emerged from this background.

Norman F. Cantor

Middle Eastern situation

Another factor that contributed to the change in Western attitudes towards the East came in the year 1009, when the Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah ordered the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. In 1039 his successor, after requiring large sums be paid for the right, permitted the Byzantine Empire to rebuild it.[27] Pilgrimages were allowed to the Holy Lands before and after the Sepulchre was rebuilt, but for a time pilgrims were captured and some of the clergy were killed. The Muslim conquerors eventually realized that the wealth of Jerusalem came from the pilgrims; with this realization the persecution of pilgrims stopped.[28] However, the damage was already done, and the violence of the Seljuk Turks became part of the concern that spread the passion for the Crusades.[29]

The Siege of Antioch, from a medieval miniature painting, during the First Crusade.

Western European situation

The origins of the Crusades lie in developments in Western Europe earlier in the Middle Ages, as well as the deteriorating situation of the Byzantine Empire in the east caused by a new wave of Turkish Muslim attacks. The breakdown of the Carolingian Empire in the late 9th century, combined with the relative stabilization of local European borders after the Christianization of the Vikings, Slavs, and Magyars, had produced a large class of armed warriors whose energies were misplaced fighting one another and terrorizing the local populace. The Church tried to stem this violence with the Peace and Truce of God movements, which was somewhat successful, but trained warriors always sought an outlet for their skills, and opportunities for territorial expansion were becoming less attractive for large segments of the nobility. One exception was the Reconquista in Spain and Portugal, which at times occupied Iberian knights and some mercenaries from elsewhere in Europe in the fight against the Islamic Moors.[citation needed]

In 1063, Pope Alexander II had given his blessing to Iberian Christians in their wars against the Muslims, granting both a papal standard (the vexillum sancti Petri) and an indulgence to those who were killed in battle. Pleas from the Byzantine Emperors, now threatened by the Seljuks, thus fell on ready ears. These occurred in 1074, from Emperor Michael VII to Pope Gregory VII and in 1095, from Emperor Alexios I Komnenos to Pope Urban II. One source identifies Michael VII in Chinese records as a ruler of Byzantium (Fulin) who sent an envoy to Song Dynasty China in 1081.[30][31] A Chinese scholar suggests that this and further Byzantine envoys in 1091 were pleas for China to aid in the fight against the Turks.[32]

Map of the Iberian Peninsula at the time of the Almoravid arrival in the 11th century- Christian Kingdoms included Aragón, Castile, Leon, Navarre, and Portugal

The Crusades were, in part, an outlet for an intense religious piety which rose up in the late 11th century among the lay public. A crusader would, after pronouncing a solemn vow, receive a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a "soldier of the Church". This was partly because of the Investiture Controversy, which had started around 1075 and was still on-going during the First Crusade. As both sides of the Investiture Controversy tried to marshal public opinion in their favor, people became personally engaged in a dramatic religious controversy. The result was an awakening of intense Christian piety and public interest in religious affairs, and was further strengthened by religious propaganda, which advocated Just War in order to retake the Holy Land from the Muslims. The Holy Land included Jerusalem (where the death, resurrection and ascension into heaven of Jesus took place according to Christian theology) and Antioch (the first Christian city). Further, the remission of sin was a driving factor and provided any God-fearing man who had committed sins with an irresistible way out of eternal damnation in Hell. It was a hotly debated issue throughout the Crusades as what exactly "remission of sin" meant. Most believed that by retaking Jerusalem they would go straight to heaven after death. However, much controversy surrounds exactly what was promised by the popes of the time. One theory was that one had to die fighting for Jerusalem for the remission to apply, which would hew more closely to what Pope Urban II said in his speeches. This meant that if the crusaders were successful, and retook Jerusalem, the survivors would not be given remission. Another theory was that if one reached Jerusalem, one would be relieved of the sins one had committed before the Crusade. Therefore one could still be sentenced to Hell for sins committed afterwards.[citation needed]

All of these factors were manifested in the overwhelming popular support for the First Crusade and the religious vitality of the 12th century.[citation needed]

Immediate cause

15th century painting of Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont (1095), where he preached an impassioned sermon to take back the Holy Land; later manuscript illumination of c. 1490

The immediate cause of the First Crusade was the Byzantine emperor Alexios I's appeal to Pope Urban II for mercenaries to help him resist Muslim advances into territory of the Byzantine Empire. In 1071, at the Battle of Manzikert, the Byzantine Empire was defeated, which led to the loss of all of Asia Minor (modern Turkey) save the coastlands. Although attempts at reconciliation after the East-West Schism between the Catholic Western Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church had failed, Alexius I hoped for a positive response from Urban II and got it, although it turned out to be more expansive and less helpful than he had expected.[citation needed]

Pope Urban II launched the First Crusade in 1095 when he received an appeal from Byzantine emperor Alexius I to help ward off a Turkish invasion.[33] Urban further believed that a Crusade might help bring about reconciliation with Eastern Christianity.[34][35] Fueled by reports of Muslim atrocities against Christians,[36] the series of military campaigns known as the Crusades began in 1096. They were intended to return the Holy Land to Christian control. The goal was not permanently realized, and episodes of brutality committed by the armies of both sides left a legacy of mutual distrust between Muslims and Western and Eastern Christians.[37]

When the First Crusade was preached in 1095, the Christian princes of northern Iberia had been fighting their way out of the mountains of Galicia and Asturias, the Basque Country and Navarre, with increasing success, for about a hundred years. The fall of Moorish Toledo to the Kingdom of León in 1085 was a major victory, but the turning points of the Reconquista still lay in the future. The disunity of Muslim emirs was an essential factor.

While the Reconquista was the most prominent example of European reactions against Muslim conquests, it is not the only such example. The Norman adventurer Robert Guiscard had conquered Calabria in 1057 and was holding what had traditionally been Byzantine territory against the Muslims of Sicily. The maritime states of Pisa, Genoa and Catalonia were all actively fighting Islamic strongholds in Majorca freeing the coasts of Italy and Catalonia from Muslim raids. Much earlier, the Christian homelands of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, and so on had been conquered by Muslim armies. This long history of losing territories to a religious enemy created a powerful motive to respond to Byzantine Emperor Alexius I's call for holy war to defend Christendom, and to recapture the lost lands starting with Jerusalem.

The papacy of Pope Gregory VII had struggled with reservations about the doctrinal validity of a holy war and the shedding of blood for the Lord and had, with difficulty, resolved the question in favour of justified violence. More importantly to the Pope, the Christians who made pilgrimages to the Holy Land were being persecuted. Saint Augustine of Hippo, Gregory's intellectual model, had justified the use of force in the service of Christ in The City of God, and a Christian "just war" might enhance the wider standing of an aggressively ambitious leader of Europe, as Gregory saw himself. The northerners would be cemented to Rome, and their troublesome knights could see the only kind of action that suited them. Previous attempts by the church to stem such violence, such as the concept of the "Peace of God", were not as successful as hoped. To the south of Rome, Normans were showing how such energies might be unleashed against both Arabs (in Sicily) and Byzantines (on the mainland). A Latin hegemony in the Levant would provide leverage in resolving the Papacy's claims of supremacy over the Patriarch of Constantinople, which had resulted in the Great Schism of 1054, a rift that might yet be resolved through the force of Frankish arms.

In the Byzantine homelands, the Eastern Emperor's weakness was revealed by the disastrous defeat at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, which reduced the Empire's Asian territory to a region in western Anatolia and around Constantinople. A sure sign of Byzantine desperation was the appeal of Alexios I to his enemy, the Pope, for aid. But Gregory was occupied with the Investiture Controversy and could not call on the German emperor, so a crusade never took shape.

For Gregory's more moderate successor, Pope Urban II, a crusade would serve to reunite Christendom, bolster the Papacy, and perhaps bring the East under his control. The disaffected Germans and the Normans were not to be counted on, but the heart and backbone of a crusade could be found in Urban's own homeland among the northern French.

After the First Crusade

On a popular level, the first crusades unleashed a wave of impassioned, personally felt pious Christian fury that was expressed in the massacres of Jews that accompanied the movement of the Crusader mobs through Europe, as well as the violent treatment of "schismatic" Orthodox Christians of the east. During many of the attacks on Jews, local Bishops and Christians made attempts to protect Jews from the mobs that were passing through. Jews were often offered sanctuary in churches and other Christian buildings.

First Crusade 1095-1099

For the first decade, the Crusaders pursued a policy of terror against Muslims and Jews[dubious ] that included mass executions, the throwing of severed heads over besieged cities walls, exhibition and mutilation of naked cadavers, and even cannibalism, as was recorded after the Siege of Maarat.
Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont (1095), where he preached the First Crusade; later manuscript illumination of c. 1490

Pope Urban II launched the First Crusade in 1095 when he received an appeal from Byzantine emperor Alexius I to help ward off a Turkish invasion.[33] Urban further believed that a Crusade might help bring about reconciliation with Eastern Christianity.[34][35] Fueled by reports of Muslim atrocities against Christians,[36] the series of military campaigns known as the Crusades began in 1096. They were intended to return the Holy Land to Christian control. The goal was not permanently realized, and episodes of brutality committed by the armies of both sides left a legacy of mutual distrust between Muslims and Western and Eastern Christians.[37]

In March 1095 at the Council of Piacenza, ambassadors sent by Byzantine Emperor Alexius I called for help with defending his empire against the Seljuk Turks. Later that year, at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II called upon all Christians to join a war against the Turks, promising those who died in the endeavor would receive immediate remission of their sins.[38]

The Siege of Antioch took place shortly before the siege on Jerusalem during the first Crusade. Antioch fell to the Franks in May 1098 but not before a lengthy siege. The ruler of Antioch was not sure how the Christians living within his city would react and he forced them to live outside the city during the siege, though he promised to protect their wives and children from harm, while Jews and Muslims fought together. The siege only came to end when the city was betrayed and the Franks entered through the water-gate of the town causing the leader to flee. Once inside the city, as was standard military practice at the time,[39] the Franks then massacred the civilians, destroyed mosques and pillaged the city.[40] The crusaders finally marched to the walls of Jerusalem with only a fraction of their original forces.

Siege of Jerusalem

Godefroy de Bouillon, a French knight, leader of the First Crusade and founder of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

The Jews and Muslims fought together to defend Jerusalem against the invading Franks. They were unsuccessful though and on 15 July 1099 the crusaders entered the city.[40] Again, they proceeded to massacre the remaining Jewish and Muslim civilians and pillaged or destroyed mosques and the city itself.[41] One historian has written that the "isolation, alienation and fear"[20] felt by the Franks so far from home helps to explain the atrocities they committed, including the cannibalism which was recorded after the Siege of Maarat in 1098.[42] As a result of the First Crusade, several small Crusader states were created, notably the Kingdom of Jerusalem. In the Kingdom of Jerusalem at most 120,000 Franks (predominantly French-speaking Western Christians) ruled over 350,000 Muslims, Jews, and native Eastern Christians.[43]

The Crusaders also tried to gain control of the city of Tyre, but were defeated by the Muslims. The people of Tyre asked Zahir al-Din Atabek, the leader of Damascus, for help defending their city from the Franks with the promise to surrender Tyre to him. When the Franks were defeated the people of Tyre did not surrender the city, but Zahir al-Din simply said "What I have done I have done only for the sake of God and the Muslims, nor out of desire for wealth and kingdom."[44]

After gaining control of Jerusalem the Crusaders created four Crusader states: the kingdom of Jerusalem, the County of Edessa, the Principality of Antioch and the County of Tripoli.[41] Initially, Muslims did very little about the Crusader states due to internal conflicts.[45] Eventually, the Muslims began to reunite under the leadership of Imad al-Din Zangi. He began by re-taking Edessa in 1144. It was the first city to fall to the Crusaders, and became the first to be recaptured by the Muslims. This led the Pope to call for a second Crusade.

Sources

  • Schatz, Klaus (1996). Papal Primacy. Liturgical Press. ISBN 0-8146-5522-X. 
  • Schimmelpfennig, Bernhard (1992). The Papacy. Columbia University Press. ISBN 9780231075152. 

Muslim history

Whatever temporal power of the Abbasids remained had eventually been consumed by the Seljuq Turks (a Muslim Turkish clan which had migrated into mainland Persia), in 1055.[46]

During this time, expansion continued, sometimes by military warfare, sometimes by peaceful proselytism.[47] The first stage in the conquest of India began just before the year 1000. By some 200 (from 1193 – 1209) years later, the area up to the Ganges river had been conquered. In sub-Saharan West Africa, it was just after the year 1000 that Islam was established. Muslim rulers are known to have been in Kanem starting from sometime between 1081 to 1097, with reports of a Muslim prince at the head of Gao as early as 1009.

The Iberian peninsula under the Umayyads and the Berber dynasties

The rule of the Umayyad Caliphate collapsed in 1031 due to political divisions and civil unrest during the rule of Hicham II who was ousted because of his indolence.[48] Al-Andalus then broke up into a number of mostly independent states called taifa kingdoms (Arabic, Muluk al-ṭawā'if; English, Party kingdoms). The decomposition of the Caliphate into those petty kingdoms will then weaken the power of the Muslims in the Iberian Peninsula vis-à-vis the Christian kingdoms of the north. Some of the taifas such as that of Seville will consequently be forced to enter into alliances with the Christian princes and pay tributes in money to Castille.[49]

The Almoravid dynasty a Berber dynasty from the Sahara that flourished over a wide area of North-Western Africa and the Iberian peninsula during the 11th century. Under this dynasty the Moorish empire was extended over present-day Morocco, Western Sahara, Mauritania, Gibraltar, Tlemcen (in Algeria) and a great part of what is now Senegal and Mali in the south, and Spain and Portugal in the north.

References

  1. ^ a b c Cross, F. L., ed., ed (2005). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. New York: Oxford University Press. 
  2. ^ This can be seen in the words of Archbishop Nicetas of Nicomedia of the Twelfth Century: "My dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy among the five sister patriachates and we recognize her right to the most honorable seat at the Ecumenical Council. But she has separated herself from us by her own deeds when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office... How shall we accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us and even without our knowledge? If the Roman pontiff seated on the lofty throne of his glory wished to thunder at us and, so to speak, hurl his mandates at us from on high and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule us and our churches, not by taking counsel with us but at his own arbitrary pleasure what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We should be the slaves not the sons, of such a church and the Roman see would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves." Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church London, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press 1995 ISBN 978-0913836583
  3. ^ a b Duffy, Saints and Sinners (1997), p. 91
  4. ^ Collins, The Story of Christianity (1999), p. 103
  5. ^ a b Vidmar, The Catholic Church Through the Ages (2005), p. 104
  6. ^ Duffy, Saints and Sinners (1997), pp. 119, 131
  7. ^ "Eastern Catholic". Catholic World News. Trinity Communications. 2008. http://google.com/search?q=cache:wklnnxgTmVMJ:www.cwnews.com/news/biosgloss/definition.cfm%3FglossID%3D67+uniate&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=16&gl=us. Retrieved 2008-05-30. 
  8. ^ Duffy, Saints and Sinners (1997), p. 278
  9. ^ http://www.orthodox.org.ph/content/view/211/50/
  10. ^ Aristeides Papadakis The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy, SVS Press, NY, 1994 p14)
  11. ^ (Extracts from the Acts of the Council of Ephesus). The creed quoted in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus (the Third Ecumenical Council) is that of the first Ecumenical Council]], not the creed as modified by the second Ecumenical Council, and so does not have additions such as "who proceeds from the Father" (ibidem).
  12. ^ Emmanuel Clapsis. "Papal primacy". Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. Archived from the original on 2008-06-17. http://web.archive.org/web/20080617082301/http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8523.asp. Retrieved 2008-10-16. "The regional primacy can be conceived not as power or jurisdiction but only as an expression of the unity and unanimity of all the bishops, and consequently of all the churches, of an area. We must understand the universal primacy of the Roman Church similarly. Based on Christian Tradition, it is possible to affirm the validity of the church of Rome's claims of universal primacy. [...] Orthodoxy does not reject Roman primacy as such, but simply a particular way of understanding that primacy. Within a reintegrated Christendom the bishop of Rome will be considered primus inter pares serving the unity of God's Church in love. He cannot be accepted as set up over the Church as a ruler whose diakonia is conceived through legalistic categories of power of jurisdiction." 
  13. ^ "During the decade following the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632, his followers captured three of the five 'patriarchates' of the early church – Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem – leaving only Rome and Constantinople, located at opposite ends of the Mediterranean and, eventually, also at opposite ends of the Schism of 1054" (Encyclopaedia Britannica).
  14. ^ Thompson, Ernest T. (1965). Through The Ages: A History Of The Christian Church. The CLC Press.
  15. ^ Norwich, John J. (1967). The Normans in the South 1016-1130. pp. 102. 
  16. ^ a b c Norwich, John J. (1992). Byzantium, The Apogee. pp. 320–321. 
  17. ^ New Catholic Encyclopedia. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm. ""...in 1053 he [Michael Caerularius] sends off a declaration of war, then shuts up the Latin churches at Constantinople, hurls a string of wild accusations, and shows in every possible way that he wants a schism, apparently for the mere pleasure of not being in communion with the West. He got his wish. After a series of wanton aggressions, unparalleled in church history, after he had begun by striking the pope's name from his diptychs, the Roman legates excommunicated him (16 July 1054). But still there was no idea of a general excommunication of the Byzantine Church, still less of all the East. The legates carefully provided against that in their Bull. They acknowledged that the emperor (Constantine IX, who was excessively annoyed at the whole quarrel), the Senate, and the majority of the inhabitants of the city were "most pious and orthodox". They excommunicated Caerularius, Leo of Achrida, and their adherents. This quarrel, too, need no more have produced a permanent state of schism than the excommunication of any other contumacious bishop. The real tragedy is that gradually all the other Eastern patriarchs took sides with Caerularius, obeyed him by striking the pope's name from their diptychs, and chose of their own accord to share his schism. At first they do not seem to have wanted to do so. John III of Antioch certainly refused to go into schism at Caerularius's bidding. But, eventually, the habit they had acquired of looking to Constantinople for orders proved too strong. The emperor (not Constantine IX, but his successor) was on the side of his patriarch and they had learned too well to consider the emperor as their over-lord in spiritual matters too. Again, it was the usurped authority of Constantinople, the Erastianism of the East that turned a personal quarrel into a great schism."" 
  18. ^ Bishop Kallistos (Ware), p. 67
  19. ^ Gallagher, Clarence (2008). The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford University Press. pp. 596. ISBN 0199252467, 9780199252466. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Pnkxofhi4mQC&pg=PA596&lpg=PA596&dq=Massacre+of+the+Latins&source=web&ots=KZ5JtcG2jN&sig=SJx8NwIiehNFz7OCT2ZIMSby1f8&hl=en&ei=RzGeSby8ONSujAetx6nLCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result. 
  20. ^ a b c Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The Oxford History of the Crusades New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. ISBN 0192853643.
  21. ^ Crusades in The New Catholic Encyclopedia, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966, Vol. IV, p. 508.[1]
  22. ^ e.g. the Albigensian Crusade, the Aragonese Crusade, the Reconquista, and the Northern Crusades.
  23. ^ Halsall, Paul (December 1997). "Philip de Novare: Les Gestes des Ciprois, The Crusade of Frederick II, 1228-29". Medieval Sourcebook. Fordham University. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1228frederick2.html. Retrieved 2008-02-08. —"Gregory IX had in fact excommunicated Frederick before he left Sicily the second time"
  24. ^ The Gospel in All Lands By Methodist Episcopal Church Missionary Society, Missionary Society, Methodist Episcopal Church, pg. 262
  25. ^ Wikisource-logo.svg "Crusades" in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia.
  26. ^ a b Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The Atlas of the Crusades New York: Facts on File, 1990. ISBN 0-8160-2186-4.
  27. ^ Denys Pringle "Architecture in Latin East" in The Oxford History of the Crusades ed. Jonathan Riley-Smith (New York:Oxford University Press,1999) 157
  28. ^ Madden, p. 5
  29. ^ Madden, p. 8
  30. ^ East Asian History Sourcebook: Chinese Accounts of Rome, Byzantium and the Middle East, c. 91 B.C.E. - 1643 C.E.
  31. ^ However, Chinese scholar Yang Xianyi states it was Melissenos Kaisar, brother-in-law of Emperor Alexios I Komnenos.
  32. ^ (Chinese) Fundamental Historical Research by Yang Xianyi
  33. ^ a b Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders (1997), p. 8
  34. ^ a b Vidmar, The Catholic Church Through the Ages (2005), pp. 130–1
  35. ^ a b Bokenkotter, A Concise History of the Catholic Church (2004), p. 140 quote: "And so when Urban called for a crusade at Clermont in 1095, one of his motives was to bring help to the beleaguered Eastern Christians."
  36. ^ a b Bokenkotter, A Concise History of the Catholic Church (2004), p. 155 quote: "Stories were also circulating about the harsh treatment of Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem at the hands of the infidel, inflaming Western opinion."
  37. ^ a b Le Goff, Medieval Civilization (1964), pp. 65–7
  38. ^ Fulcher of Chartres, Medieval Sourcebook.
  39. ^ Tuchman, Barbara. A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th century. Alfred A. Knopf; Reissue edition. (August 1978) 279. ISBN 0394400267.
  40. ^ a b Arab Historians of the Crusades, trans. F. Gabrieli, trans. E. J. Costello. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1984.
  41. ^ a b Trumpbour, John. "Crusades." In The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. , edited by John L. Esposito. Oxford Islamic Studies Online, http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article (accessed Feb 17, 2008).
  42. ^ "Les Croisades, origines et consequences", p.62, Claude Lebedel, ISBN 2737341361
  43. ^ Benjamin Z. Kedar, "The Subjected Muslims of the Frankish Levant", in The Crusades: The Essential Readings, ed. Thomas F. Madden, Blackwell, 2002, pg. 244. Originally published in Muslims Under Latin Rule, 1100-1300, ed. James M. Powell, Princeton University Press, 1990. Kedar quotes his numbers from Joshua Prawer, Histoire du royaume latin de Jérusalem, tr. G. Nahon, Paris, 1969, vol. 1, pp. 498, 568-72.
  44. ^ The Damascus Chronicle of the Crusades, Extracted and translated from the chronicle of Ibn Al-Qalanisi, translated by H.A.R. Gibb (London: Luzac & Co., 1932).
  45. ^ "Crusades" In The Islamic World: past and Present. , edited by John L. Esposito. Oxford Islamic Studies Online, http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article (accessed Feb 17, 2008).
  46. ^ "Abbasid Dynasty", The New Encyclopedia Britannica (2005)
  47. ^ L. Gardet; J. Jomier. "Islam". Encyclopaedia of Islam Online. 
  48. ^ O'Callaghan, Joseph F. (1983). A History of Medieval Spain. Cornell University Press. pp. 133. ISBN 0-8014-9264-5. 
  49. ^ Constable, Olivia Remie (1997). "The Political Dilemma of a Granadan Ruler". Medieval Iberia: Readings from Christian, Muslim, and Jewish Sources. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 103. ISBN 0-8122-15699. 
  50. ^ Neill, p. 94
  51. ^ Tillyrides, Makarios. Adventures in the Unseen: The Silent Witness, Orthodox Research Institute Press, 2004, p. 426

Further reading

  • Esler, Phillip F. The Early Christian World. Routledge (2004). ISBN 0415333121.
  • White, L. Michael. From Jesus to Christianity. HarperCollins (2004). ISBN 0060526556.
  • Freedman, David Noel (Ed). Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing (2000). ISBN 0802824005.
  • Pelikan, Jaroslav Jan. The Christian Tradition: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). University of Chicago Press (1975). ISBN 0226653714.

External links

See also

History of Christianity: The Middle Ages
Preceded by:
Christianity in
the 10th century
11th
Century
Followed by:
Christianity in
the 12th century
BC 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th
11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th 17th 18th 19th 20th 21st

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Christianity in the 10th century — Main article: Medieval history of Christianity See also: Christianity in the 9th century and Christianity in the 11th century Contents 1 Pre scholastic Theology …   Wikipedia

  • Christianity in the 12th century — Medallion of Christ from Constantinople, circa. 1100. Main article: Medieval history of Christianity See also: Christianity in the 11th century and Christianity in the 13th century Contents …   Wikipedia

  • Christianity in the 17th century — The first page of Genesis from the 1611 first edition of the Authorized King James Version. The KJV is an Early Modern English translation of the Bible by the Church of England that was begun in 1604 and completed in 1611.[1] See also …   Wikipedia

  • Christianity in the 9th century — Brothers Cyril and Methodius bring Christianity to the Slavic peoples. Main article: History of medieval Christianity …   Wikipedia

  • Christianity in the 20th century — Part of a series on Christianity   …   Wikipedia

  • Christianity in the 5th century —   Spread of Christianity to AD 325 …   Wikipedia

  • Christianity in the 7th century —   Spread of Christianity to AD 325 …   Wikipedia

  • Christianity in the 8th century — Age of the Caliphs   Expansion under Muhammad, 622–632/A.H. 1 11 …   Wikipedia

  • Christianity in the 1st century — Christians believe that Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant.[1] Depicted by 19th century Danish painter Carl Heinrich Bloch is his Sermon on the Mount (c. 30) in which he Expounds on the Law. Some scholars consider this to be …   Wikipedia

  • Christianity in the 2nd century — Ignatius of Antioch, one of the Apostolic Fathers and the third Bishop of Antioch, was considered a student of John the Apostle. En route to his martyrdom in Rome (c. 108), Ignatius wrote a series of preserved letters which are examples of late… …   Wikipedia


Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”

We are using cookies for the best presentation of our site. Continuing to use this site, you agree with this.