The Decline of Christianity

by Rit Nosotro

A Change Over Time essay from 313 A.D to 1559

As power balance swung between popes and kings, evaluate the advance and decline of Christianity from 313 AD to 1559 AD.

Thesis:

Summary:

Between the years of 313 A.D and 1559 A.D the world passed through a gauntlet of events that would leave an indelible mark on the social and political conscience of the world. Beginning with the Edict of Milan and ending with the close of the Reformation, it was a period in history marked by the gradual disappearance of a separation between the Church and the State. The merging of these two opposites led to heresies and blasphemies that continue to survive to this day. The Catholic Church reached its peak of religious and political power during that time. The papal position remained a spiritual one, primarily in name, as it gradually evolved into a position of political power, equitable to that of the Holy Roman Emperor. The period encompassed Constantine the Great’s Edict of Milan as well as the Dark Ages, where education and basic liberties were frowned upon. As time went on, conditions only worsened, especially for the common people. However, with the invention of the printing press and rising up of Reformers such as John Wycliffe and Martin Luther, the tide began to turn and the interminable hold that the clergy had exercised over the people for over a thousand years gradually weakened and then broke. Ironically, it all began with a proclamation, granting religious freedom to the inhabitants of the Roman Empire.

Constantine the Great, arguably brought about a turning point in history when he issued of the Edict of Milan. His reason for doing so is clouded by myths and stories, but apparently, on the eve of a battle at the Milvian Bridge that would decide whether or not he would become the Emperor of Rome, he observed a strange phenomenon in the sky: a cross of light and the words “hoc signo victor eris” or “by this sign you will be the victor.” Constantine went on to win a crushing defeat over the enemy and attributed his success to “the God of the Christians.” He went even further and committed himself to the Christian faith. The result of all this was the Edict of Milan, the aforementioned proclamation which granted religious freedom throughout the Roman Empire. This was an astounding and unforeseen development, as the blood of Christians had flowed relentlessly throughout the Roman Empire under the reign of Constantine’s predecessor’s. Logically speaking, Constantine’s proclamation didn’t make much sense. Christians were a minority in the Roman Empire, and to grant them freedom and special privileges would not settle well with the pagan majority. However, historically speaking, Constantine had his reasons. The persecution of the Christians by the Roman emperors had somewhat of a domino effect on themselves. Famine, plague, and pestilence spread throughout the empire and these catastrophes were usually accompanied by the fall of the ruling emperor and the rise of another, who was just as determined to either convert or annihilate the Christians. Aside from his commitment to Christianity as a result of his victory at Milvian, history must have taught Constantine a lesson. Political expediency, however, figured prominently in his domestic rule, and he continued to support both the pagan and Christian religions.

To his dismay, Constantine soon discovered that there was a great lack of unity in the Christian church. Indications of this first arose in the lapsi disputes, the lapsi being the those who had shown a lack of faith during the preceding years of persecution. One side, known as the Donatists, took up a rigorous position with regard to the lapsi, while the other side headed by a Carthaginian bishop, Caecilian, took up a more moderate, forgiving position. The argument was not resolved, although the Donatists later reunited with the Church. This incident was not so great, except that it placed Constantine in a position that he would maintain for the rest of his life. He had served as a mediator in the lapsi disputes, but his purpose in doing so was not just to heal the wounds of division, but to come up with a solution to the problem so that there would not be a dispute. He was motivated more by political expediency then by a desire to find common ground among the disputants. This position would later be emphasized in the Arian controversy.

By 323, Constantine had brought the entire Roman world under his rule. It was at that time that a quarrel arose, which threatened to divide the Christian church into two camps. Arius, a priest of Alexandria, Egypt, asserted that Christ was not the equal of the Father but was created by Him. Athanasius, leader of the bishops in the West, argued that the Father and the Son, though distinct, were equal, and of the same substance. To settle the matter, Constantine called together a worldwide council of bishops at Nicaea, which came to be known as the Council of Nicaea. Constantine presided over the opening and closing sessions with much pomp, but did not contribute to the theological debate. He did occasionally exhort the bishops to hurry the debate along, but he never participated in any type of debate, primarily because he did not understand them. He was more of a devotional Christian than a theological one. Also, his motives were once again influenced by political expediency. A split in the Church would be disastrous, politically as well as spiritually, and so he didn’t really care what solution the bishops arrived at, just so long as they arrived at a solution. The result of the Council of Nicaea was the Nicene Creed which condemned the Arian belief as heresy and laid down many more fundamental doctrines. The Nicene Creed continues to serve as the basic doctrine for many Christian churches today. The downside was that the first split had occurred in the Church and from this controversy many more of the same nature would arise. It spelled out a pattern of condemnation and division that continues even today.

In this early period of the history of the Church, there were many Great Councils that were held to settle various contentions. The first was the aforementioned Council of Nicaea. The second was the Council of Tyre, which was held in 334. At that council, the bishop Athanasius was summoned to appear and defend himself against charges made against him made by his enemies, the Arians, who had in the meantime acquired Constantine’s imperial favor. (Throughout his life Constantine constantly fluctuated between different doctrines, based on who had his ear at the time.) Athanasius successfully defended himself and refuted the charges made against him, of which, two of most preposterous were murder and magic. The Council was nothing more than a continuation of the Council of Nicaea, with the exception that the debates centered on accusing one’s enemies, instead of trying to heal the divisions. Four years later, in 337, Constantine died.

But that was not the end of the controversy. In 353, another Council convened in Arles, with the sole intent and purpose to condemn and depose Athanasius, who was by then becoming a sore spot for the dominating Arians. Nothing was accomplished at the Council of Arles, but two years later another Council convened at Milan, ironically named after the Edict that Constantine had issued 42 years before. Three hundred bishops attended the Council of Milan, and again the sole intent and purpose of the Council was to condemn and depose Athanasius. Athanasius was not present, although his friends defended him vigorously. But the Emperor Constantius, who supported the Arians, became impatient and before the Council had dissolved, Athanasius had been solemnly condemned and deposed. A general persecution was directed against all who favored him, and it was not a few who compared the present times to the days of Nero.

There were many other smaller councils that convened during this period of time, before the Catholic hierarchy with the pope and the cardinals had been established. Only two of these are worth mentioning, mainly because they signaled the end of this regrettable period of division in church history. The first of these, known as the Third Great Council, took place in Ephesus in 431 A.D. Like the other councils before it, the presiding issue was the examination of the doctrines and beliefs of two controversial men: Nestorius and Cyril. Both men were notorious for their persecution of people and groups whom they believed to be heretical. Both men were eloquent and vain, and generally disregarded the writings of earlier Church Fathers. It was a sad time in church history when Christians came together to hear two of their own brothers condemn each other. They had obviously forgotten the persecution that the early church had undergone, for now they were persecuting each other. The Council, comprised of over two hundred bishops, eventually signed a sentence against Nestorius, but nothing had changed. The Council had failed to put an end to the disgraceful contentions, and a new wave of heresy and controversy spread throughout the Church. A Fourth Great Council convened, but that accomplished nothing, except to condemn various beliefs which the participants in the Council held to be heretical. Perhaps the one positive thing accomplished by these councils was to end this period in church history and gradually focus on the growing power of the church in Rome. In short, these two last Great Councils opened the way for a new Roman Catholic Church to come into the limelight of history.

With the advent of the pontificate of Gregory the Great in 590, a new period in Church history began and continued until the Reformation in the early part of the sixteenth century. This new period also marked a turning point, as the early church passed from a condition of distress and contention to the summit of worldly prosperity and honor. Gregory was a good pope, which is the best that can be said for him. Zealous and expansive, he desired to spread the gospel of the Catholic Church throughout the world. In doing so, he was also spreading the influence of the Catholic Church. The one great object in his public life was to establish beyond dispute the universal bishopric of Rome. Instead of leading souls to Christ, he sought to advance the claims of the papal position by idolatry and corruption. Neither was the spirit of persecution altogether absent from his efforts. He was a bit of a paradox, really. On the one hand he was sponsoring countless missions to many different areas of the known world in the hopes of spreading Christianity, but on the other hand, he did so in an attempt to establish the papal position throughout the earth as one to not take lightly.

Perhaps one of the best examples of the growing relationship between the Church and State was Pope Zachary’s sanction of Pepin’s plot, which would put allow Pepin to become the equivalent to the title of the Holy Roman Emperor. The time was over one hundred and fifty years after Gregory the Great had assumed the throne, and the players were all new. Pope Zachary wanted the rest of Italy, which was being controlled at the time by the Greeks and Lombards, and Pepin wanted to become King Pepin of France. The plot succeeded, both sides were satisfied, and the conscience grew too cold to be pricked. Instances, such as this one, would become more common as time went on. This type of corruption led to more serious things. Heretical doctrines were adopted because they fit in with the pope’s policies and/or ambitions. King and nobles and other people with the ability to help the pope gain more power were absolved of their sins by the clergy. The single motivation behind these modifications to Church doctrine and practice was the possibility of a established papal authority throughout the world. This unique mindset of the clergy led to the most blasphemous heresy that was perpetuated during this time period: religious veneration of images and other visible objects, otherwise known as iconoclasm.

Interestingly enough, idolatry was never given much thought by the Christians until the days of Constantine. The first person to excite the Christian mind to this degrading superstition was Constantine’s mother, Helena, who was said to have, in her zeal for religious places, discovered and disinterred the wood of the “true cross.” The predilection of human nature for objects of veneration was kindled, and the usual consequence of idolatry soon followed. Similar memorials to Jesus, the Virgin Mary, the inspired Apostles, and the fathers, were found. The most sacred relics were discovered by visions. This was spurred on by the almost total decay of literature and the use of images was found to give immense power to the clergy. The more enlightened members of the clergy might have attempted to maintain a distinction between respect for images as a means and not as objects of worship. But the uneducated and superstitious people held no such distinction in their mind, and veneration for relics grew very quickly into idolatry.

Throughout this time, there was only one protest that could be heard, and it came from a surprising source. The Emperor Leo III came up with the boldness to attempt to purify the church of its detestable idols. He issued three edicts against these idols, each more stringent than the last. The general response was overwhelming and testified to the enormous effect that the idols were having on the populace. Rebellions broke out everywhere in the Empire and could only be quelled by the strongest efforts of the civil and military power. At one point an imperial guard was torn to pieces by a mob of women as he attempted to destroy an idol. Numerous other atrocities of this kind occurred, but the worst was yet to come for the edicts of the emperor had not yet reached Italy. As soon as the orders arrived to begin the destruction of the idols in Italy, however, the population rose up and declared that they would live and die in defense of the pope and the holy images. Monks, who saw their craft in danger – the superstition to which they owed their riches and influence, preached against the Emperor as an abandoned apostate. He was portrayed to populace as one who combined himself in every heresy that had ever polluted the Christian faith and endangered the souls of men. Pope Gregory II was not idle, either, and in a stinging letter to the Emperor, he flatly rejected the edicts and proceeded to berate the emperor in a most defiant way:

“During ten pure and fortunate years, we have tasted the annual comforts of your royal letters, subscribed in purple ink with your own hand, the sacred pledge to the orthodox creed of your fathers. How deplorable is the change! How tremendous the scandal! You now accuse the Catholics of idolatry; and, by the accusation, you betray your own impiety and ignorance. To this ignorance we are compelled to adapt the grossness of our style and arguments: the first elements of the holy letters are sufficient for your confusion; and, were you to enter a grammar school, and avow yourself the enemy of our worship, the simple and pious children would cast their tablets at your head.”

The pope continued to berate the emperor and strengthened his argument by invoking the word of the six general councils that had been held, Nicaea etc.:

“You say that we are forbidden to venerate things made by men’s hands. But you are an unlettered person, and ought therefore to have inquired of your learned prelates the true meaning of the commandment. If you had not been obstinately and willfully ignorant, you would have learned from them that your acts are in direct contradiction to the unanimous testimony of all the fathers and doctors of the church, in particular repugnant to the authority of the six general councils.”

The facts that the pope set forth in his letter were so untrue that is remains hard to believe how the emperor did not see through Gregory’s lies. This gives much credence to the fact that the spirit and character of the popery from its very base was a barefaced, lying, idolatrous system. In fact, the relic controversy can be viewed as the beginning of the popedom – the maturity of the God-dishonoring system. In this, the foundations of the popery were laid bare so that it was seen that persecution and idolatry were the two pillars on which its arrogant domain rested.

After the death of Gregory II, many men assumed the pontifical throne, but there are two that stand out as the greatest crusaders for the power of the popedom. In between the two of them stands another man who although, was not a pope, would certainly have become one if death had not cut his promising career short. These three men all had one thing in common: they all manipulated various kings or emperors in some way, so as to enhance the power and influence of the clergy bringing church and state closer together. The first of these was Gregory VII, perhaps one of the most notorious popes in history. It was during the reign of Gregory that the Church and State basically became one. His fond dream was the sovereign domination of the church over the world. But he knew that several reforms would have to take place before that could be accomplished. In accordance with this belief, he made several declarations that served as something similar to a papal constitution for himself and those popes who came after him:

“It is laid down that the Roman pontiff is the universal bishop, that his name is the only one of the kind in the world. To him alone it belongs to depose or reconcile bishops; and he may depose them in their absence, and without the concurrence of a Synod. He alone is entitled to frame new laws for the church – to divide, unite, or translate bishoprics. He alone may use the ensigns of empire; all princes are bound to kiss his feet; he has the right to depose emperors, and to absolve subjects from their allegiance. He holds in his hands the supreme mediation in questions of war and peace, and he only may adjudge contested successions to kingdoms – that all kingdoms were held as fiefs under St. Peter. With his leave inferiors may accuse their superiors. No council may be styled general without his command. The Roman church has never erred, and, as scripture testifies, never will err. The pope is above all judgment and by the merits of St. Peter is undoubtedly rendered holy. The church was not to be the handmaid of princes but their mistress; if she had received from God the power to bind and loose in heaven, much more must she have a like power over earthly things.”

In accordance with the his constitution, which allowed him to depose emperors, Gregory VII became the first prelate to do so. His victim was the young Holy Roman Emperor, Henry IV. The pope saw an opportunity in young Henry. If he could befriend the young Emperor, it would open many doors to wealth that had previously remained shut. But the young Emperor did not play into the crafty pontiff’s hands and politely stalled for time. Gregory became impatient and summoned him to Rome to answer for various crimes that he had committed. The other option was excommunication, which in those days meant eternal perdition. Henry took the summons for what it was, a wanton insult, and he immediately called a convention of German bishops at Worms. His object was to depose the pope who had essentially declared war. After passing many censures on the conduct of Gregory, the council appointed a time for the election of a new pope. Gregory received these denunciations with little concern and promptly called a full assembly of one hundred and ten bishops. The end result of the meeting was the suspension of the German bishops and the excommunication of Henry IV. In effect, Gregory was deposing the Holy Roman Emperor. At the end of the meeting he declared,

“God is herein our witness that we are not moved by any temporal advantage or by carnal respects of any kind in reproving wicked princes or impious priests; but that all we do is done from pure regard for our high office, and for the honor and prerogative of the apostolic See.”

This was the crowning point of Gregory’s reign, the deposing of the Holy Roman Emperor. Eventually, though, he died in exile, while Henry survived his great antagonist for twenty-one years. After the death of Henry, which was on the 7th of August 1106, the popes continued to ascend the papal throne. Fifty-four years later, another man took a young kind under his wing, the king was Henry II, and the man was Thomas A. Becket.

Although, Thomas A. Becket was no pope, he held the highest clerical position in England, Archbishopric of Canterbury. He was also the chancellor of England, second only to the king. Becket had a little longer to work with Henry, than did Gregory. He was also a lot more patient. As a result, his relationship with Henry bore more fruit for the clergy than Gregory’s escapades with the Holy Roman Empire ever did. Appointed chancellor in 1158, Becket was a monk’s hero. He led the king’s armies, participated in battles, and generally had achieved secular dignity, while still a priest. He was very good friends with the young king, but the friendship would last only as long as it served his best interests. In 1162, Thomas A. Becket was named Archbishop of Canterbury and from that moment on, his heart and soul became completely changed towards his sovereign. They would soon clash for a great commotion was arising, with regard to conduct of the priests and monks. Rape, arson, robbery, and theft were all common crimes perpetrated by members of the clergy, and King Henry II felt that it was not right that these clerical criminals should go unpunished, regardless of whether or not he had the right to punish them. Thomas A. Becket answered the king by saying that it was the “privileges of their order.” The King responded angrily and war was soon declared between the prerogative of the crown and the pretensions of the church. The same battle that was fought between Henry IV and Gregory IV was to be fought over again on English ground by the King and the archbishop. Interestingly enough, the pope played two sides in this conflict. When he needed money, he supported Henry, but when he could do without it he would support Thomas A. Becket. The popery was no different then when Gregory had been on the throne.

Tension between the King and Becket came to such a head, that Becket was forced to fly to France, where he was welcomed a distinguished guest of honor. But the tension was still think in the air. Becket’s friends and personal relations were banished, and he retaliated by excommunicating all the clergy who had spoken against him. And so this storm and strife raged for seven years. The King wanted Becket to withdraw his reply and apologize, but Becket remained inflexible. According to papal principles the priest can never be wrong and can never yield. Finally, through the intercession on the part of the French king and the pope, Becket was allowed to return, but he was in now way subdued. His manner became all the more defiant and insulting. One day, in a moment of frustration, the King allowed the secret of his heart burst from his lips.

“I am an unhappy prince: will none revenge me on a single insolent priest, who gives me so much trouble, and endeavors by every means to make void my royal authority?”

Some people heard the King, and put their own interpretation to his words. Four knights gathered together on a desperate service for the king, without him knowing it. Fearing the intention of the absent knights, the King dispatched the Earl of Mandeville with orders to arrest Becket and to recall the four knights. But the murderers hurried across the channel and before the King’s messengers could reach them, the archbishop was assassinated. It turned out that the assassination of Becket did more good for him than bad. Henry, under the threat of excommunication systematically degraded himself before the pope. But it was not until he was publicly whipped by monks that the clergy was satisfied of his repentance. As far as Becket is concerned, his tomb became an object of veneration until Henry VIII pillaged the shrine, burnt the bones, and had his ashes thrown to the winds. And thus ended another chapter of degrading church history. But the most interesting chapter was yet to come. In 1198, a new pope came to the throne, who called himself Innocent III. His concepts regarding the papacy and the church were remarkably similar to those of Gregory VII:

“Ye see what manner of servant that is whom the Lord hath set over his people; no other than the vice-gerent of Christ, the successor of St. Peter. He is the Lord’s anointed; he stands in the midst between God and man; below God, above man; less than God, more than a man. He judges all, he is judged by none, for it is written ‘I will judge.’ But he whom the preeminence of dignity exalts, is lowered by his office of a servant that is so humility may be exalted, and pride abased; for God is against the high-minded; and to the lowly he showeth mercy: and he who exalteth himself shall be abased…The firmament signifies the church. As the Creator of all things hath set in the heavens two great lights, the greater to rule the day, the lesser to rule the night, so also hath He set up in the firmament of His church, two great powers: the greater to rule the souls, the lesser to rule the bodies of men. These powers are the pontifical and the royal: but the moon, as being the lesser body, borroweth all of her light from the sun; she is inferior to the sun both in the quantity and the quality of the light she sends forth, as also in her position and functions in the heavens. In like manner the royal power borrows all its dignity and splendour from the pontifical, so that the nearer it approaches the greater light, the more are its rays absorbed, and its borrowed glories eclipsed. It was moreover ordained that both these glories should have their fixed and final abode in this land our Italy, inasmuch as in this land dwelleth, by and through the combined primacy of the empire and the priesthood, the entire foundation and structure of the Christian faith, and with it a predominant principality over both.”

Clothed in the metaphor of the firmament, the high pretensions of the papal scheme became overwhelmingly evident. Obviously, in the mind of this celebrated pontiff, all earthly dominion was simply derived from the pope; all kings and princes of the world were his subjects and servants; and universal dominion was his. In like manner, the reign of Innocent III was not dissimilar to that of Gregory VII, except for one event, which revolved around a small document that survives today as one of the first declarations of independence in history. That document was the Magna Carta.

The Magna Carta was to say the least, a bombshell for the times. It seemed inconceivable that a group of English nobles and barons could gather together and declare their freedom. The English people had a history of being free-spirited. They had resisted the Roman yoke for as long as they could, and had fought off many potential invaders throughout their long and turbulent history. On the one hand it may not have come as much of a surprise for them. Life under John Lackland grew too intolerable and so they constructed a document to ensure that they would never be treated in such a way again. But for a pope who was not familiar with the English psyche, the news that they had thrown of the yoke of their king would be staggering. Naturally, that was exactly how Innocent responded. His infallibility shuddered and he raged and swore:

“What! Have the barons of England presumed to dethrone a king who has taken the cross, and placed himself under the apostolic See? Do they transfer to others the patrimony of the Church in Rome? By St. Peter we cannot leave such a crime unpunished!”

Innocent’s revenge was not long in coming. The great charter was declared null and void, and the King was forbidden under the pain of excommunication to respect the oath under which he had taken, or the liberties he had confirmed. But the barons received the spiritual censures and annulling edicts with utter disregard. War soon broke out with King John leading an army mercenaries over the entire country, burning with the fire and destroying with sword. But a victory for John Lackland an Innocent was not to be. One year, a month, and a day after the signing of the Magna Carta Innocent died at the age of fifty-five. John survived a few months longer, but died of cider overdose after his army had been destroyed by a tide wave. Now the barons could live freely, ruled by a king who did not have absolute power over them. It was a first in history, and it was not to be the last.

The Magna Carta issued in a whole new period in time. Ever so slowly man was breaking away from the Catholic Church. Other than the Magna Carta, there was no real sign of this, but under the surface the common man’s psyche was slowly changing. They watched the nobles who had the freedom to have a say in the government. They watched the development of the House of Commons. All these events may have seemed rather insignificant by themselves, but when put together they reveal a very big picture. Something had to break. Something had to happen. Freedom was peeking through the cracks in the door, but it needed to go farther than that. The Bible would have been the ideal avenue for reaching the people, but it was still forbidden for the common people to read the Bible in most places. But, the possibility did exist. That was all that was needed. The possibility became a reality in year of 1349, and came in the form of John Wycliffe, an English priest who shook the foundations of Catholic tradition and supremacy when he translated the Bible into the vernacular tongue of the common people. Wycliffe went on to challenge the Catholic Church on doctrines that had been accepted as the truth for hundred of years. That a little English man could stir up such a hornet’s nest was truly amazing. After Wycliffe’s death someone had to continue his work, and God’s silver line of grace hooked someone in Bohemia. John Huss became a follower of Wycliffe and broke the long-standing Catholic tradition of preaching in Latin so that common people could only guess what the priest was saying. He preached from his pulpit so that people would understand what he was saying. But the Catholic Church was not just standing by. John Huss was burned at the stake for his beliefs, and his death left a void for someone to fill. The Reformation movement had to gain ground and take root somewhere. With the invention of the printing press in 1455, the Bible could be more available to the common people and this unleashed the Word of God into the homes, something that the Church had frowned upon for a very long time. Everything was ready, the people had received a foretaste, and now someone just had to serve the meal. That someone was a young German doctor of theology, Martin Luther.

Martin Luther is rightly known for fathering the Reformation movement. He challenged the Catholic Church on many heretical doctrines that had been accepted as normal for more than a thousand years. He wasn’t perfect, but he was exactly the person God needed to spark the Reformation movement. With the nailing of his ninety-five thesis, God got the spark that he needed to set the world on fire. Other Reformers rose up and carried out the work of Reformation in the different parts of Europe. There was Uldriech Zwingli, Kaspar Schwenckfeld, Valentine Crautwald and many others who all took part in the Reformation. But as with the Catholic Church, divisions started to arise. The Sacrament became a hotly contested issue and continues to spark debates today. The doctrine of the Trinity and baptism and many other theological doctrines all received a fair amount of attention. But divisions continued to arise, and from the new Protestant Christianity that came out of the Reformation there were several branches including: Luthern, Calvanist, Mennonite etc. The point is that the Protestant church was falling into the same trap that the Catholic Church fell into way back when Constantine was emperor.

In conclusion, the fall of Christianity beginning from the days of Constantine to the rise during the Reformation indicates a very important point that is still not fully realized today. A little leaven ruins the whole lump, so to speak. Unleavened bread is bread that in a sense, has not been ruined. But if you add a little leaven, the whole lump becomes useless because you won’t be able to make unleavened bread with that lump. In the same way, Christianity under Constantine allowed a little leaven to fall into the lump, essentially creating the mess that the Catholic Church is today. Constantine’s motives were not pure when he settled debates. He still maintained contact and actually supported the heathen majority as well as the Christian minority. Biblically speaking, the state that the Church was on it remarkably similar to that of the church in Pergamos in Rev. 2:13-17. Then the Arian controversy came up, as well as the numerous contentions after it. Of course from these, the Roman papal position became the focal point of clerical power. In this period up to the Reformation, the Catholic Church bears a similar resemblance to the church in Thyatira, spoken about in Rev. 2:18-29. It no longer became a matter of the people’s spiritual growth, but a matter of manipulating the people for their own secular purposes. These instances came out again and again as the line that separated Church and State gradually deteriorated. In this way, the Roman Catholic Church became the monster that it was in the early sixteenth century. Today the Christian churches are so scattered and confused its hard to tell exactly what state they are in. Regardless, the decline of Christianity from 313-1559 should be a dire warning to the Christian churches in these present times.

Quiz Questions:

1) Who was Constantine’s mother?

a) Alexis
b) Smyrna
c) Helena
d) Lydia

2) Who said this in his letter to King Henry VI

a) Gregory VIII
b) Thomas A. Becket
c) Innocent III
d) None of these

3) What was Innocent III’s reaction to the Magna Carta?

a) “What! Have the barons of England presumed to dethrone a king who has taken the cross, and placed himself under the apostolic See? Do they transfer to others the patrimony of the Church in Rome? By St. Peter we cannot leave such a crime unpunished!”
b) It was moreover ordained that both these glories should have their fixed and final abode in this land our Italy, inasmuch as in this land dwelleth, by and through the combined primacy of the empire and the priesthood, the entire foundation and structure of the Christian faith, and with it a predominant principality over both.”
c) “Give me liberty or give me death!”
d) “To this ignorance we are compelled to adapt the grossness of our style and arguments: the first elements of the holy letters are sufficient for your confusion; and, were you to enter a grammar school, and avow yourself the enemy of our worship, the simple and pious children would cast their tablets at your head.”

4) When did John Wycliffe come onto the scene?

a) 1238
b) 1278
c) 1349
d) 1429

Works Cited:

Carleton, Charles Coffin. “The Story of Liberty.” United States: Maranatha Publications. 1987

“Constantine the Great.” Encarta Encyclopedia. 1997 ed.

Gee, Henry and William John Hardy. “Magna Carta.” World History. Dec. 29 2003. http://history.hanover.edu/project.html

Grun, Bernard. “The Timetables of History.” New York: Simon and Schuster. 1963

Living Stream Ministry. “Holy Bible Recovery Version.” Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1999.

Miller, Andrew. “Miller’s Church History.” U.S.A. 1980.

Additional information about <http://hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/cot/t2w09christiandecline.htm>

Disclaimer:

The above essay was donated to hyperhistory.net.
Kindly inform of inaccuracies or plagiarism.

Post a link to this essay,
<a href=" "> a great essay </a>
on your blog or website :

Comparative Essays	Biographies	Doc. Based Questions	Change Over Time

Comparative Essays Change over Time Biographies

The Decline of Christianity

A Change Over Time essay from 313 A.D to 1559

As power balance swung between popes and kings, evaluate the advance and decline of Christianity from 313 AD to 1559 AD.

Disclaimer:

Comparative
Essays

Change
over Time

Biographies