The Church in the Medieval Era: Perspectives, Practices, and Legacy

Introduction

The Medieval Era, also known as the Middle Ages, spanned from the late fifth century to the late fifteenth century. After the fall of the Roman Empire in 476 AD, Europe entered a period of profound change, affecting various aspects of society, including religion. Of course, “the church itself was a political and culture-shaping enterprise,” entangled with society, yet changing along with it, developing in new ways while striving to remain faithful to the Christian message of Christ crucified for the salvation of sinners.¹ This brief essay will explore the Medieval Era, answering several questions on various topics: why the Middle Ages are often perceived negatively, how the legalization of Christianity affected the church, the development of the Papacy, and the developing view of the Lord’s Supper during this critical time in church history.

Negative Perceptions of the Middle Ages

From a Protestant perspective, the Middle Ages are often neglected and cast out as irrelevant to the Christian faith. This negligence and disdain are primarily because people, whether Protestant or Catholic, desire to pick a team composed of like-minded individuals, and for Protestants, this like-mindedness began at the Reformation. Therefore, Protestants tend to favor theologians such as Luther or Calvin over the likes of Gregory, Lombard, and Aquinas, for “who wants a papist on their team?”²

Moreover, Catholic theology and distinctives, most of which developed in this time frame, are often in stark contrast to Protestant ideals and doctrines. Perhaps this negligence and disdain for the period is simply due to the fear that studying such a period will make one a Catholic. However, “The great medievalist C.S. Lewis [a Protestant with a devout Catholic on his team, J.R.R. Tolkien] once warned against ‘chronological snobbery,’ or the tendency to look down on the past in favor of the apparent progress of the present… [O]ne must also beware the danger of ecclesiastical tribalism.”³ Protestants often frown upon the Medieval Era in favor of the Renaissance and modern theologians, but this is a grave error.

Do the Middle Ages have some inherent value that, when studied, builds up individuals and the present-day church? The answer should not be feared, for the history of the Medieval Era is still the church’s history. It is the history of the Protestant faith, still in the womb of the Catholic church, experiencing birth pangs, yet eager to be developed and birthed.⁴ The answer is not shocking: The Medieval Era’s rich history and various theologians have much to offer Protestant Christians. For instance, The Book of Pastoral Rule by St. Gregory the Great reminds pastors, regardless of denominational affiliation or tradition or even period lived in, “to live in a manner worthy of one’s calling… [and] that true doctrine is lived, not merely taught.”⁵ Much more can be said of the wisdom of the Medieval theologians, demonstrating that negligence of that particular era is irrational, for no matter the vast differences between the doctrine of that time and this one, its treasures are immeasurable and worthy of consideration and reflection.

The Legalization of Christianity

Before Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 AD, the church was a persecuted minority, enduring harsh rulers such as Nero, Decius, and Diocletian.⁶ However, the Edict of Milan changed “her fortunes dramatically. Now with imperial support, the church was lavished with beautiful buildings. Her bishops were elevated to positions of civic authority. And the emperor himself had a vested interest in ecclesiastical affairs. After Constantine, the church and the empire would be wed. One could not think of one without the other.”⁷ The church was no longer persecuted; Indeed, it thrived.

This wedding between Rome and the church contrasts tremendously with the role and responsibilities of bishops before the edict. While bishops used to have some kind of power over a city and their congregations, they were also granted civic responsibilities, participating in the empire’s government. However, this union was not without struggle. In 476 AD, the Western Roman Empire fell, “a cataclysmic event, moving the balance of political power to the East in Constantinople.”⁸ The city became the “heart of the empire for the next thousand years, and since it had been founded by a Christian emperor, it quickly became the symbol for imperial Christianity.”⁹ Yet, Rome in the West was left without an emperor. This turn of events led to the development of the papacy.

The Development of the Papacy

Before Rome’s fall, Pope Leo the Great, who contributed significantly to the Christological Chalcedonian Definition through his Tome 451 AD, “argued that the bishop of Rome was the one true successor of Peter, the ‘prince of the apostles and the ‘rock’ on which Christ promised to build his church. This exegetical argument… gave Rome its case for dignity above other churches.”¹⁰ Again, the Roman empire’s fall and the shift of power to Constantinople resulted in Rome without a ruler. Thus, the Pope of the time, Gregory the Great, exercised the authority that Leo had mentioned in his Tome. Gregory, a monk and prefect of the city of Rome from an early age, was called to serve as the bishop of Rome, and when Rome was without a leader, “was left not simply as the de facto leader of the church in Rome, but as the de facto leader of Rome itself… This reality into which Gregory was flung would establish the precedent for future popes, who brought together spiritual and secular responsibilities within their purview.”¹¹ Overall, Gregory the Great served well as pope: “For all the advancements [he] accomplished for the papacy, he was careful not to overreach.”¹² However, this would not be the case with another Gregory.

Unlike his namesake, Gregory VII, formerly known as Hildebrand, was not a good pope. He abused the power given to him, frequently bursting into fits of rage and lacking moderation.¹³ While Gregory the Great sought to do his duty as the ‘servant of the servants of God,’ Gregory VII decreed that “the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.”¹⁴ Furthermore, “[h]e and his curia took measures to end the practice of lords appointing their own bishops, of enforcing celibacy, and altogether restoring what they believed to be New Testament ideal. Consequently, in Gregory VII, the powers of the bishop of Rome would reach new heights, with the birth of the idea of the papacy itself.”¹⁵ Ultimately, these two individuals and the development of the papacy through them demonstrate the intricacies of ecclesiastical authority.

Communion in the Middle Ages

The view of the Lord’s Supper during this period is quite mysterious. For example, Charlemagne, the first Holy Roman Emperor, began questioning the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Augustine determined the mysterious presence of Christ in the Eucharist yet emphasized its symbolic nature, and “[o]thers like Ambrose (c. 340-397) used concepts such as ‘conversion,’ which seemed to emphasize change in the elements themselves to accommodate Christ’s presence.¹⁶ Regardless of the intricacies of the ‘how’ in the Eucharist, most medieval theologians, apart from Berengar of Tours reducing it to “mere symbolism,” agreed that Christ was mysteriously present.¹⁷

In the late Medieval Era, the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) began using the word ‘transubstantiation’ to explain the Lord’s Supper process: “His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine. The bread is transubstantiated into his body and the wine into his blood.”¹⁸ Later, Thomas Aquinas further elaborated on transubstantiation using language borrowed from Aristotle. He determined that “the elements are mysteriously transubstantiated, or transformed into the body and blood of Christ… What was being eaten were not the accidents of Christ, actual flesh and blood, but rather his substance.”¹⁹

Whether one believes in transubstantiation, mystical presence, or mere symbolism, the various medieval theologians’ appreciation for the Lord’s Supper can teach Christians today much. They eagerly sought to understand the sacrament or ordinance and to participate in it, obeying Christ and remembering him. Regardless of the position. May today’s Christians be spiritually nourished by the Lord’s Supper, just as bread and wine nourish our physical bodies.

Conclusion

Studying the Medieval Era, which remains significant for Christians today regardless of their tradition, offers much to be learned. Through it, they will find theological gems that will strengthen their understanding of various theological ideas and the Scriptures and strengthen their faith in God. They will heed the wisdom of the period, embrace unity, and heed the dangers and intricacies of ecclesiastical authority. Therefore, this era should not be neglected but embraced as a crucial and developing time of doctrine, devotion, and understanding in church history.

Bibliography

Bowden, Zachary M. “The Church.” In Historical Theology for the Church, edited by Jason G. Duesing and Nathan A. Finn, 115-137. Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2021.

Holcomb, Justin S. Know the Creeds and Councils. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014.

Footnotes

1. Zachary M. Bowden, “The Church,” in Historical Theology for the Church, eds. Jason G. Duesing and Nathan A. Finn (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2021), 115. ↩

2. Ibid., 135. ↩

3. Zachary M. Bowden, “The Church,” in Historical Theology for the Church, 135. ↩

4. Ibid., 136. ↩

5. Ibid., 135. ↩

6. [Footnote empty in the original PDF — citation missing; please supply.] ↩

7. Zachary M. Bowden, “The Church,” in Historical Theology for the Church, 116. ↩

8. Ibid., 119. ↩

9. Justin S. Holcomb, Know the Creeds and Councils (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 73. ↩

10. Zachary M. Bowden, “The Church,” in Historical Theology for the Church, 119. ↩

11. Zachary M. Bowden, “The Church,” in Historical Theology for the Church, 120. ↩

12. Ibid., 131. ↩

13. Ibid. ↩

14. Ibid. ↩

15. Ibid., 124. ↩

16. Zachary M. Bowden, “The Church,” in Historical Theology for the Church, 121-122. ↩

17. Ibid., 132. ↩

18. Ibid., 133. ↩

19. Ibid., 134. ↩