Posts
Below is Part 3 divided in 3 sections of a video series being done by Greek Orthodox TV in which they discuss the illuminating book by Fr. John Romanides titled Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine. I highly recommend everyone to have a listen, as it serves as a pretty good introduction to the subject. If you have not listened to Part 1 yet, you should listen to that first here. Part 2 is here.
Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine - PART 3A
Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine - PART 3B
Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine - PART 3C
Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine - PART 3A
Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine - PART 3B
Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine - PART 3C
John,
ReplyDeleteI have some objections to how things are being presented. They said in the video, "every true educated Roman spoke or new Greek, or every true educated Bishop." I have never discovered this "fact" or attitude in the church. The Syriac and Latin speaking Christians were not viewed as second tier. They said "you would have to be able to read the Fathers and the Scripture in Greek to be a Bishop." This is an anachronism. They are talking about the episcipos in modern terms of Seminary education. I know it was a development of the church that they tended to pull from the middle class and nobility to fill the ranks of the priesthood and the bishops after Constantine. But there were illiterate bishops at the ecumenical councils, at least Nicaea. Another statement, "all the Latin church had was Augustine". Really!?, this is by far an oversimplification. Did he exercise much authority, yes. But to talk about him in terms that he was the "only" father is dishonest.
Their use of the term "dark ages" is currently out of vogue in academic circles. I guess since there still were some intellectual achievements in the West after the Fall of the western empire, the idea of a dark ages has been overturned. But if you base it on the society as a whole, an argument can be made. So I will not beat them up too much for using the term. The term Medaeval was a term of opprobrium coined during the Renaissance to contrast the "Rebirth" to that which preceded.
-H
I like the series only because it engages the text and it kind of serves as a simplified version of the book. At the same time, I also noticed this to be a negative in some ways because it becomes at times oversimplified whereas I would like to see them engage more with the issues Romanides addresses rather than just repeating him and oversimplifying him. It is the implications of the contents of the book that I would have been more interested in.
ReplyDeleteThe comment "every true educated Roman spoke or new Greek, or every true educated Bishop" is an example of this oversimplification. To a certain extent this is true, but it also isn't. For example, it depends on what period of Roman history you're talking about or what subject you're talking about. Augustine is innovative in the sense that he dared to become an exegete of Scripture and doctrine mixed with his own speculations without knowing or studying the original Greek. Instead of relying on what he learned from his spiritual father St. Ambrose, who knew Greek and the decisions of the Ecumenical Synods and was taught by the Greek Fathers, he relied on himself in too many ways and his own understanding of Scripture and Patristic doctrine through translation. But I think in the video what the commentators are talking about is the specific period of when the Franks inaugerated themselves as the true inheritors of the Roman Empire. And for that period of time it is true that all "educated" Romans knew Greek. One of the reasons the Franks were able to usurp episcopal authority throughout much of the West and eventually into the Papacy is because of the fact that so many in the West at this time were very uneducated, both clergy and laity.
You mentioned the quote: "You would have to be able to read the Fathers and the Scripture in Greek to be a Bishop." This is another oversimplification. For example, not every bishop in Gaul or North Africa or in Celtic lands probably knew Greek. Though it is true that if they knew Greek the Frankish usurpation may not have taken place as throughly and quickly as it did, but knowing Greek was by no means a prerequisite for episcopal enthronement. Rather it had more to do with spiritual understanding than linguistic. And at the Ecumeical Synods, illiterate or not, everyone did know Greek. Greek was the common language of the people in the Roman Empire.
The statement "all the Latin church had was Augustine" is another oversimplification. It is true that Augustine was by far their primary Father. The Franks studied just about everything in light of Augustine, even all the other Fathers including Greek Fathers of the West like Ambrose or Jerome.
The "Dark Age" they refer to is Franksih feudalism. The dividing and conquering and enslavement of the Romans of the West by the Franks is a "Dark Age" from a Roman perspective. Also from the perspective of the Renaissance the Humanist understanding of the Medieval period could be looked upon as a Dark Age. Though it was not a Dark Age in the Eastern part of the Empire, I think in its proper relation with history it was Dark Age. Though if we look back on it from a 19th, 20th or 21st century perspective I can also understand why it should not really be called a Dark Age. Some neo-scholastics and Thomists I know would even argue that the Renaissance was the true Dark Age while the Medieval period was a Golden Age. I personally have no problem with the term, just like I have no problem with using the term to refer to Iconclasm in the East as well as the Ottoman occupation.
John,
ReplyDeleteWhile I do not have a source at hand to rebutt with, I'm not sure everyone at the ecumenical councils understood Greek. From my historical reading, I seem to remember occasions when there were Bishops from lands that did not know Greek.
-H
Since we dont have the minutes of the First Ecumenical Synod it is possible that some bishop there did not speak Greek, but even if that is the case he definately must have had a translator since it is unlikely he would have signed off on a decision that was entirely formulated in Greek let alone the fact that the main decision of this Synod was based on a single Greek word that was debated.
ReplyDeleteThe "Dark Ages" were dark because the Frank wanted it that way. Being a surf sucks.
ReplyDeleteBasic premise is that the Greek East / Latin West dichotomy is Frankish/Carolingian propaganda. The East and West Romans existed as a united nation. The Pope in Rome publicly prayed for the Emperor in Constantinople and dated letters using the year of the reign of the current Emperor in Constantinople. Charlemagne wanted to make it seem that the "Greeks" so-called had abandoned Rome for Constantinople, replaced Christianity with paganism. Roman was synonymous with Christian so if the East Romans were heretics they were no longer Roman and he could claim a universal Carolingian Empire. Through a process of war and subjugation the Roman peoples were made serfs under their Frankish/Germanic/Norman lords who used theology to drive a wedge between East and West Romans. For instance, Pope Leo, the one who crowned Charlemagne Emperor refused to add Charlemagne's Fillioque, casting a gold plaque with the original creed and placing it in St Peter's. Charlemagne also took no sides in the iconoclast controversy and then had the Libri Carolini written, based on a bad translation of the 7th Council, as a third way. His plan: either way the controversy turned out he could make East Romans and their Empress look bad. The Franks were eventually successful in capturing Southern Italy and the Papacy resulting in the Saeculum obscurum or Pornocracy and ultimately to the corruption and theological crisis that necessitated the Reformation.
Looking at it this way, he says that the French Revolution and the Greek Revolution were essentially the same kind of movement, ethnically Roman people, under a centuries long serfdom, up raising against their 9th century conquerors.
There are plenty of examples where time was taken during a council to translate for delegates who did not speak Greek/Romanic. There were even controversies that we know could have been avoided if better translations had been provided. Certainly there were Fathers at Nicea that didn't speak Greek. And though an educated clergy is ideal, it is not theologically necessary.
"Looking at it this way, he says that the French Revolution and the Greek Revolution were essentially the same kind of movement, ethnically Roman people, under a centuries long serfdom, up raising against their 9th century conquerors."
ReplyDeleteAnd that's not the worst interpretation of historical (or mythological, he gets worse there) events by Romanides.
Here is where your (and Romanides') polemics go wrong.
ReplyDeleteFranks did not make up filioque nor learn it from only St Augustine.
St Athanasius of Alexandria was exiled in Trier. St Hilary of Poitiers (+368) said same thing in another context.