The Church in the 6th to 15th Century: Cathedrals, Corruption, Cracks

Introduction

Last Sunday: we looked at the “birth of the church,”

How? How was the Church, born? And, how is it that the Church is still around, everywhere?

I think we agreed that Christ himself “… gathers,

defends,

and preserves” the church

How?

First, Christ accomplishes this work “by

His Spirit

and His Word,”

by the preaching of the gospel

with the power of the Holy Spirit ,

such Biblical, Spirit Directed preaching is the instrument

through which the Son accomplishes His purposes.

by the Grace of God alone!

This is how Christ Himself “gathers, defends, and preserves the church.

And “preserves” then become the operative word, for the purpose of this series of talks:

As we study Church History, we see how Jesus, “preserves” the church!

How does it work?

Every time the Word is faithfully proclaimed

and the Spirit works regeneration,

Christ is actively gathering His people.

The church doesn’t gather itself; Christ gathers through these appointed means

“the means of grace,” as we call them”

Which are all centred around God’s Word - the Bible!

The Westminster Confession articulates this:

under the law, the covenant was administered through promises, prophecies, sacrifices, and types fore-signifying Christ;

under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited,

the ordinances are the preaching of the Word

and the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper,

which though fewer in number, are held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy.

(WCF Chapter 7.5,6)

So, who here on earth gets to say (Where does the Authority of the Church lie)?

Well, if it is Christ who established the Church,

and determined its ordinances, (by His Word),

who instituted its offices and clothed its officers with authority, by His Word!

THEN CHRIST ALONE GETS TO SAY HOW THE CHURCH IS TO GO ABOUT ITS BUSINESS - BY HIS WORD!

History shows that everything we have said so far

has been in contention between people,

from the start of Church History, to the present day!

This afternoon, we see how this story - His-story - continues through the 6th to the 15th centuries

even as we still ask basically two questions:

What is the Church?

Who gets to say?

1. A divided Church from very early on …

The church was perhaps most united in the time of the Pentecost, and for a little while after, when

church governance as established by Jesus, through the apostles, was the order of the day.

In those days, the Church operated on a system of local leadership

—elders and deacons—

guided by the Holy Spirit. (Acts 1-4)

Certainly, mostly, Church Leaders in those days understood themselves as no more than stewards

responsible for shepherding God’s people,

according to Scripture’s directives of what it meant to be a Shepherd, or an Under-Shepherd.

Last week, we saw how the Church spread …

and soon there were major divisions in the Church,

Perhaps none more so than when the great Schism of 1054 split the Church in two -

the Eastern Church,

and the Western Church.

But, the division between the so called East and West streams of the Church,

was in some ways simply a continuation of the differences of opinion,

as fas back as the early third century.

One of the major arguments then, was, over the language of the church

Latin became the language of theological discourse in the West, (Rome), and

Greek remained, staunchly, the common language of the Church, in the East (Constantinople).

But, more prominently, Church governance became the big issue!

which produced the very question we have identified

as the question that underpins all of Church History:

who has authority over the Church

The Roman See (West) argued for the “primacy” of a single, supreme Bishop,

(as early as the fourth century)

and soon insisted he held “universal authority” over the church.

The Eastern Church, as can be expected, was not thrilled with this Idea,

and it, too, insisted that the Governance of the Church should be in Constantinople.

This power struggle expanded to include the question

of whether the Political State should have some - or ultimate!- power over the Church.

**Who do you say?

The history is as follows:

Within the Church, the argument was between the Bishops

Bishops:

When Cyprian, was bishop of Carthage. Cyprian (c. 248–258)

He insisted that the church’s unity and authority rested on its bishops,

and, importantly, that they needed to be in right standing with the church

(Communion with other Bishops - especially with Rome;

Lawful Appointment;

Conduct under Persecution.)

He insisted that members who were not baptised by Bishops in righty standing,

had to be baptised again.

Also, when it became known that some clergy, under persecution, had handed over scriptures to the authorities, they were considered unworthy. The Diocletianic persecution (303–311)

The Donatists (Secundus, Donatus Magnus) Schism followed when Caecilian was consecrated as bishop of Carthage

and some of his rivals argued that his consecrator, Felix Aptunga, had been a traditor.

The Donatists then argued that sacraments given by sinful ministers were invalid,

suggesting the true church was the company of the pure.The Donatists Schism (311)

From 395, Augustine was Bishop of the Western Church of Hippo (North Africa). Augustine (395)

He answered the Donatists question, saying that the sacrament belongs to Christ alone,

and that the church contains wheat and tares … until the harvest.

so no re-baptism, if a person was rightfully baptised

(which was the answer to Kim’s question last Sunday on what was to happen to lapsed Christians)

Emperors

Emperor Constantine Based in the East, in Nicomedia, near Istanbul (306–337)

Constantine is the hinge between the State persecuted church and the State sanctioned imperial church,

Constantine and Licinius granted toleration to Christians

and restored confiscated church property.

Constantine’s favour to the church is the start of the imperial relationship that shaped everything after.313, the Edict of Milan.

Constantine, The Emperor, (State!) was drawn into the Donatist dispute

when both sides appealed to him.

and he called the Council of Nicea

This is the first clear case of an emperor deciding a church question, refering it to Church leaders!

It addressed the Christology Issue (the Arian question) and the church Governance question!

and it bears directly on “who gets to say? (The Church State question!)

Its canons include the sixth, which recognised the jurisdiction of Alexandria, Rome and Antioch, and this is the first general council convened by an emperor.325, the Council of Nicaea.

He dedicated the city as the new eastern capital, and the court and power gradually moved there.

That is the start of the political weight behind Constantinople’s later status!

Constantine was baptised shortly before his death, a common practice of the period.337, baptism.

And in 451, The Council of Chalcedon’s canon 28 gave the see (Constantinople)

equal privileges with Rome.

Leo I rejected the canon, but it reflected the city’s growing weight.

Under Justinian, the patriarch of Constantinople became a leading figure in imperial religious policy,

and the city’s churches, including Hagia Sophia, became the symbolic centre of the Byzantine church.

(Describe my visit …)

This represented the time of the East’s resistance to Rome’s claims of universal authority

—a direct governance dispute rooted in competing understandings of how the Church should be led.

The crisis reached its breaking point when Cardinal Humbert told the patriarch of Constantinople

that the bishop of Rome had “an unfettered jurisdiction over the whole Church.”

Cerularius rejected the assertion, and Humbert responded

by placing on the altar a bull - a papal decree of excommunication, under Leo IX’, name, dated 16 July 1054.

that excommunicated the patriarch, Cerularius.

However:

by that date, Leo IX was already dead. He died on 19 April 1054, before the bull was issued.

The bull listed charges against Greek practice, such as the use of leavened bread in the Eucharist.

The Greek side answered with its own criticisms of Western practice.

Cerularius excommunicated the legates in return, so the act did not settle the matter.

The mutual excommunications are why 1054 is often treated as the formal date of the split,

even though the division had built up over centuries.

From then onwards

Latin-speaking West and Greek-speaking East drifted apart,

and the labels Catholic and Orthodox came to mark the two.

In essence, it was, after all “The Christological councils” (Who is Jesus)

and, by implication, by whose authority is the Church, sanctioned

that produced lasting splits among the Roman Empire Churches.

2. Justinian and Theodora: unity by imperial power

In 429 and onwards, for a time, something happened

that would in some ways cement the concept of Stae and Church cooperation!

Carthage

The Vandals (an East Germanic people, originally from the current day Poland region)

under Gaiseric,

crossed from Spain into North Africa in 429,

and the Vandals took Carthage (… the arena for the Donatist movement) in 439.

Gaiseric was an Arian Christian,

and so, after 439, Cartage (the North African church, but, considered a Western Church,

came under Arian rulers after 439.

And the Vandals held it, until …

Justinian and his forces … recaptured Carthage

in 533–534.

/// /// ///

(Italy) Rome

In Italy, Odoacer,

defeated the last Western emperor, Romulus Augustulus, in 476.

and become King of Italy (Western Church)

He ruled until …

The Ostrogoths in Italy -

Theodoric the Ostrogoth (Germanic) was sent into Italy (Rome!)

by Zeno, the Eastern Emperor (474-491),

to battle against Theoderic,

then became King of Italy, but only nominally so,

because he found himself under authority of the Eastern Emperor.

So …

NB! - WHO IS IN CHARGE OF CHRIST”S CHURCH: The Bishops (Or Pope) or the State, Emperor’s or Kings?

While the question had not been answered difinitavely in this time,

one thing remained clear: The Church was mostly, clearly, divided!

This is perhaps where Justinian and Theodora (Emperor and Empress 527-565)

will be remembered for their attemots

at “unifying” the church …

and yet, even as they schemed,

they moved the Church further towards falling under the State ‘s Authority!

Beacuse, they suggested

the Church should look to the State for her peace and security.

How They Moved History Forward: Justinian and Byzantine Christianity

Justinian’s impact established what historians call Byzantine Christianity

—the Greek-speaking church of the eastern Roman Empire from the fourth century until Constantinople’s fall in 1453.

Four Decisive Actions

By reclaiming North Africa from the Vandals

and Italy from the Ostrogoths,

Justinian did succeed in bringing the African church,

(which by then had fallen back under imperial control and Byzantine rule)

back towards the Nicene Creed once again.

Religious Policy.

Justinian also, then, closed pagan schools,

imposed (State) laws against heresy,

and sought to unify the Church under Chalcedon (The Cristology question revisisted!)

— although, his wife, Theodora, supported non-Chalcedonian (Eastern) churches.

And so the Divisions … continued.

But, an interesting snippet (I think …)

Justinian rebuilt the Hagia Sophia, all but destroyed after Nika riots of 532.

And the Hagia Sophia soon became the symbolic heart of the Byzantine Christianity.

The Byzantine System

Justinian’s actions embodied Byzantine Christianity’s core features:

The emperor and church formed a partnership called symphonia—each with its own sphere.

In practice, the emperor summoned councils, appointed patriarchs, and intervened in doctrine.

What was the outcome of all this?

Mixed results. Justinian achieved stability and cultural achievements,

but wars drained resources,

Plague struck hard in the 540s,

and the non-Chalcedonian split … never really healed.

Still, most significantly, the Justinian Code to a significant degree,

determined that the the emperor was responsiblee for the Orthodoxy in the Church.

This pattern would shape Byzantine history for centuries

and distinguish Eastern Christianity fundamentally

from the West’s developing papal claims,

who insisted, the Pope supremely gets to detremine the lay of the land,

when it comes to matters of Faith!

3. The papacy in crisis

Authority in Crisis: The Western Church’s Struggle (1309–1418)

The medieval Western Church clearly faced a fundamental crisis:

who decides what the Church believes and teaches?

Three developments in this period reveal competing answers

—and why the question proved irresolvable

but for Christ’s direct headship.

Avignon and Lost Prestige (1309–1377)

Under the direction of seven French popes

who ruled from Avignon, under the influence of the French crown,

these popes started speaking about “Babylonian Captivity”

This comparison claimed something radical—that the papacy, l

ike Israel in exile,

had lost its spiritual independence and authority.

This criticism was compounded by financial scandals.

Papal taxation and extravagant spending eroded confidence in the papal office itself.

If the pope claimed universal authority over the Church,

how could he exercise it while financially corrupted and politically captive?

The Great Schism and Its Question (1378–1417)

The crisis deepened catastrophically. After Gregory XI’s death, competing papal lines claimed legitimacy,

dividing Europe along political lines.

But now the question transformed:

not merely “which pope?”

but crucially, “who can judge between popes?”

This exposed the fatal flaw in papal supremacy

—there was no higher authority to arbitrate when the supreme authority itself fractured.

Councils Attempt Constitutional Limits

The conciliar movement emerged as an answer:

councils, not popes, should determine doctrine.

Yet this “solution” proved temporary. It mostly, failed!

Conclusion and Bridge to Next Week …

Who determines Christian doctrine and by what authority?

The Eastern churches answered: councils and tradition.

The West increasingly answered: the papacy.

The Deeper Problem

Each answer—pope, council, or political power—claimed - and still claims - ultimate authority.

Yet history demonstrates that human structures alone cannot settle the question.

Enter the life and times of the Reformers and the Reformation:

The Reformed answer is clear: there is no other head of the Church

but the Lord Jesus Christ.

as He is known and as He speaks, and directs, and commands,

by His Word, The Bible!

Neither pope nor council

can claim headship that belongs to Christ alone.

This isn’t a rejection of church order; it’s the called for recognition that all earthly authority

—whether papal, conciliar, or synodal—

must remain subordinate to Christ’s Word and Spirit,

even as Christ called on mere man to proclaim this truth!

… which sets us up for next week’s talk: “Recovering the Gospel” ( 25 October, 2026, 4pm).

Our overarching question: What is the Church, and who gets to say?

The Reformed answer: Christ alone, through his Word—no bishop, council, or emperor holds independent authority.

The five Solas:

Sola Scriptura:

Sola Fide:

Sola Gratia:

Solus Christus:

Soli Deo Gloria: The glory belongs to God alone!

Amen!