|[ Previous Lecture / Essay ]|[ Ancient Christianity Index ]|[ Next Lecture / Essay]|
Different localized calendars continued to prevail among the lower classes and the religious functionaries across the Roman world in the second century, but the official Roman calendar was the calendar of government everywhere. This circumstance provides the setting for the controversy over the date of Easter. The celebration of the Christian Easter (pasch, based on the Hebrew for "Passover") paralleled the annual Jewish celebration of the Passover. The Passover date was determined by the Jewish lunar calendar. The traditional lunar date of 14 Nisan did not correspond with a fixed date in the Roman calendar, let alone fall on the same day of the week from year to year.
A major disagreement about the day for the observance of Easter existed between the churches of the Roman Province of Asia and the church in Rome. Actually the point of conflict was in Rome itself where substantial segments of the Roman congregation consisted of Christians with ties to the Province of Asia. When the difference of practice first appeared, leaders of both persuasions grudgingly agreed in about AD 155 that it was permissible to differ.
Those Christians of the Province of Asia traditionally celebrated Easter by fasting on the day in the Roman calendar that corresponded to 14 Nisan regardless of the day of the week on which it fell. They came to be called the "Quartrodecimans" because of their strict observance of the fourteenth day. Moreover, they fasted only on the 14th and through the night until dawn on the 15th; at sunrise they celebrated triumphantly with a love feast and the Eucharist. Melito of Sardis (c. 170) who had traveled to Syria and Palestine in part to investigate practices there had championed this practice. Melito was no Christian Judaizer, as his extant work, a sermon on the Christian meaning of the Passover entitled On the Pasch, demonstrates.
The non-Asian Christians at Rome and most other parts of the Empire generally celebrated Easter on the Sunday in the Roman calendar after the day corresponding to 14 Nisan in the Jewish Calendar--fasting from Friday until Sunday morning when the resurrection was celebrated.
The issue came up again in Rome, c. 190, when the Asian Christians in Rome refused to wait until the Sunday after 14 Nisan to begin feasting and rejoicing in the Lord's resurrection. Meanwhile the rest of the Christians in Rome were still fasting! Bishop Victor (189-198), a native of Africa and the first ever Latin-speaking bishop of Rome, called for this difference of practice to be eliminated, and churches in every Roman province but those of Asia and some of her neighboring provinces agreed. Victor treated the churches that refused to comply with the majority as schismatic, breaking off communion with them. Several leading bishops including Irenaeus of Lyons quickly and severely criticized Victor's actions and attitude. While this skirmish passed, the basic issue remained unresolved until the fourth century.
The determination of the date for Easter remained a point of controversy until the Council of Nicaea in 325 provided the formula that has been used subsequently. By that time the Easter celebration had lengthened to a whole week including Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, and Good Friday.
The celebration of the birth of Christ throughout the early part of this period was not uniform, but no known conflict over the differences arose. In most areas January 6, known as Epiphany, was favored as the appropriate date to commemorate both the birth and baptism of Jesus. Beginning at least in the 330's the Church in Rome began to celebrate Jesus birth on December 25. There is a more detailed discussion of this issue in Appendix IV.
Up
Catholic Christians considered any group of Christians to be schismatic who did not maintain the same traditional organization and practices as they did. Heretical groups, on the other hand, differed substantially in essential Christian doctrines. But schismatic congregations might be doctrinally orthodox and still out of step with the organization and practices of catholic congregations. This explains why no second century author ever referred to this largest and most influential schismatic movement as a heresy.
Up
Montanism arose about 172 in the rural areas of the Province of Asia. Montanus, a native of Mysia may have been a former priest of Cybele --an ancient pagan cult native to that region--, who had been converted to Christianity. Montanus was called a prophet because of the strange ecstatic utterances attributed to him. Equally important were two women, Prisca/Priscilla and Maximilla, who were recognized as prophetesses, inspired by the "Comforter"--i.e. paraklétos--, the Holy Spirit. The prophets announced that Christ's return was soon to take place at a "desert place" near the Phrygian farming villages of Tymion and Pepuza--the latter was Priscilla's home town, about fifteen miles east of Philadelphia. As the appointed time approached and excitement increased, some further revelation caused them to move the now not quite so immanent Parousia to far-away Jerusalem, but not before multitudes had abandoned their homes, families and employment to gather at the original Phrygian location.
Meanwhile the number of prophets multiplied; they spoke of wars directed against Christians by worldly powers as the last days approached. Martyrdom was extolled as a way to gain special rewards; rigorous fasting and total abstinence from wine were commanded as preparation. The prophets' many proclamations--some of which were self-contradictory or statements that seemed to make no sense at all--became the object of criticism by the organized clergy of the surrounding cities. Eventually, the bishops of the Roman Province of Asia, feeling secure in their catholicity, condemned the excesses and declared the Montanists schismatic.
Although Montanus himself seems to have dropped from sight, the Montanists organized themselves into a separate or schismatic church. Common believers were sometimes referred to as "soldiers" (of Christ); their clergy were organized into three orders; prophetai, patriarchoi, and koinonoi--Prophets, Ruling Fathers, and Companions (of Christ in suffering). Prophets, both men and women, were given a prominent position in the Montanist hierarchy. Maximilla lived and continued to be a focus of the opposition until her death in 179. Priscilla lived a while longer, but her influence seemed less significant.
Montanist custom is obviously a mix of several things. Montanists were never called heretics; their theology was orthodox. However, their practices and emphases, if not excesses, mark them as schismatics. It was not so much their emphasis on prophecy as the emphasis on apocalyptic that distanced them from the mainline Christians. Christian prophets had been active in the area before Montanus; Philip the Evangelist and his four daughters, prophetesses, were believed to have ended their careers and to have been buried at Hierapolis. Moreover, two other Christian prophets are attested, Quadratus and Ammia of Philadelphia, who ministered in that region before AD 170.
Some of the objectionable emphases of the Montanists were inspired, perhaps, by the strong Jewish-Christian apocalyptic tradition rooted deeply in that geographic region. Their Christian opponents in Asia Minor even rejected the Gospel of John and The Revelation as works of the Judaizer arch-heretic, Kerinthos. Meanwhile the Montanists readily accepted John's writings as authentic and stressed the second coming of Christ and the beginning of the millennium as immanent; the promised age of the Paraclete was about to dawn!
The Montanists' practice of celebrating Easter on 14 Nisan, of fasting only till sundown, and of mandatory "dry" fasting were all thought to reflect Jewish inspiration. The pagan emphasis on the public acknowledgement of sin at a sacred shrine--especially sexual uncleanness--and the acceptance of the awful punishment decree by the pagan god, may have had some influence on the Montanists' practice of public confession and severe, ascetic discipline imposed on the "soldiers". Montanists were the first to distinguish between mortal and venal sins; getting married a second time following the death of a spouse was classed as a mortal sin, as was denial of the faith. Celibacy was taught as a superior life-style for the Christian; virginity and widowhood were elevated also. Even their emphasis on martyrdom was more radical than mainstream Christian tradition of the second century. It is possible that the Montanist movement with its negative attitudes toward the world and the flesh coupled with a renewed zeal for martyrdom may have contributed indirectly to the actions taken by Emperor Marcus Aurelius, c. 176, against the Christians in Asia.
Up
Montanism spread far from its native haunts, to Rome and to northwest Africa. Long after its original leaders dropped from sight, the rigorist Montanist stance seems to have enjoyed considerable vitality. Several Montanists were among the martyrs in North Africa in 202. Indeed, there were still some Montanists to be noted as late as the sixth century.
Tertullian (c. 155-c. 223) was Montanism's most articulate advocate. Tertullian turned his very considerable talents to the defense of Montanism after 206, continuing to deliver his blistering prosecutorial salvos with regularity against the laxity, corruption and perversity he saw lurking at every turn.
Up
The Christian Tradition made frequent use of the contrast between sinful actions and "good" actions. Christians were enjoined to avoid the sinful actions and choose the good. It was clear that sinful actions required God's forgiveness. Guilt from sins committed before baptism was clearly "washed away", but there was uncertainty about sinful actions after baptism. The earliest of the Apostolic Fathers to address this issue in writing was the author of the Second Epistle, allegedly Clement of Rome (c. 125/155). Here he offered advice to those seeking God's forgiveness for post-baptismal sins that along with their tearful (evidence of contrition) prayers and confession of sin they discipline themselves by engaging in good works such as fasting, alms giving or other acts of charity. Perhaps these good works were suggested because they could demonstrate the sincerity of the contrite supplicant. This suggestion by no means settled the anxiety about post-baptismal sins. However, Clement of Rome's suggested practice of doing good things to make up for the bad came to be known as doing penance.
Although there were persistent voices raised in protest of the ideas involved in the doctrine of penance it consistently gained wider acceptance. By the end of the second century the Montanist emphasis on distinguishing mortal and venial sins appeared to be widely accepted. It seemed easier to excuse the venial sins, but the mortal sins obviously required some special consideration. Some apparently considered forgiveness impossible for the most severe sins (peccata capitalia). Others like Hermas or Tertullian thought there should be only one additional "chance" if some major offense were committed. Irenaeus of Lyons, on the other hand, evidently perceived no such limit.
While the doctrine of penance did not appear fully developed during the second century many agreed that whatever forgiveness could be offered for major post-baptismal sins must be as a result of a full and contrite confession (exomologesis) followed by a persistence in appropriate attitudes evidenced in appropriate actions which somehow make up for the sin. Such appropriate attitudes and actions were called penance only if they followed the official confession of sin. Otherwise they were just good works.
Major sins (Latin: peccata capitalia) included idolatry, murder and adultery. However, some regions, e.g. Spain, added several lesser sins to the list that required penance. Although practices differed locally, many churches followed the general practice of denying any fellowship with the congregation to sinners whose major sins were public knowledge unless and until they confessed and performed penance. The congregation, meanwhile, prayed earnestly for them. Public confession was required for public sins, but private confession before the clergy almost always preceded it. Public confession was not always required if the sins were private and disclosure would scandalize and offend. Even if the confession was secret, the penance must always be public. Sinners who confessed were conditionally readmitted to the fellowship provided they continued to display proper attitude and behavior. They were not, however, permitted to partake of the Eucharist until their penance was complete or until they were on their deathbed. Although most of the lesser sins did not require penance, they did require confession and forgiveness. The confessor was encouraged to voluntarily engage in acts similar to those of penance.
Up
During the third century penance was elaborately institutionalized under the control of the clergy. The development of the vocabulary of penance in the West seems to be based on the pioneering word choices of the highly influential legal mind of Tertullian at the very beginning of the third century. Tertullian chose to explain how Christ's death on the cross obtained remission of sins by using metaphorically the Latin legal terms translated "compensation" and "satisfaction" (Cf the Latin compenso and satisfacio). In legal terms when a plaintiff has been injured, wronged (i.e., sinned against), or deprived of the use and enjoyment of his property he has a right to be satisfied or compensated. The person responsible for the injury, wrong, or theft is legally responsible, that is guilty, to a degree equivalent to the assessed damages which is typically the amount of the penalty. Using this logic Tertullian suggested that Christ's death on the cross obtained the baptized believer's release from the penalty of his sins prior to baptism by compensating or satisfying the plaintiff (in this case God) for the damages resulting from the sins. With similar reasoning Tertullian had suggested that penance was a satisfaction or compensation for penalties incurred from sins committed after baptism.
Up
Tertullian's legal metaphor was picked up and used by Bishop Cyprian of Carthage in the middle of the third century as he set up the procedure by which to show mercy to those who lapsed into idolatry during the brief Decian persecution. The procedure of penance required first of all the adoption of habitual deeds or actions to compensate or satisfy the penalty and demonstrate sincere contrition and a change of mind. Secondly, there must be a public confession in the presence of the congregation culminating in the sentence of excommunication, and finally after a sufficient period of penance, there must be a public reconciliation with the church, symbolized by readmission of the penitent to the Lord's Supper. Hence Cyprian's statements expressed in synodal decrees and interpreted by his successors gave penance a sacramental role in human salvation parallel to baptism.
By the end of the third century, the orthodox catholic churches had developed the custom of imposing an indefinite period of punishment on those committing mortal sins after baptism by excluding those individuals from the fellowship (I Corinthians 5:3-6; Matthew 18:15-20). If the sinners were true Christians and not false they would seek God's forgiveness, be overcome with sorrow, publicly confess their sin, adopt a rigorous and more or less permanent life-style of exaggerated self-denigration and selfless service, and then seek the forgiveness of, and reconciliation with, the Church (James 5:15-16). There were in the East eventually four stages through which the penitent must progress. Aside from the first stage, that of Mourner, the other stages parallel those which had developed in Christian education. No evidence of such ranking survives in the West.
The account of the continuing developments surrounding penance is taken up elsewhere, but the schisms that resulted from the different practices are treated immediately following.
Up
A segment of the Roman Church Roman may have splintered off in opposition to Bishop Callistus (217-220). The priest and theologian Hippolytus was a leading member of the Roman Church under Bishop Zephyrinus (199-217). Hippolytus accused Bishop Callistus (217-222) of granting forgiveness for capital sins without penance. Callistus' successors, Urban I (222-230) and Pontianus (230-235) apparently continued the same policy. Both Pontianus and Hippolytus were banished from Rome to Sardinia by Emperor Maximus Thrax (235-238). This is taken as supporting Eusebius' allegation that Hippolytus was a bishop, and if so, a rival to Bishop Pontianus. If a schismatic congregation did exist under Hippolytus the schism appears to have been healed under Bishop Anteras (235-236).
Later, as a result of the persecution under Emperor Decius Trajan (249-251) another schism occurred at Rome. Bishop Cornelius (251-253) promised to pardon the lapsed while one of his priests named Novatian became the bishop of a splinter group taking the position of refusing pardon to the lapsed even on their deathbed. The Novatian schism spread to Syria, Palestine, and Asia Minor. This group called themselves the cathari, the pure, and they rebaptized all who joined them.
There were also similar problems at Carthage where the confessors gave libelli pacis to large numbers of those who had lapsed during the Decian persecution. Bishop Cyprian (248-258) insisted that penance be carried out in the usual way even for those that had certificates. A group following a more lenient policy developed at Carthage under the leadership of a priest named Novatus, and a deacon named Felicissimus. The group attempted to replace Bishop Cyprian with Bishop Fortunatus.
Similar problems occurred during and after the great persecution. In Egypt Bishop Melitius of Lycopolis (near Thebes) took the strict position during the persecution and criticized Bishop Peter of Alexandria for his alleged leniency. It was charged that Melitius usurped Bishop Peter's prerogative and gave ordination to leaders of the strict party in Alexandria. Peter died as a martyr in 311, but the controversy lingered. The Meletian party later joined the Arian movement, but basically because of their ingrained hostility to the bishop of Alexandria whatever his doctrine.
In Rome during the great persecution Bishop Eusebius (310) required the lapsi to do penance. He was opposed by a group led by Heraclius, who may have been a priest. It is unknown whether Heraclius favored accepting the lapsed without penance or not accepting them even if they did penance. In any case the dispute led to the intervention of Emperor Maxentius who banished both Eusebius and Heraclius from the city.
Up
The Donatist schism in North Africa originated as a disagreement about church practices ultimately dealing with the status of those reinstated after penance. Many Christians had obeyed the Emperor Diocletian's orders to surrender all their holy books to be destroyed. These were labeled traditores, i.e. traitors. A strict or rigorist group who had no problem with accepting penitent traditores back in the congregation, did believe that such individuals were unfit for the office of bishop. Some did become bishops; for example, Felix of Aptungi. In 311 Felix participated in the consecration of Caecilian, the new bishop of Carthage. The dominant leader of the rigorist group was Donatus of Casae Nigrae, a Numidian agricultural village on the Sahara fringe. He had opposed Caecilian's predecessor, bishop Mensurius, and insisted on the rebaptism of clergy who were traditores.
The rigorist party in the North African church (drawing support and leadership mainly from the desert fringe province of Numidia) considered Caecilian's ordination invalid. They managed to hold a council in 312 where they deposed Caecilian and elected Majorinus in his place. Caecilian, however, did not surrender his position; hence, a schismatic church under bishop Majorinus soon developed.
The bitter struggle between the churches began when Emperor Constantine recognized Caecilian and not Majorinus in 313. Although the Donatists appealed, and Constantine attempted to understand their cause, ultimately he condemned them in 317, confiscating their property and exiling their leaders. Four years of government coercion failed, however, to do more than strengthen the determination of the Donatists who fell back to southern Numidia.
The Donatists survived tenaciously on the fringes of the northwest Sahara throughout the fourth and following centuries prior to the conquest by the Arabs. They were associated in some puzzling way with another very enigmatic group known as the Circumcellions. Curious as we might be about this obscure group, no source gives us a very believable description of them, though several authors including Augustine mention them. They are generally described as bandits or fanatics who early in the fourth century behave like suicidal maniacs deliberately engaging in reckless acts of violence and destruction in the presence of armed imperial officials evidently seeking martyrdom. In the middle of the century they seem to have been employed by the Donatists to commandeer and purify catholic church buildings for Donatist use. Late in the fourth century we hear of them attacking or kidnapping catholic churchmen brutalizing them in unusually creative and painful ways. Their favorite devices for inflicting pain were clubs called "Israels". Although they usually did not kill their victims, a number were deliberately blinded and told they were having a "Damascus Road" experience like Paul in Acts 9. Their leaders were known as duces sanctorum, captains of the saints, and the group allegedly claimed to be ascetics. Their name has been understood as perhaps characterizing them as a vagabond group without permanent residence.
Up
Return to the Lecture/Essay Table of Contents for Part I
ht3463le11.html
Most recently edited 7 June 2002