When approaching a book like this which has been sat on your
father’s study bookcase for some 45 years (and was published 20 years before
that) a degree of caution does need to be exercised as there is the chance that
scholarship might have moved on in the intervening decades. In particular, I was a little wary of the
account of the changing nature of the papacy during the period. This seems to support a particular Anglican
version of history in which the Church of England’s split from Rome was no revolution. Rather it was a restoration of its proper
status as a “National
Church” that had
pre-existed the Popes overstating of their authority from about the tenth
century onwards.
The majority of the book is a narrative account of the
Emperors, Patriarchs, and Popes and their relationships with one another. It is
only really the last chapter, “The nature of the schism”, that is, as it were,
operative. Once we are looking at a
great sweep of history and the division, and ultimately mutual-denial, of the
Western and Eastern Churches you get the sense that the outcome was in fact
determined by the personalities of individuals.
There were theological differences between East and West,
but these were for most of the period held in tension within the scope of a
single Church, it was issues of power, status, and jurisdiction that ultimately
resulted in separation. I am not sure
whether it is a comforting or a depressing thought that a millennia later you
could apply the same sentence to the Anglican Communion. As Anglicans we talk a lot about our
theological differences, between “liberals” and “conservatives”, but what
really drives those differences to become open conflict is issues of power,
status, and jurisdiction.
Maybe the message of this book is, really, that there is
nothing new under the sun…
No comments:
Post a Comment