As Fr. Richard McBrien rightfully points out in his book, The Church,“the history of ecclesiology covers an enormous amount of biblical, historical, theological, doctrinal, social scientific, and other material” (61), Meaning that studying 2000 years of Catholic ecclesiology is liking drinking several gallons’ worth of water through a firehose, then going all out at an all-you-can-eat buffet, followed by an hour of CrossFit at the gym.
Kidding aside, condensing about five-hundred years of early medieval Church ecclesiology into a blog post is a mammoth effort.
Moving on, the Church’s ecclesiological evolution in early medieval times grew out a diverse, yet continually unifying, foundation that the Church Fathers, ecclesiastical writers, and early Doctors of the Church helped build and shape.
Similar to the potter and clay metaphors used in Scripture (Jeremiah 18:1-6; Isaiah 64:7; Romans 9:19-24), the Church, as both an invisible and visible sign of God’s grace, is to help mold its body of believers – the Body of Christ – into a sanctified community that strives for sainthood. Or without hopefully getting too esoteric here, the Church has the earthly responsibility of bridging the kingdom of heaven with God’s creation.
Much of the Church’s ecclesiological foundation became more unified in the second through fourth centuries, with Church Fathers such as Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Athanasius, Ambrose, and Augustine shaping the theological formation that Catholic Christians find today in the Catechism and ultimately through the Church’s Magisterium. In addition, Origen and Eusebius, as ecclesiastical writers, contributed volumes of works to help further flesh out theological topics and the Church’s role overall (McBrien 63, 64).
All of the above influences had a major hand in the complex web of issues that McBrien breaks down into the following areas: the role of bishops; the Church’s relationship with the Eucharist, salvation, and theological doctrines in general; the Petrine primacy’s relationship with apostolic successions; and the connection between the visible and invisible Churches (McBrien 62, 63).
While the Church continually worked through these areas as it slowly became more unified, these same areas would still be a source of many schisms, councils, and heated debates for the next several centuries and beyond. This was already nothing new for the Church, having spent the second and third centuries facing off with the Gnostic, Marcionite, and Novatianist movements (McBrien 64), and then bracing itself for the next wave of schisms, including Donatism, Arianism, and eventually a centuries long rift between Eastern and Western churches.
All of these schisms happened mostly for theological reasons. Nevertheless, because the Church’s theology has always been tightly intertwined with its ecclesiology, the relationship between the two reinforces the reasons why McBrien shows the web of categorical problems that the Church worked through. According to some scholars, the Church’s ecclesiological issues largely trace back to the Edict of Milan in 313: With the Church’s newfound freedoms and privileges throughout the Roman Empire, beginning with Constantine’s reign in the fourth century, scholars view this chummy, socio-political friendship between Church and State as a major spark that more aggressively fanned the flames of ecclesiological issues. Worse, these metaphorical flames frequently caused all-out dumpster fires between Church beliefs and any opposing views, political factions, or foreign entities that entered into the mix (McBrien 66).
During his reign as bishop of Hippo, Augustine – one of the most influential doctors of the Church – made major strides in defining the Church’s ecclesiology, all while upholding its core theology. Whether using Ephesians 5:32 to describe the Church as the body of Christ; or explaining why the Eucharist is central to the Liturgy and being in communion with Christ; or yet again drawing on Ephesians, Corinthians, and other letters by Paul to confirm the Bishop of Rome (Peter) as the head of the Church and initiator of apostolic succession, Augustine reveals a Church that is both visible and invisible and solely known as Catholic (McBrien 69-71).
Unfortunately, even Augustine’s remarkable contributions to the Church could not prevent the early medieval period (600 AD – 1000 AD) from turning into its own mess of theological debates and ecclesiological challenges, mostly involving the East and West Churches (Tkacik 108). This rift between East and West was compounded even more by foreign invaders who created a colossally head-spinning situation for just about every country throughout Europe, the Mediterranean, and North Africa. Often lumped together as “Barbarians,” Vandals, Franks, Lombards, and Vikings all had a hand in either taking over the countries in question, or aggressively synthesizing their cultures with others (McBrien 71).
And as if all existing complications weren’t enough to force every country into a geo-political game of cultural-diffusion musical-chairs — Muslim armies, without question, were a mighty powerhouse in seizing much of the known world at that time. Meanwhile, as both the East and West churches were caught up in territorial and cultural crossfires, this meant a double-duty situation of providing pastoral care under ever changing circumstances, attempting to maintain a civil relationship with one another, and keeping a constant lookout for foreign entities that strived to replace the Church with their own ideologies (Tkacik 108, 109).
All of these factors had a direct effect on Church hierarchy and how clergy from the East and West churches should handle this matter. At the heart of this was a long-running debate between East and West regarding leadership and who should sit at the top of the hierarchy: Was this based on apostolic succession tracing back to Peter? Or was the Church’s authority meant to be more de-centralized, or as a shared role between the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople?
Going back to the fourth and fifth centuries, Augustine had great respect for Peter as the first of the many successors who would serve as bishop of Rome and oversee all churches as a unified body of believers. He also emphasized Peter as embodying the Church, meaning the Church continually holds the keys to the kingdom that Jesus promised to Peter (McBrien 70, 71).
Fast forward to the thick of the early medieval period: In the West, the Church upheld Peter’s importance as the root of apostolic succession. The East did not see the hierarchy quite in the same way, hence one of the key reasons why both Churches remained East and West. Moreover, when combined with the Church’s growing role in politics, as well as muddied, corruption- prone relationships with ruling monarchies, the Church had grown from having Constantine-enabled legal authority to making simony and lay-clergy investitures a staple in its ecclesiological growth. This helped bolster the medieval popes’ ubiquitous authority across both East and West, while putting added pressure on the patriarch of Constantinople to align more with the West’s hierarchy. And this would be one of the reasons for the initial schism between East and West in the eleventh century (Tkacik 110).
Meanwhile, also in the eleventh century, Pope Gregory VII laid out an even clearer path (part of what is now called the “Gregorian reform”) to establishing Peter as the first bishop of Rome, while also enacting strong policies against simony, corruption, and investiture (McBrien 72). Using the document False Decretals, Gregory VII, proclaimed in his decree, Dictatus Papae that “Peter truly lived and acted in the bishop of Rome” (Tkacik 110). Therefore, the pope, as the leader of the universal Church, had full authority to adjudicate all ecclesial related matters. Then, by the twelfth century (moving into later medieval times), Pope Innocent III would refer to Peter as “the vicar of Christ who was invested with a ‘plentitude of power’” (Tkacik 111).
Now, while the Petrine primacy has roots throughout Church history, it is still important to see how this role developed over the centuries, especially in the early medieval age. In the ninth century, Pope Nicolas I used two supporting documents, albeit forgeries, to validate Peter as a vicar of Christ, and that Nicolas I was yet another successor. He further established the papal role as having authority over all churches and the right to dispose bishops as necessary (Tkacik 109). Much of Nicolas I’s thinking traces back to Leo 1, with whom he compares himself when explain the role of the “Holy See” (Tkacik 109).
Overall, the Church amazingly managed to grow in continuity, despite an almost impossible number of challenges in its way, all while holding preserving its core theology and an ever-evolving ecclesiology.
Works Cited
McBrien, Richard P. The Church. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2008.
Tkacik, Michael J., and Thomas M. McGonigle, O.P. Pneumatic Correctives: What is the Spirit Saying to the Church of the 21st Century? Lanham: University Press of America, 2007.