History Of The Church
Lesson 6: The Church In The Early Middle Ages–AD 590 - 1054

Speaker: John Phillis
Date: August 4^th, 11^th, and 18^th, 2004, Wednesday Evening Adult Bible Class
Main Scripture References:

We began these studies with the church that Jesus built, the church that Jesus established—the apostolic church. And we have seen a decline, a degradation, of that pure apostolic church that we read about in the pages of the New Testament. We see a decline and a moving away from the New Testament teaching. Of course, this period of time won’t be any different. As a matter of fact, we will be looking at the continued development of the papacy. We had seen, during this last period of time that we examined, how that, from the eldership individual elders were elevated and became known as “bishops,” and then “bishops” began to exert their authority over more than one congregation. They began to meet together in “synods” and in “councils” and make decisions. And then we saw something develop that was called sort of a “patriarchal system,” where the “bishops” of major cities—cities like Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and so on—were eventually elevated to a position that was called “the patriarch.” And they exercised authority, then, over several areas, or several congregations in a region. Then we would see that the one who was the “patriarch of Rome” would really become preeminent, if you will, over these others.

We begin this section of our study of church history at 590 AD, the date that Gregory I (often called “Gregory the Great”) became the “bishop” or “patriarch” of Rome. The nearly five hundred years that followed were difficult ones for “the church.” Through this period, “the church” faced numerous foes: barbarians and Mohammedans from without and corruption and power struggles from within. The amazing thing is not that the message and influence of the church [the church that Jesus built] were often perverted and even almost lost; the truly amazing fact is that the church [the church that Jesus built] survived in spite of all of these things.

We see here in this study tonight that in the year 590 AD, one who is referred to as Gregory I, often called “Gregory the Great,” will be elevated to the position of “bishop” or “patriarch” of Rome. We see just a little bit about him, and I think that it may be useful for us to understand some things. He was born, history tells us, of wealth, of position, to a noble Roman family. He was born in a period of troubled times. However, he was destined for a career in either the legal area or governmental service. But, while he was still in his thirties, he would decide to give up his wealth and his position, and he would become, rather, a monk. And because of his devotion and some of the obvious talents that he displayed, he became very prominent in “the church.” And so, when the “bishop” of Rome died in 590, Gregory became his successor.

As we indicated before, historians are not exactly settled on who really was the first “official pope,” but Gregory, according to historians, exercised many of the prerogatives of a “pope.” Now, he did not, nor did any of his successors, actually take on the title of “pope,” but again, he exercised many of the prerogatives of that position that would eventually come about.

Gregory had a vital concern about missions. He was instrumental in sending people out into areas that had not heard of Christianity. He was also a capable administrator, and under his leadership, the affairs of the Roman “church” were handled quite profitably. Under his influence, also, the liturgy of worship was revised. And perhaps one of the best known… Well...I’m not sure I would call it a contribution, but that’s how it’s referred to by historians… One of his best known “contributions” was something that is called “The Gregorian Chant,” which came to prominence in the Roman Catholic worship service, and still has a place of prominence. I was interested to see if I could find some more information about this. I know just generally what it is, but I pulled up some information on the Internet. I typed in “Gregorian Chant,” and I got a few hundred thousand web sites where I could go to find out more. I decided I didn’t want to go that much.

Other strong popes or “bishops” would arise in this five-hundred year period that we are looking at. But none of them in this period were quite as influential in strengthening the position of the papacy as Gregory was.

Now, there was really something that took on more importance in strengthening this position—the position of the papacy—than the contributions which were made by these succeeding ones who would occupy the position. These are actually two documents. Both of these documents are considered somewhat spurious—questionable in nature—whether or not they are actually what they claimed to be, or they were something that was trumped up, something that was falsified [forgeries].

One of these was the Donation of Constantine. And it is purported [to profess or to claim as its meaning; to give the appearance, often falsely, of being, intending, etc.] in this first document that Constantine was healed of leprosy by the “bishop” of Rome. And you remember Constantine was the well-known Emperor of Rome in the 4^th Century. Well, in gratitude, Constantine assigned to the “bishop” of Rome and his successors the city of Rome and the province of the West. Well, again, that has been called into question [as being a false document]. But, nevertheless, they became land barons in that way.

The second document (really a collection of documents), the Decretals of Isidore, asserted the popes’ supreme authority from Peter on (and of course, we’ve already spoken about the belief of the Roman Catholic church that Peter was the first “pope” and we refuted that], but this document claimed that from Peter on, the popes’ authority was supreme, that the “archbishops” were to be subordinated to the pope, and regarded the “bishops” and the pope immune from secular control. [These Decretals of Isidore are known to be forgeries.]

Well, this was, I guess, what has been referred to—this period of time as well as succeeding periods of time we’re going to be looking at—as being an uncritical age. Of course, we’ll eventually get to Dark Ages, but this was an uncritical age, and thus, false documents were not seriously challenged, and as a result were used to reinforce the claims of the “popes.”

In the 10^th and 11^th Centuries, the papacy sank into depths of degradation, and therefore, lost much of its prestige and its authority. On occasion, during this period, the position was bought and sold, somewhat like political offices were. And, at times, there was more than one individual who claimed to be the pope. Now, the Roman Catholic Church denotes these rival claimants to be the “anti-popes.” Some of the popes during this period, history says, kept concubines and engaged in other gross immoralities. Yet, before this period closed—before the close of the 11^th Century—there was a serious effort to reform the papacy, and this reform movement was so successful that in the latter part of the Middle Ages many of the popes were, without serious question, the most powerful individuals, the most powerful men, in the West.