Thirded.
Thanks for the elucidation on these heresies, Plot; these early formulations of Church doctrine can get really confusing, especially the niggling little differences between the various opinions. Another question on Monophysitism, though: how important to the revival of the heresy was Jacob Baradaeus' mission in the 540s? Did it have as big of an impact as is often claimed?
I can't really add much to what Roger Pearse said to this. I do know that it's rather hard to assess because there is obviously a lot of legendary material associated with Baradaeus. He is said to have consecrated 120,000 priests, which sounds pretty unlikely. And we don't really know where he went or precisely what he did during his extensive travels. His achievement was certainly enormous though, however he did it.
While not technically a theological question, you seem to know a lot about church history, so you're as good a person to ask as any: Did the Orthodox split from the Catholics, or vice versa?
Dachs answered this well too. The simple answer is that they split from each other.
I'm rather disappointed to hear this, but I appreciate your elaborate response on this. Have you ever considered actually correcting Wikipedia when coming across such errors?
Sometimes. But I do find it a fairly futile activity, for the reasons that Roger Pearse mentions. I haven't become involved in any reversion wars of the kind he describes, but then I've rarely been really bothered enough about Wikipedia to try. I have rewritten one or two articles. I remember being shocked when I read the entry on "Pope Joan", which actually argued that she was real (the myth was debunked long ago). So I completely rewrote that one. I haven't looked at it since - hopefully some conspiracy theorist hasn't reverted it.
Here I'm not entirely satisfied. You pointed out yourself that Constantine lacked knowledge of Greek to interfere in the proceedings of the Nicaea council (which, by the way, wasn't the only council summoned under his rule). Apart from this, what I gathered from Constantine id that his main interest was in having order in the empire, religion being being one item of dissension. As I view it, he tried his best to promote order, first by embracing Christianity, second by promoting unison in the church (thereby setting a dangerous, but ultimately futile precedent). Other than that, I gather that Constantine had little interest in religious matters, being the emperor - which by the early 4th century certainly was a full-time job, and a tough one at that. But in the final analysis I think I'd have to agree that Constantine did not see himself as the head as the church, leaving the church-state issue he created to be solved by posterity.
Much of this is right, but I don't agree with this claim you sometimes hear that Constantine converted to Christianity for political reasons or to promote unity. That would have been a baffling thing to do. Christianity was very much a minor concern at the time (with, perhaps, one in ten Romans being Christians) and Christians were divided among themselves. I cannot imagine why Constantine might have thought it could be an agent of unity for the whole empire. If he had wanted to unite everyone under a single cult, it would have made more sense to choose one more closely related to traditional religion, such as his own favoured cults of the sun or Apollo.
The most sensible way to promote
order in the empire, from a religious point of view, would have been simply to let everyone get on with whatever religion they wanted and stop trying to persecute people. That is, more or less, what Constantine's father, Constantius I, and his rival, Maxentius, did. It is also what Constantine himself did prior to 312. And, in fact, it mostly what he continued to do after that point, because although he favoured and promoted Christianity, he very probably did not enact any legislation against paganism (this, again, would be left to his sons). So it is hard, really, to see how his conversion to Christianity could have been intended to promote order; no doubt Constantine would have continued to tolerate Christians had he remained a pagan, just as he tolerated pagans when he became a Christian. Surely the most plausible explanation for Constantine's conversion is also the most obvious - he was convinced that Christianity was true.
If I may: a brief elucidation from the point of a historian, not a theologian. Church practices naturally began to differ between East and West during what is often called the 'Dark Ages' (a term that is not well deserved), and a few minor schisms occurred with the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicating one another. The Acacian Schism was one early example of these, during the fifth century. In the 9th century, the patriarch Photios noticed that the Western Church's Latin Mass included a phrase in the Nicene Creed that wasn't in the original Greek; that was the
filioque clause, and its inclusion meant that the Western Church was claiming that the Spirit proceeded from the Father
and the Son as opposed to the Greek-speaking Church, which merely claimed that the Spirit proceeded from the Father. Pope Nicholas and Photios excommunicated each other, but with Photios' deposition and Nicholas' death their successors didn't feel the need to continue the squabble and the schism was abandoned, and formally healed late in the century.
But this was a dangerous prelude, and matters came to a head again in the 1050s. A series of weak Byzantine Emperors following the death of Basileios II had allowed the Patriarchs to recoup some of their influence and authority. The most powerful of these was Michael Keroularios, who attempted to enforce Eastern practices more firmly through the Byzantine Empire's territories. This included the elimination of the
filioque clause and of the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist (something that was okay in the West and in Armenia but not to the Greek churches). Michael, having gotten a rather high opinion of himself due to his ability to assert himself apart from the Emperor, also apparently tried to claim that he had equal authority to the Pope. Leo IX, the Pope at the time, got tired of the crap Keroularios was pulling and sent legates to Constantinople that excommunicated the Patriarch, who in turn excommunicated the legates and the Pope.
This was basically the same thing that had happened before, and there was every reason to assume that it would eventually blow over in the same way. But in 1204, the Fourth Crusade was launched, and Constantinople was sacked. The Greeks' sense that they had been betrayed by the Latins lasted for centuries, and was one of the things that impeded the attempts at church reunion during the 14th and 15th centuries. Union was formally accomplished at Lyon in 1274 by emissaries of Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos, who had finally recaptured Constantinople in 1261 and who had managed to reconstitute a reasonably strong Byzantine state, but many clerics in the East repudiated it. Again, at Florence in 1439, there was a formal pronouncement of union, but it was mostly initiated, at least for the Easterners, by a desire for a crusade to break the backs of the Ottoman Empire and relieve some of the pressure on Constantinople. When the Crusade - that of Varna - failed and Mehmet II seized Constantinople, the game was up. In 1484, the Orthodoxals held a synod that repudiated the Florence union, which by and large was accepted by the Orthodox clergy, although some congregations, the Uniates, remained in formal union with the Latin Church after that. They have some politically correct name for themselves these days but I forget what it is.
So, to make a long story short: Keroularios started it, but Leo excommunicated him first.
That is the traditional view - at least of Catholics! Actually there's a lot of disagreement over how responsible Cerularius really was and how much he should be blamed. There has been quite a movement to rehabilitate him. For one thing, it's not clear that he was trying to set himself up as a rival to the pope. It was another case of meaning being lost in translation: the translation which Leo IX was given of "ecumenical patriarch" was something like "patriarch of the entire universe", which wasn't exactly Cerularius' meaning but which understandably annoyed the pope. Most of the controversy actually revolved around the azymites (the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist), which was not simply a liturgical but a theological dispute. The Byzantines claimed that leaven should be used, because Jesus had likened the kingdom of God to leaven. The Latins claimed that it should not be used, because Jesus had likened the Pharisees and Sadducees to leaven. Perhaps more importantly, leaven represents life and vitality, which was another reason the Byzantines thought it important to use. At any rate, Cerularius was keen to enforce uniformity of practice throughout his own territories, and the fact that the Armenians had recently been conquered by the empire made this a pressing matter. So his dispute with the Latins was really a result of his trying to impose uniformity upon the Armenians.
It's true that Cerularius was a pretty forceful character, though. It all ended for him when he started walking around in purple boots, like the emperor, which was just going too far.
Also, I believe that "Michael Cerularius" actually means "Mickey Blue-Eyes", which I like.
As Eran said: "How so?" Some elaboration would be in place here.
I thought that giving the title "Reichsbishof" might be a clue!
It would seem that Spanish theologians offer some stiff competition for the epithet of most evil theologian ever. (I'm thinking Savonarola and that cleric - I forget his name... Batholomé Diaz? - who proposed using Africans instead of Indians as a workforce, the latter being prone to sickness, death and laziness.)
Savonarola was Italian, and I wouldn't really class him as a theologian. Also, he's hardly up there in the evil league. He was obviously a dangerous nutter, and it's incredible that he managed to gain the influence he did, but still I'd call him more of a fanatic than outright evil.
I think the other chap you're thinking of is Las Casas. I wouldn't call him evil at all - in fact he was, on the whole, extremely good, although naive and idealistic. Have a look
here for a brief overview of what he did. He devoted most of his life to trying to improve the lot of the native Americans who had been enslaved, and denouncing the abuses carried out by the invaders. You can read his famous description of the conquest of the Americans
here. He was one of the originators of the notion that the natives were utterly virtuous and innocent and the invaders completely wicked, which was obviously a little naive, but you can still see how he sought to defend those who had suffered and denounce those who had enslaved them. He did not, perhaps, go far enough - he did not oppose the institution of slavery itself. But just compare him to the people he was struggling against, who believed that the native Americans were not human at all and deserved to be enslaved. And, yes, big points against Las Casas for the idea of importing Africans to work instead of the native Americans. But he didn't suggest it because he thought they'd make better slaves, as you imply, but because he thought they would suffer less. Obviously that was wrong. And to his credit, Las Casas himself realised this. When he saw how badly the African slaves were treated, he changed his mind and campaigned
against the use of them.
Now you might have more of a case for "most evil theologian" in the case of Las Casas' opponents, such as Juan Gines Sepulveda. Sepulveda and Las Casas had a famous debate at Valladolid in 1550-51 to discuss the rights of the native Americans (or rather, whether they had rights at all). Las Casas argued that they did and that they were more civilised than the Spanish. Sepulveda thought otherwise. This was his view (taken from his work
The second Democrates:
Sepulveda said:
The Spanish have a perfect right to rule these barbarians of the New World and the adjacent islands, who in prudence, skill, virtues, and humanity are as inferior to the Spanish as children to adults, or women to men, for there exists between the two as great a difference as between savage and cruel races and the most merciful, between the most intemperate and the moderate and temperate and, I might even say, between apes and men.
You surely do not expect me to recall at length the prudence and talents of the Spanish.... And what can I say of the gentleness and humanity of our people, who, even in battle, after having gained the victory, put forth their greatest effort and care to save the greatest possible number of the conquered and to protect them from the cruelty of their allies? Well, then, if we are dealing with virtue, what temperance or mercy can you expect from men who are committed to all types of intemperance and base frivolity, and eat human flesh? Although some of them show a certain ingenuity for various works of artisanship, this is no proof of human cleverness, for we can observe animals, birds, and spiders making certain structures which no human accomplishment can competently imitate. Therefore, if you wish to reduce them, I do not say to our domination, but to a servitude a little less harsh, it will not be difficult for them to change their masters, and instead of the ones they had, who were barbarous and impious and inhuman, to accept the Christians, cultivators of human virtues and the true faith.
I'd still say that Müller was more evil though. Sepulveda and those like him were more ignorant than malicious, I think, and their other views were not as appalling. Whereas Müller had a completely abhorrent theology from start to finish, which was deliberately designed and put into the service of a fundamentally racist and fascist ideology.