The Importance of Early Christianity Within Medieval Thought

 

Medieval scholars studied one of four fields at the university: theology, law, medicine, or the arts. The University of Paris was known to be the best concerning the instruction of theology. To many Medieval people, theology was the most respected discipline that a student could study in the university. 

It cannot be underestimated how important theology was to many people in the Middle Ages. Indeed, many commentaries on the Bible were written in Medieval Times. Read Thomas Aquinas, Pope Innocent III, or Bonaventure---whether or not you agree with their interpretations of Scripture, it would be unimaginable to believe anyone claiming them to be ignorant of the Bible. They defended Christian doctrines as they understood them. Aquinas appealed not merely to philosophy but to Scripture as well. In his commentary on Romans, Aquinas did an amazing job of breaking Paul's ideas concerning justification. To Aquinas, Paul did not teach justification by faith alone as Luther would later believe. Instead, the ''Dumb Ox'' believed that Paul was distinguishing the works of the law from the law of faith (Romans 3: 27). Aquinas also held that justification is progressive---Catholic Christians, he believed continue to become justified before God. 

When discussing theologians like Pope Innocent III or Thomas Aquinas, however, we must ask ourselves, what was at the core of their theology? Of course, they frequently quoted Ancient and Medieval fathers before them but the New Testament was essential to all that they believed (and the Old Testament as well). While Scripture in general, had aided much of the Medieval mind, the Gospel of Matthew played a significant influence on the thoughts of those who lived in the Middle Ages. In general, the medievals further developed many of the teachings found in the New Testament and Early Christianity---which brings me to my next point. 

It's impossible to understand the Middle Ages without understanding Medieval Christianity and it's impossible to understand Medieval Christianity without studying the New Testament and Early Christianity. For example, historians should understand that the doctrines of the medievals concerning the debates over the filioque largely originated from Jesus's relationship to the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John (John 14: 16, John 14: 26). Likewise, medievalists must be acquainted with Athanasius of Alexandria and his thoughts on the incarnation of Christ (C. S. Lewis stated that the Incarnation of Christ (John 1) was central to Medieval thought) in order to understand the theology of those in the Middle Ages. During the fourth century, when many in Christendom were challenging the doctrines of the Trinity, Athanasius elaborated on the Divinity of Christ in his work, On the Incarnation. 

So what should medievalists study? The warfare, the siege weapons, the fashions, the daily lives of the people, etc. All of these are worthy fields for experts to engage much of their time. However, every medievalist should be familiar with both the Old and New Testaments as well as the history of Early Christianity in order for people to understand the teachings of the Latin Church, which had a profound influence on many in Christendom in the Post-Classical world. 

The Relevance of Medieval Studies

 

Recently, I have been most grateful to see Liberty University's openness to my many requests over the last several years that they add Medieval Studies. My work in this area has not gone unnoticed. When Liberty University adds Medieval Studies, it will be the first evangelical university in the nation to offer such a program. Currently, the colleges and universities that offer Medieval Studies are Mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, and secular. It's important that Evangelical Christians, however, be familiar with the history of the church after Constantine and before Luther.I've always loved the study of the Middle Ages. When I began to learn about Medieval Studies several years ago, I was always excited about the idea of studying the Middle Ages but never felt that Liberty University would add such a program. Liberty, though, has expressed so much more openness to the study of church history before the Reformation than do many other Baptist schools. For Roman Catholics and Protestants alike, Medieval Studies is important for many reasons including knowledge of the great theological debates concerning the authority of the papacy that escalated in the sixteenth century. 

The Middle Ages were not the ''Dark Ages.'' Even when Petrarch used this term about the Middle Ages, he did not mean it in the sense of a theological derogatory manner as so many leftists and fundamentalists of today (ironically, this is one area where the two groups often agree; they both criticize Medieval Catholicism). Rather, those of the Italian Renaissance saw the Middle Ages as an era lacking the artistic creativity of the classical world that they sought to imitate. Certainly, Petrarch, a Roman Catholic, never felt that Christianity had been theologically ignorant or corrupt for a thousand years or longer as some on the left as well as right-wing fundamentalists have taught. No current historian believes ''The Dark Ages'' myth about the Middle Ages. This view is common with many in the public, unfortunately. Advancements in technology and alchemy did take place in the Medieval era. This was all the age of history that saw the opening of universities throughout Europe. Additionally, it was during the High and Late Middle Ages that many Europeans gained more fluency in Greek, began early naval exploration, etc. 

Medieval Studies is distinct from Medieval history. This is because the former studies all aspects of the Middle Ages including its history and its arts. To me, a certificate in Medieval Studies will be beneficial whether I get my master's in history, English literature, or in Biblical languages. Considering my interest to being a professor of a Medieval subject, this certificate will advance my credentials in whatever field that I teach (and also add to my resume). 

For anyone interested in knowing all aspects of the Medieval world, a degree or certificate in Medieval Studies allows them to further study other aspects of the Middle Ages outside of their own discipline. Those majoring in English may wish to know more about the castles of the Medieval world and those majoring in history may wish all the more to glance at the cultural impact of Chaucer and Dante's writings. 

Medieval Studies include the study of the Medieval church, the Crusades, intercultural relations between Muslims, Christians, and Jews, the artistic reveals of the High and Late Medieval eras (especially Chaucer and Dante's works), the flourishing of Chilvary, the role Manoralism, etc. I could go on and on about what Medieval Studies includes. No doubt, it is academically ideal for medievalists to study all aspects of the Medieval world. 

Where I'm Headed

  

 As of next year, I will be graduating with a degree in Christian literature from the English Department at Liberty University. In my degree, I have taken courses in topics such as theology and Medieval art, while from my Major, I have studied other areas such as Tolkien and Lewis as well as English literature in general, 

Previously, I was thinking about doing a master's in literature. I wished to obtain this degree to begin teaching English courses at the college level. For now, however, I've altered my path. 

For graduate studies, I wish to start with Liberty University's Master of Arts in Biblical languages from the John Rawlings School of Divinity. I wish to be involved in the planting of a liturgical low-church evangelical church in the Knoxville area. In general, I think God is calling me to this. The church will hold to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. 

After my master's program, though, I may return to either English or history for a Ph.D. Longterm, I wish to be a university professor. At the moment, I probably lean toward history (though I'm open to either). My Ph.D. will probably have a specialization in the Medieval/Crusades era. 

Anyways, that's somewhat of an update on where I am currently. If I continue this new path that I now am leaning towards, I think that it will be beneficial to me for several reasons. 

1. With a bachelor's in English, I will have learned higher grammar, composition, and about literature in general. Indeed, all of these qualities have sharpened me as a novelist who wishes to get some of my books published in the near future. Studying English literature has taught me more about prose, poetry, and drama. I have read from some of the greatest writers in history such as Geoffrey Chaucer, William Shakespeare, and Jane Austen. Although many people read the writers from the past without majoring in English, English majors are taught to properly analyze and interpret literature. In many ways, I believe that English majors make the best writers. 

2. With a master's in Biblical languages, this would give me the opportunity to help my pastoral aspirations by understanding Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek. Indeed, I also have a significant interest in the world of the first century, the literary aspects of the New Testament, and the study of early Christianity. The importance of Biblical languages cannot be overstated. For those especially interested in the New Testament, for example, it allows Biblical scholars to study the scriptures in their original languages, without replying upon another person's translation. Outside the Bible, knowledge of Hebrew and Greek can also benefit those studying historical documents from other writers of ancient times such as Josephus, Philo, and the works of early Christianity. 

3. If I should end up getting a Ph.D. in history with a specialization in Medieval Times, this would provide me the option to teach history for academia---a desire that I began at least as early as the age of fifteen. Over the years, I felt conflicted between the study of theology and history. I'm grateful, however, that Liberty allows those who study Biblical Studies/Biblical languages to be admitted into the doctorate in history. Furthermore, around 2019, I started to wonder if I should major in English rather than in history (part of my inclination towards English was due in part to the influence of J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, and Michael Shaara on my writings). Indeed, many novelists often major in either history or English, and for those who write historical fiction, there is debate about what major is better. Since Liberty does not currently offer a Ph.D. in English, it's hard to say what the future will hold. I'm definitely open to graduate studies in either English literature or history. Personally, I wish that history and English literature were seen more as one discipline (as they used to be) rather than two. I'm a huge fan of historical fiction, which is usually what I write, and this genre borders significantly on both. 

Interestingly enough, with a master's in Biblical languages and a master's thesis on early Christianity (my choice of topic), I will be a historian of the first century (if I do the thesis). Personally, I'm unsure yet whether or not I will do the thesis should I do this program. Likewise, if I should end up doing a Ph.D. in Medieval history then I will also be a historian of the Age of Chivalry. It would also mean that I'm I would be somewhat theologian (though arguably, more of a Biblical scholar as theology is more philosophical). As someone who has always found the study of early Christianity to be inspirational, knowing Hebrew and Greek would aid me in instructing others about its expansion throughout the Roman Empire. 

All of that said, I will begin a master's degree in divinity school as of next year. I appreciate all prayers for my benefit. Knowing the Biblical languages of the scriptures is not only important for theological debates over the meaning of baptism or church government, but defending the faith in a world that is increasingly hostile to Christianity. 

Papal Supremacy and Medieval Celibacy

 

                                                                     Introduction: 

It is commonplace for Roman Catholic apologists to conflict with the historical record when the historical record doesn't benefit the teachings of Rome. This is the case, for example, in how many Catholic apologists present the Catholic Church as an unchanging church since ancient times. 

During the ninth and tenth centuries, the Medieval western church went through many changes and reforms. Belief in the sacrifice of the mass became widely accepted during this time, as I was learning from Anthony E. Gilles's The People of the Faith. This book, which is about the history of Christianity during the Middle Ages, also has other invaluable histories of other aspects of historical theology within it. 

One of the most striking aspects of Gilles's book that I have learned is the complicated history of clerical celibacy in the early Middle Ages. While the Byzantine Empire had long had married priests, the west followed a pattern by the early Middle Ages that was more restricting (though, as shall soon be shown, clerical celibacy did not receive automatic universal support). 

Clerical celibacy had been first proposed in fourth-century Spain. The idea never gained much acceptance in the east and struggled to gain universal approval even in the west. Even during the eleventh century, Pope Gregory VII, a major reforming pope, came into conflict with married priests throughout western Christendom. He went so far as to mandate clerical celibacy as to separate married men who were already priests from their wives and children. 

With clerical celibacy being such a controversial issue, it makes us ask why? Why did the issue matter so much? In the east, the issue had never been a major one to the church. How did it become a major issue for the western church? 

This post shall address two points concerning clerical celibacy. The first shall demonstrate the lack of Biblical support for the mandating of clerical celibacy. The second shall show how and why it developed to as widely accepted in the medieval west. 

                                             1. Scripture and Clerical Celibacy

Peter the Apostle had been married (Matthew 8: 14). At least several of the apostles were married (1 Corinthians (9: 5). While some have suggested that Peter was a widower before he became pope, I believe that this is a forced interpretation of scripture----something certainly never mentioned in the New Testament. Exegesis aside, however, even if Peter had been pope after his wife passed, it's quite clear that many of the apostles were prominent leaders in the New Testament Church (Acts 15) and were clearly not living celibate lives. 

Scripture is clear that there were church leaders who were married. Some, though see 1 Corinthians 7: 1-7 as evidence that Paul set a new example for the church. Because of this, many have suggested that Paul believed celibacy was now ideal for church clergy. A major problem with the Roman Catholic view of 1 Corinthians 7: 1-7, however, is that Paul never mandated any such thing. He respected both celibacy and marriage as beneficial to the church. 

In conclusion on this first point, scripture simply does not teach the Roman Catholic concept of a celibate priesthood. Since Catholics believed that their bishops are successors of the apostles, it seems unreasonable to believe that celibacy was required more for those who didn't walk with Christ than for those who had had a direct fellowship with Him. Paul exhorted celibacy and encouraged the church in that direction, but never called for any sort of mandate on those God called to ministry, in terms of them being withheld from marriage. 

So if scripture lacks support for clerical celibacy, how did it become so common in the west? What were the reasons for the Catholic Church in promoting it?

                                        2. Papal Supremacy and Medieval Celibacy

Several ancient bishops of Rome had been married. As mentioned earlier, clerical celibacy did not receive much support until centuries after Christ. Clerical celibacy did not receive universal recognition until at least the eleventh century (even then, it took another hundred years before an ecumenical western church council taught this as official teaching). 

The acceptance of clerical celibacy came at a time when much was drastically changing for western Christianity. The Carolingian Empire was exercising by this point an influence over church matters that had only once been shared by the Byzantines. The issue of the Filioque was also dividing Christians between the west and the east from each other. 

To make matters even more complicated, the papacy took on roles in the early Middle Ages that it had generally not done before. Popes came to see themselves gradually as having the right to institute kings into power. Gradually, there became a great rivalry between the Carolingian Emperors and those of the Byzantines. Likewise, the papacy and the Carolingians shared a different type of rivalry than between one king and another. Both the pope and the Carologian family saw themselves as the head of western Christianity. In the case of the papacy, much of this was attributed to its supposed authority from Emperor Constantine. This view had been elaborated within a work called The Donation of Constantine, which scholars later recognized as a forgery. Despite having been a forgery, however, the document showcased the view that Emperor Constantine gave his authority over Christendom to the bishop of Rome---a claim that the popes benefited from for centuries long after Constantine's reign. 

Much was changing in the ninth century. It was during this time (and slightly before) that the papacy became more central to the political affairs of Christendom. Despite no pope having been present at the first seven ecumenical councils of the Christian Church, the bishop of Rome was growing in influence upon the western church. These matters affected the church into the early eleventh century and beyond. 

With papal supremacy on the rise in the ninth century, it makes sense that this would change not just how people viewed the current pope, but also, how the doctrine of papal supremacy would affect other changes in the church. 

Emperor Henry II and Pope Benedict VIII were two key figures in the church's turn to clerical celibacy. These men lived during the early eleventh century. Much of my information on their relationship to this topic I've drawn from Anthony E. Gilles's book, The People of the Faith. 

Henry was quite authoritative over the church in his lands. He made sure to handpick all the bishops throughout his territory; saw their jurisdictions as his lands. Pope Benedict, a slick politician, managed to convince the emperor to give the pope complete independence from Italian rule. As a result, the pope ended up in a position of war against his fellow Italian states while attempting to assert his papal supremacy over the prominent Italian families. 

Both emperor and pope met at Pavia in 1022. They agreed to summon a council that would reinstate clerical celibacy throughout the Holy Roman Empire. Neither Henry nor Benedict sought clerical celibacy for any theological or moral reason---it was simply a way to grant the more power. In the case of Benedict, clerical celibacy benefited papal supremacy. 

The reason that clerical celibacy was important to Henry and Benedict must be understood because of the power that it would give each. During the eleventh century, one's heritage was important and sons often were the successors of their fathers. By promoting and mandating celibacy throughout the western church, it ensured that priests would have no successors to inherit church lands. For Benedict, this was important, as he wanted all church lands under his supremacy rather than in the hands of the local family. Likewise, the emperor benefited from church authorities who had no direct successors in their bloodline to challenge him for control of their claimed lands. 

While a universal reform for the church did not come about until after Benedict's death, the council of Pavia paved the way for the western church to accept clerical celibacy. Benedict had succeeded. The council mandated clerical celibacy for all those holding church offices. This accepted not only his power in the church but for all popes ever since. 

Although clerical celibacy became officially mandated in the church in the twelfth century, Pope Benedict had laid good reasons for its practice beforehand. Clerical celibacy was not about a scriptural or historical practice---it was simply to further papal supremacy as accepted teaching throughout the west. 

                                                              Conclusion:

It's truly ironic that many traditionalist Catholics see an end to clerical celibacy as a potential moral and theological failure for the church. To many of them, this is a liberal idea even though they are actually the ones embracing the liberal position. For most of Christian history, there were married priests in both the west and the east. 

As a final point, I do find it strange how so many people will hold onto ideas without questioning their origins. This is especially the case for many who believe in clerical celibacy being a rightful mandate from the church. Learning about how it evolved mostly from the desires of the pope and emperor for more power, shows me why more Christians should question its legitimacy. Certainly, I believe that the Protestant Reformation had good reason to bring the mandate of clerical celibacy into question. Likewise, the Church of England at the time of the English Reformation was not breaking from traditional western practice on this issue (as some medieval priests were married) but from papal supremacy itself. 

Further Sources: 

Anthony, E. Gilles. The People of the Faith. (1986). Messenger Press. 

A Review of The Bright Ages

 

Today, I would like to discuss a recent work on Medieval history that I read. It challenges the concept of the ''Dark Ages.'' The book was written by medievalists David M. Perry and Matthew Gabriele. 

I recently finished The Bright Ages. In general, I have mixed feelings about the book. For example, one of the areas where I disagree with the book is it makes a political point from cover to cover against white supremacy. Unfortunately, I feel that the authors see more people than Neo-Nazis as white supremacists. Frequently, far more so than its condemning of the far left, it condemns those that it considers being far right. The authors hardly fell short of showing their opposition to Trump's wall at the southern border, of making a constant point against the notion of western civilization, and constantly reminding the reader that not all people were white. 

I'm grateful for new research unveiling aspects of the past that we have not yet heard from our textbooks. However, I felt that the authors were politically motivated in their writing of a book that had more on its agenda than disproving ''Dark Ages'' myths. 

I have no problem with challenging previously held thoughts by some in the nineteenth century who wrongly believed that all Medieval Europeans were white. As The Bright Ages shows, there was a much greater complexity of race in Medieval history than many have properly understood. Whites and blacks both interacted throughout the Mediterranean, for instance. LIkewsie, I think that the book does a fine job of showing the complexity of religious groups in Medieval Times. Muslims, Christians, and Jews were not always enemies. Indeed, many of them interacted and worked together through trade and scholarship. The idea that the Crusades were the interaction between Christians and Muslims in Medieval Times is quite false. 

But while appreciating the authors demonstrating through historical evidence the over simplicity that many have perceived the Middle Ages as being, I disagree with their attempt to move away from other traditional views concerning the Middle Ages. For example, I see nothing that is white supremacist about America's roots in Europe or that most Europeans were historically white people. I also disagree with the book in that I think that the authors are being selective in their study of history. While discussing the complex relationship of Muslims and Christians in the Mediterranean, the authors seem to either forget or avoid the strong conservative orthodoxy of the Medieval Catholic Church. They avoid discussions of how Catholicism always saw unbelievers headed to the eternal fires. They also avoid writing about how much the far left of today prevents those with views akin to Medieval Catholicism as hatred and bigotry. 

There are some good aspects of The Bright Ages that I appreciated, however. For example, the authors did a fine job of showing that the traditional view of Rome falling in the fifth century is not the entire truth. Long after Rome was sacked in 410 AD, many of the medievals saw themselves as still within Roman history. To many of them, either Charlemagne or the Byzantines were the continuation of the old empire. Because of this, the medievals did not see a clear breach in time between the gradual decline of Rome in the fifth century and their own. 

Another aspect of The Bright Ages that I appreciate, is how much the book dispels common ''Dark Ages'' myths. The authors were well-versed in their knowledge of Medieval Times and were defined by far more than torture, plagues, and wars. This was the era in which Christian science was born; the time during which cathedrals were built, and the time that gave birth to great works of literature such as those by Dante and Petrarch. The book closes on Petrarch's understanding of the ''Dark Ages'' before him, making the argument that there never had been a dark age at all. 

The Bright Ages, however, does not discuss some views of the Middle Ages espoused by Fundamentalist Christians, who typically lack any formal education in either medieval history or medieval literature. For those wishing to hear common myths about the gospel supposedly being lost during Medieval Times, I recommend the following works (over The Bright Ages): 

Long Before Luther by Nathan Busenitz. 

The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature by C. S. Lewis

The Allegory of Love by C. S. Lewis

Positively Medieval: The Surirpsrins Dynamic Heroic Church of the Middle Ages by Jamie Blosser. 

While The Discarded Image and The Allegory of Love are more about Medieval literature than medieval theology, the latter directly deals with the myth that peasants were ignorant of the scriptures. The former, however, explains the literary knowledge in general that even many illiterate medieval people had. 

Blosser's book does an excellent job of showing the many great saints and heroes of the faith in the Middle Ages. In general, his book defends common misconceptions of the medieval church. A conservative Eastern Rite Catholic,  Blosser's book enlightens the reader about some of the great medieval minds such as Thomas Aquinas. 

Businitiz's book does not address the ''Dark Ages'' myths in general. However, as a graduate Ph.D. student from the Master's Seminary, the author did a very good job at showing that many Medieval Christians actually held to justification by faith alone. 

Finally, for those who wish to hear a more evangelical take on the Middle Ages, there is a great article from Houston Christian University (formerly, Houston Baptist) that defends Medieval Christianity as the authentic root of the Protestant Reformation. I am very grateful for this article. Specifically, it shows that the reformers were not so far off from medieval theology (even from the medievals who did not hold to Sola fide).  You can check it out here: 

https://hc.edu/news-and-events/2018/05/22/rethinking-the-reformation-reliance-upon-the-middle-ages/

In conclusion, I have mixed feelings about The Bright Ages. There are certainly better titles that I would recommend on medieval history. 

Three Views on the Origins of the Church of England

   

                      

                                                              

                                                                     I. Introduction: 

Today, both the Church of England and the Catholic Church of England and Wales each understand themselves alone to be the successor of the ancient church in the British Isles. While many in the Roman Catholic Church claim that Anglicanism had its roots in Henry VIII's 1534 schism from Rome, many Anglicans claim that their church was not founded by the king. The topic of the Church of England's origins, as with most religious subjects, is certainly controversial. Indeed, this paper will seek to illuminate the reader with an overview of the complicated history of the Anglican Church of England. 

The English Reformation brought dramatic change to the Christianity of the British Isles. In general, altars were desecrated from Medieval era parishes and cathedrals. Indeed, many Protestants even removed stained glass windows from the old buildings (though this was not the case everywhere). 

Before the sixteenth century, John Wycliffe and William of Ockham had helped to lay the foundations for what we now call the ''English Reformation.'' However, it was in the sixteenth century, that the Church of England would begin its long severing from Rome (or Rome, would sever from it as some Anglicans believe, depending on how one looks at it). Considering the influence that Wycliffe and others had had on sixteenth-century Protestanism, it does make one wonder as to when the Anglican Church became formulated. As far as I'm aware, three main views exist: 

1. Anglicanism goes back to the early Christianity of the Celts. Those who support this view often cite examples of the Celts and Anglo-Saxons using eastern liturgy and evidence of the early British Christians resisting papal Supremacy (such as Archbishop Stigand during the eleventh century). Conversely, many Roman Catholics have mocked this idea and have insisted that there is no evidence of Christians in Britain ever having been anything else but Catholics before the Reformation. While Eastern Orthodox and some Anglicans believe that there is evidence to demonstrate Anglo-Saxon Christianity being different than that of Rome; the two differ from each other as to whether or not it should be considered Eastern Orthodox or Anglican. Some differ in details about whether the Anglican Church started with Augustine of Canterbury, Celts before Augustine's arrival, or even from that of Saint Paul. 

2. Probably the most popular view of the Anglican Church's origins is that of Henry VIII. This is especially the case for those who criticize Anglicanism (whether Roman Catholic or Fundamentalist). To many of Anglicanism's critics, the idea that a divorced king started it, is proof that it started off on the wrong foot. While it has been suggested that Wycliffe is the founder of Anglicanism, this is somewhat weak as Wycliffe never institutionalized his own breakaway group. In fact, Wycliffe while seen as a heretic by many, was not excommunicated by the Catholic Church until after his death. 

3. The origins of Anglicanism are with Edward VI. Some may slightly differ from this view in tracing the Church of England to that of Elizabeth I instead (The Thirty-Nine Articles were written when the Virgin queen reigned). 

Now, I have discussed problems with the first view. I have found it generally to have the endorsement of Anglo-Catholics (at least, primarily). You can see the reasons why I disagree with it here:

https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2021/02/orthodox-britain-part-vii.html

                                                   II. Anglicanism and the Sixteenth Century

In previous blog posts, I have discussed the importance of Anglo-Saxon Christianity among those in the British Isles before the Norman Conquest. I have also argued that the Anglo-Saxons did not believe in papal supremacy (which proves in my view, that they weren't Roman Catholic; at least as we think of Catholicism today). Likewise, I demonstrated from historical evidence that the filioque was believed by those Christians in England before the Norman Conquest, as evidence that they were not Eastern Orthodox either. However, I didn't conclude that the Saxons were ''Anglican'' as we today think of it. The reason that I argued Anglo-Saxon Christianity to be different from later Anglican Christianity, is because while the latter succeeds the former, the two were not identical in either theological confession nor in liturgical practice. By the time of Edward VI, for instance, the Church of England was quite evangelical; the Anglo-Saxons on the other hand; had retained many uses of Celtic imagery in their worship. While I could further expound on this, I do believe that it's a forced interpretation to believe that Anglicanism is the same religious ideology as those before the Norman Conquest. That said, we should ask ourselves when did the Church of England form as Anglican (''Anglican''as we know it today?) If it was Roman Catholic after 1066 and before 1534, when did it become Protestant? 

The latter two views which I discussed earlier, are in my view, the only legitimate ones in this debate. Before I proceed further with this discussion, however, let us recall the events of the sixteenth century in light of Henry VIII's reign. 

Henry VIII was one of the most colorful figures of the Reformation era. He often used any form of Christianity that benefited him the most when he needed it. Throughout his life, the king had Protestants and Catholics alike put to death. Having formally split from communion with the Roman Church in 1534, Henry declared himself the head of the Church of England*1. In 1535, he had Thomas More (a Catholic) put to death as More did not support the king having an annulment to Catherine of Aragon. Later, Henry put the Protestant Reformer William Tyndale to death and disowned Tyndale's Bible. Ironically, Henry later approved The Great Bible to be published in 1539; it was England's first authorized Bible. 

Henry's disputes with Rome were often for his own political motives. While this article will not intend to argue for his claims for annulments nor that of Rome's objectives, I do wish to show in this paper that Henry was not driven by any conviction towards the Protestant faith. Under him, the Church of England held semi-Lutheran theology in The Ten Articles, and later, reverted closer to Catholicism under The Six Articles. Henry, who supported Transubstantiation, was notorious for putting anyone to death who denied this philosophical understanding of the Eucharist. While the king also dissolved the monasteries in England between 1536-1541, he was clearly not a Protestant. Henry punished both Catholics and Protestants who didn't submit to him as the head monarch over the church. Ironically, Henry had previously been called ''Defender of the Faith'' in 1521 by the papacy. His The Defence of the Seven Sacraments attacked some of Luther's views. Indeed, Henry never recanted his attacks on Protestantism. Likewise, some argue that he died as a Roman Catholci due to evidence of his request for a requiem mass. 

The Thirty-Nine Articles, the historic statement of faith from Anglicanism, are clearly Protestant. The articles, for example, deny the Roman Catholic doctrines on Purgatory, the Invocation of the Saints, and the worship of the Eucharistic host. The Church of England, especially since the reign of Edward VI, has always been a Protestant Church. On the other hand, Henry VIII never claimed that the chalice should be given to the people (which the Articles supported) nor did the king ever fully endorse the ideas of either Luther or Calvin. As a result, it's hard to categorize Henry VIII as its founder. 

As mentioned earlier, it is a slam argument for those who dislike Anglicanism to say that Henry VIII was the founder of it. Historian Diarmaid MacCulloch has a different view. To him, Edward VI played an important role in the Church of England. As he wrote in Thomas Cromwell: A Revolutionary Life concerning the Church of England, ''Its permanent results became apparent only after his death (the author is speaking of Henry VIII), in the Reformations under Edward VI and Elizabeth I (543).'' 

I agree with MacCulloch; under Henry VIII the Church of England was basically a Catholic Church minus the papacy (and a few other common aspects of Catholicism; under Edward and Elizabeth, however, it became the Protestant Church that we know existed for the next several centuries (at least, until the Oxford movement in the mid-nineteenth century). Furthermore, even though Henry VIII felt distrustful of church clergy, The Six Articles troubled evangelicals as being too Roman Catholic (see p. 501 for more details on this). Furthermore, even if one believes that Henry VIII was the founder of Anglicanism, it should be understood that the Anglicanism he knew, died with him. Under his son, Edward VI, the Church of England went in a Reformed direction. Thus the Anglicanism of Henry VIII was a separate Anglicanism from that of Edward VI (the latter Anglicanism, being the roots of Reformed Churchmen today). Henry VIII's Anglicanism, on the other hand, no longer exists. Thus, people cannot criticize contemporary Anglicanism as a successor to Henry VIII's church; the latter being no longer in existence. 

When did MacCulloch believe that the Church of England was formed? This English major graduate from Yale University, who is also a popular historian, has a credible theory. Writing of Anglicanism he said, ''Under the tutelage of his most accomplished imitator (speaking of Henry VIII), under Queen Elizabeth I it became the Church of England (543).''  

In other words, Macalloch, a popular historian, sees Anglicanism as having its roots in Elizabeth I. In many ways, I agree. The Thirty-Nine Articles of Matthew Parker were written during her reign. The only part that I would add to MaColloch's view in this regard, is that I think Edward VI was at least as foundational for Anglicanism as was Elizabeth. While the Articles were written under her reign, it was Edward who transformed the Church of England into a Protestant Church. 

In conclusion, I do believe that Anglicanism can trace its roots back to Celtic Christianity. However, I do not believe that Celtic Christianity (for more reasons not explained in this article) can be called ''Anglican.'' Likewise, I think that it's historically inaccurate to claim that Henry founded the Anglican Church. The English king was inconsistent with his confessions of faith throughout his life; often using religion for his political purposes. Finally, as some have suggested in recent years, there seems to be evidence that Henry died as a Roman Catholic anyways. To me, the evidence concerning the Church of England's origins bears witness that Edward I played a bigger part in the role of Anglicanism; he supported the Church of England taking a Protestant turn. For this reason, I believe that the founders of Anglicanism were the English reformers of the sixteenth century such as Thomas Cranmer and Edward VI, not Henry VIII. 

But what if Henry VIII is the father of Anglicanism? For the sake of argument, I wish to address this. If the king did technically formalize it does that mean that the church is inherently doctrinally corrupt (as some Roman Catholics have suggested). I think not. 

History is full of many cases of corrupt popes that oversaw the Catholic Church. Despite their corruption, faithful traditionalists still believe that God protected these men with infallibility. Likewise, I believe that God may have used Henry VIII to help the spread of the English Bible. Furthermore, while this article does not have time to further elaborate on this (which I hope to discuss soon), there are good reasons to believe that Henry VIII did have a legal argument for his requested annulment in 1534. No matter how corrupt the man was personally, this does not mean that his ideas about annulling his marriage were necessarily corrupt. Just as a personally corrupt pope can defend true Catholic doctrine; so can a wicked king defend his legal rights to the crown no matter the choices of his heart. Many European monarchs received annulments for lesser legal rights than did Henry VIII, yet for many who hate Anglicanism, he has become the boogeyman to blame all faults of the Church of England upon. 

As an interesting side note, Baptists, Methodists, and Congregationalists all come from the Anglican Church. For those evangelical Christians who criticize Henry VIII for his break from Rome being for biblical reasons, they needed to be aware that if they believe Henry to be the father of Anglicanism, he is the grandfather of their churches. Without Anglicanism breaking loose from papal supremacy in the sixteenth century, many of these other denominations and groups would likely have never existed. For example, it would be a double standard for a Baptist to say that Anglicanism is corrupt because Henry VIII founded it, when Baptists are a break off the old block (the Church of England), and thus, also successors to Henry VIII reformers if they consider him to be the founder of Anglicanism. Furthermore, while some evangelicals may claim God used them despite their affiliation with a corrupt state church; thus arguing that the Baptists are not guilty of Henry VIII's decisions, why do they not say the same of faithful Anglicans who also disagree with Henry VIII? One cannot have it both ways; either Henry VIII is not the founder of Anglicanism, or if he is, the Baptists also owe him credit for their separation from the Roman Church.      

                                                            III. Conclusion

Topics like this are always going to be controversial. Some people are quick to denote anyone a heretic who has a different historical view than them. For me, though, I see the Anglican Church as a Protestant Church founded by Edward VI and other English reformers that resisted both papal supremacy and other doctrinal errors of Roman Catholicism that were contrary to the scriptures. 

Last, I would also recommend for my readers to check out this article from Miles Smith showing further that Henry VIII cannot be considered the proper founder of Anglicanism. Smith endorses the same view that I do, which is that Edward VI is the founder of Anglicanism: 

https://adfontesjournal.com/miles-smith/edward-vi-the-founding-of-the-church-of-england-and-mark-twain/

*1.It's often wrongly claimed that no king saw himself as the head of the Church of England before Henry VIII. Actually, many kings had long before him claimed this including Henry II. The point of Henry VIII's significance in history in this regard, however, is that the king was the first king in English English history to sever his church from its long held ties to Rome. 

A Review of Quest of the Grail Part VII

 

To see my previous posts on this book:

https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2019/12/a-review-of-quest-of-holy-grail-part-i.html

https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2019/12/a-review-of-quest-of-grail-part-ii.html

https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2020/01/a-review-of-quest-of-holy-grail-part-iii.html

https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2020/07/a-review-of-quest-for-grail-part-four.html

https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2021/12/a-review-of-quest-of-holy-grail-part-v.html

https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2022/11/a-review-of-quest-of-grail-part-6.html

In the previous six blog posts of this series on The Quest of the Holy Grail, I analyzed and discussed the main points of the first seven chapters of the book. Today, I will be briefer as I discuss the last eight in one post. I hope that the little I write on this subject will inspire the reader to delve into Arthurian literature for themselves. 

                                                          Chapters Eight-Twelve

In chapter eight, Lancelot and Hector receive another vision (in general, much of the book from this point on is about apparitions to the knights). Having continued his journey, Sir Gawain brought several companies with him. Receiving a vision of proud bulls, the knights do not realize that it foreshadows who they are becoming. Unfortunately, many of Arthur's knights lose sight of the grail and end up being divided from one another from the once unity that they shared in common for their quest. 

In chapter nine, things are no better. King Bors (a king of France in Arthurian literature) is in the midst of the knights quarreling with each other. Because of these inward strifes among their ranks, Lionel becomes wounded. Tragically, Bors and Lancelot become sworn enemies. Pride, in short, has brought several of the characters against one another, as they now search out their own glory rather than that of the Creator. Against Lancelot, Lionel goes for the kill until Lancelot's friend, Calogrenant steps in the way and is killed instead. 

Switching back to Percival and Galahad in chapter ten, the two knights are among the only ones to truly care about the quest still. Meanwhile, Gawain and Hector may battle against them. After this, a miraculous ship appears to Percival and Galahad. The two knights begin sailing out to sea, heading for the perceived end of their quest. In this same chapter, by the suggestion of an old hermit, a maiden helps direct their way. 

Chapter eleven is mostly a discourse on the vanity of sin. The chapter specifically elaborates on its view of women are one of mankind's greatest temptations to sin. The chapter discusses the tree of life, which in many ways, is personified by the Holy Grail throughout the story. 

In chapter twelve, both Galahad and Percival continue their journey by land. The maiden becomes ill with sickness but eventually recovers. 

                                                       Chapters Thirteen-Fifteen

In chapter thirteen, Percival and Galahad go separate ways for the grail. 

In chapter fourteen, Lancelot regrets his past sins which cause him to never see the Holy Grail. In fact, he is forced to abandon the quest. 

Finally, in chapter fifteen Galahad comes to find the Grail. To me, this was the best chapter of the book. He and Percival reunite as they discover the cup of Christ. However, they become captured by enemy forces and imprisoned. Though they eventually escaped, the knights' ending draws near. In a final vision, Joseph of Armithea appears to Galahad and compares himself to the knight. In general, as had the entire story before it, Galahad is praised for both his chastity and purity. Percival then dies as well; the story commences to a conclusion in honor of those knights that had long searched for the Holy Grail. 

The passage of Luke 13: 24 summarizes the quest of Galahad and Percival: ''Strive to enter in at the state gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able (KJV).'' Indeed, just as the narrow road to salvation is portrayed as exclusive in scripture, so is the road to eternal life through the Holy Grail in the Lancelot-Grail. 

                                                                   Conclusion: 

The Quest of the Holy Grail is about man's search for salvation. The cup of Christ is truly the personification of man's justification before God. While many seek the glory that comes with having found the Grail, few in the end persevere with enough faith and obedience to see its the divine presence. While Lancelot and others living with the shame of their past sins which forbid them from the grail, both Percival and Galahad ended in this life gloriously because of their piety towards it. At first, all seemed pious to the recovery of the cover of Christ. However, as the story continues, trials downplay the hope that some once had for it. It is through these trails that the men's faith are tested, and few of them are found to finish the race for its return. 

                                                                          My Take:

Well, at last, I can finally say that I've read the complete Lancelot-Grail. Having started the work back in 2019 as I analyzed parts of its chapters, I have finally finished the book. It is one of my favorite works of Medieval literature, along with The Canterbury Tales, The Divine Comedy, and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. In many ways, I believe that The Quest of the Holy Grail is an understated work. Being a prose work written in the Old French language, it has served as foundational to all the Arthurian stories (especially those of Thomas Mallory) that came after it. I have also considered it to be a personal inspiration for my own crusade novels. If I could only ever reread one work of Medieval literature, I would probably be this one. I consider it to be one of the greatest works ever written.