Recovering the First Reformation - Toward a Proto-Protestant Narrative of Church History (V)
The growing
apostasy at work in the post-Constantinian period was challenged and it seems
clear there was a lasting testimony of extra-Roman and anti-Roman resistance
well into the Dark Ages. A dissenting geographic belt (deemed heretical by
Rome) would appear cutting across the Pyrenees through Southern France and
across the Alps into Northern Italy. With Switzerland serving as a knot,
another branch roughly followed the course of the Rhine through Germany and the
Low Countries.
The
'heretics' were never dominant but there were concentrations that appear and
given trade routes, water routes and the like – there's a logic to their early
geographic pattern. And yet they would later spread throughout Central Europe
and even touch upon the East appearing in places as diverse as Transylvania,
the Baltic coast as well as Southern Italy.
This
was the period of the Old Catholic Church. The papacy was asserting itself and
yet was unable to consolidate power as Europe was neither united nor stable.
Again, the Carolingian period was something of an anomaly. Charlemagne's
kingdom was partitioned in 843 and Europe throughout most of the 10th
century was still under constant threat from Viking, Saracen and Magyar.
And
yet the testimony of Vigilantius and the later Claudius testify that there were
areas within Europe that had not bowed the knee to Rome and interestingly these
same areas had not fully embraced all the innovations that had arisen in the
centuries after Constantine.
The
fact that Claudius would appear in the 9th century from the same
region as Vigilantius and would also testify that his region's Christianity was
of a different stripe than what was found in the more mainstream and Rome-connected
areas – is itself telling and indeed tantalising when one considers the
possibilities, that for centuries there were nonconformist groups or even small
regions that rejected some or many of the post-Constantinian innovations. I
don't mean to suggest these groups were conscious dissident factions or
institutionalised – at least not yet. And also we must remember there were
still groups of Novatianists, Donatists, Montanists and others moving about
well into the Dark Ages – a point (as was emphasized earlier) usually forgotten
when one considers the milieu of say the 6th or 7th
century.
These
groups were not uniform or monolithic and it wouldn't be proper to call them
Protestant quite yet. And not all embraced the same degree of dissidence. Some
like the Novatians were primarily concerned with ethics, discipline and the
problem of worldliness. Others like the Donatists went through several changes
and yet in principle came to oppose Catholicism. Their record is in places
confused and tarnished by their Carthaginian and thus anti-Roman heritage.
But
what is clear is that even by the second century tensions were beginning to
emerge over questions regarding philosophy and Christian thought. Tertullian
famously asked 'What has Athens to do with Jerusalem'? The Apologists were combating
anti-Christian criticism within Roman society but in doing so they often turned
to philosophy and in their own metanarrative, some attempted to posture
Hellenic philosophy as a kind of Mosaic schoolmaster to lead the pagans to
Christ. This philosophic trajectory would later become more pronounced in the
epistemological and hermeneutical divide of the Alexandrian and Antiochan
schools – a theological and exegetical iteration of the age old conflict
between Aristotelianism and Platonism. Rather than understand the error at work
in both camps and the fact that they both represent a shift away from
revelatory Biblical authority, subsequent historians and exegetes have tended
to favour one over the other.
The
aforementioned Novatianists (as well as the Montanist protest) indicate that
already in the 3rd Century, there was a spirit of worldliness
creeping in – the compromise being most apparent during the aforementioned
Decian-Diocletian interlude. The lesson there is the danger of the Church at
peace, the Church in a time of prosperity. The Church loses its vigilance and
the world begins to creep in. Obviously the lessons have not been learned even
to this very day.
I've
always been hesitant to wade into the waters of Celtic Christianity as so many
groups have sought to appropriate them and claim them as their own. I say this
as one who was captivated by these people for many years – at one point the
period even became something of an obsession for me but ultimately it proved a
frustration and a dead end. They were not Protestants per se and did not adhere
to anything like Sola Scriptura. However they did practice an earlier form of
Christianity that had fully formed before the claims of the papacy were
solidified or were even really tangible. They knew of the bishop of Rome and
respected him – perhaps even in a Cyprianic primus
inter pares sense – the so-called pope was but the first among equals. And
yet while they had knowledge of the episcopacy they did not have that kind of
hierarchy in their polity. There is testimony to suggest that their monasteries
were the organising principle of their polity thus granting the abbot (as
opposed to the bishop) a place of supremacy. And yet unlike Continental
Catholicism, the Celtic monk could (in many cases) marry and the monasteries
were apparently a kind of retreat for monks – the monks that were married
leaving their families behind for a season or in other cases there's suggestion
that the monasteries were almost communal affairs in which celibate and married
monks would live, the latter with their families on site.
There
are many fascinating hints and riddles when it comes to the early Celtic Church
but the evidence is inconclusive.
Over
time as the Celtic Church came into conflict with Rome and was suppressed by
it, the likelihood of a further examination of core principles and a more
deliberate understanding of identity was forged. The same development happened
with the Donatists but while the Donatists were not as monolithic as they are
often presented this is even more true when one approaches Celtic Christianity.
But when it comes to the later heirs of Iona and certainly within the Welsh
Church there eventually emerges a conscientious break with Rome, a separate
understanding of Christianity – a separate identity.
This
has led some to suggest the differences with Rome were not just ecclesiological
(as the mainstream historians continue to insist) but rather existential. If
the latter is true the question must also be asked if the existential
difference was original or something that became more patent and pronounced
over time? Was it something engendered by the crisis in polity? On the one hand
you can point to groups like the Culdees as they seem to operate on the fringe
of Roman Catholicism but on the other hand there's suggestion of a fuller and
more deliberate dissidence.
While
modern day environmentalists, liberals, feminists, ecumenists, Presbyterians,
Orthodox, fundamentalists and nationalists claim the Celtic Church as their own
– the truth is they weren't really any of these things but represent an ancient
and probably isolated form of Christianity as it developed in the early
centuries. In many ways it was better than Rome and yet it too had its
problems. Aside from its nearly fanatical ascetic practices associated with its
monasticism, there are open questions regarding the role of Pelagianism and to
what degree the Celtic Church remained syncretistic vis-à-vis Celtic paganism.
It's testimony on the one hand is lauded as missionaries traveled from the 'Celtic
Fringe' in Ireland, Scotland, Cornwall and Wales and worked to evangelise the
pagans on the continent. The testimony with regard to centres such as Iona and
Lindisfarne is particularly impressive and yet clearly the Celtic Church had
already by the 5th and 6th centuries embraced the
Sacralist framework. The Anglo-Saxon conversions were done in concert with the
monarchs and yet not in the coercive fashion that would frequent the continent
– especially in the time of Charlemagne. And speaking of Celtic (or Scotti)
missionaries on the Continent, those that spoke out tended to oppose figures
like Claudius of Turin.
There is abundant testimony to the fact that the Celtic
Church in sub-Roman Britain viewed itself as the heir of Roman civilisation and
Constantinian Christianity and there is much in terms of their legendarium and
self-narrative that points to the family of Constantine and Magnus Maximus (or
as the Welsh call him Macsen Wledig) who was for a brief time in the late 4th
century, the emperor of the West.
This Roman-identifying Christianity finds some connections
with the Arthur stories and thus we can probably conclude that Celtic
Christianity (at least as it was first encountered) represented a Christianity
that had developed its own identity after the point of the Constantinian Shift
and yet then dwelt in semi-isolation for the next couple of centuries. This
would explain how their monasticism and ecclesiology took a very different turn
than what was found in mainstream circles and how they retained some older
pre-4th century customs and practices.
The Roman identity was watered down somewhat as large numbers
of Irish settled Southern Wales and many Picts from the borderlands relocated
to Northern Wales.*
The legacy is somewhat confused as there are connections made
to Roman officialdom and royalty and yet at the same time some of the
chieftains and kings were clients of the Roman state – not exactly the heirs of
Roman civilisation but nevertheless able to lay some claim of existing
legitimacy in the chaos that followed the 5th century Anglo-Saxon
invasion and settlement. Other would have undoubtedly had little affection for
the Roman Imperium which their ancestors had fought against for generations.
When these Celtic Christians came into contact with Papal
Rome in the late 6th and early 7th centuries they had
grown apart and antagonism ensued.
So as much as I might wish the Celtic Church (broadly
speaking) had a stronger dissident testimony, the case is hard to make. Again,
for me this is to revisit an old chapter in my own history. My visits to the UK
were akin to pilgrimages as I visited sites such as Lindisfarne, Iona, St.
Davids and years earlier, Glendalough across the Irish Sea. I still love the
story and the places and I am stirred by the history in general but ultimately
it wasn't the 'solution' to the problems of Church History that I sought. That
said, I still wonder and there's still two somewhat vexing and unresolved
questions regarding 14th and 15th century Lollardy that
are connected to this issue.
The Lollards seemed to have some kind of redoubt in and
connection with Wales and tradition suggests the Lollards believed that an
ancient and more Biblical Christianity had been kept across the marches. Of
course by the time Lollardy officially appears, Wales had been subjugated by
the Normans. But interestingly at the time of the early 15th century
Lollard crisis (itself in the wake of the 1381 Peasant's Revolt), Wales was
astir and in the midst of the Glendower Revolt.
In that context it makes sense that Lollards would be able to
flee to Wales and yet there's no reason to think Glendower was sympathetic to
them. And yet were there still dissident remnants of Welsh Christianity in the
March country? Oldcastle's revolt took place in 1414 and in the aftermath of
its failure he fled to his home county of Herefordshire in the Welsh Marches
where he was able to avoid capture for nearly four years.
It's a bit of puzzle but it may (in the end) be little more
than hype. The other issue involves the so-called Lollards of Kyle. This is puzzling
as Lollardy while somewhat widespread was fairly concentrated in the West
Country-Marches region, the Midlands, and the East – so then to have it appear
in Western Scotland generates a lot of questions. How did it get there? There's
little evidence of Lollard sympathy in Yorkshire and other regions in the north
of England.
And, if it had spread bit by bit to the north and across the
Scottish border one immediately wonders if it wasn't far more pervasive than
the historian's data-driven models suggest? There are other acknowledged
appearances of Lollardy in Scotland, and one cannot help but wonder if it wasn't
more widespread. And for some there are the tantalising questions of potential
connections between the Lollards and the Scottish Culdees and yet to be honest
I find the suggestion dubious as I've seen nothing with regard to the Culdees
that would suggest any concord with Lollardy. They seem cut from a very
different cloth.
That said, it's very possible (but virtually unprovable) that
the Culdees may have become more narrow and doctrinally deliberate over time –
especially in the aftermath of their suppression at the hands of Queen Margaret
(wife to Malcolm Canmore) and her sons – especially David I. The Scottish
Church at this time underwent a process of what could be called Normanisation
bringing it in line with the Gregorian Reforms taking place on the continent.
The Culdees, the last remnant of Celtic resistance were suppressed and
disappear from history in the 14th century. Some have seemingly
overplayed their dissenting nonconformist role. Others see them as representing
the old ecclesiology of the Celtic Church that over time simply dwindled, lost
influence, compromised and eventually disappeared.
The record suggests the disputes were over polity and control
of monastic structures but the long-term and often virulent animosity on the
part of the Culdees (even in the official record) suggests there might have
been something more to the conflict – more than the historians record. This may
be but it's speculation as is the idea of any connection between these late
remnants of the Celtic testimony and Lollardy that would appear a few
generations later.
In the end the Celtic road is a frustrating one and while
they still fascinate me they don't provide the answers, as in principle they
are not truly part of the strain of remnant anti-Constantinian Christianity that
I wish to emphasize. And, they did not seem to survive much into the High
Middle Ages period and thus were not part of the reaction to the Gregorian
Reforms – a reaction I and others refer to as the First Protestant Reformation.
Ultimately the Celtic story itself wanes at one of the
darkest periods of Church history. Apart from the testimony of one such as
Claudius of Turin and the larger implications of his protest, the 9th
century is one of darkness in which there is little faithful testimony to be
found – all the dissident groups (of various degrees of Biblical-mindedness)
were (in terms of the historical record) all but gone.
The 10th century is perhaps the darkest of all and
while the 11th century isn't much better, there is some hint of
light as groups begin to appear in reaction to the Gregorian 'reforms' of
Hildebrand. Again, were these mere reactions or were they cases of a new deliberate
and centralised policy exposing existing (mostly underground) opposition? If
these groups did exist in the 10th and 11th century then
their numbers were small and the times were both tumultuous and perilous. And
yet the numbers in the 12th century point (I think) to groups that
had been long established and so I believe they were present at least in the
1000's.
But could their existence have stretched back into the 900's
and before? Mainstream historians dismiss the very notion but the truth is we
just don't know. Relatively few records were kept in the 10th century
and the Catholic Church would have had limited authority during those chaotic
times. There may have been faithful remnant groups but again if there were (and
for theological reasons I do believe there were), they must have led a very
lonely existence.
It was (by my estimation) the darkest and most desperate
point in Church history.
----
*This would be the context of the Irish raids that seized the
Briton Patrick and it's also the setting of the famous story of Tristan and
Isolde.