![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
In which I am obscure and probably obtuse
I should be cleaning my apartment, so naturally I'm delving into early Church heresies instead.
I have whined a lot about how Arthur’s philosophies are anachronistic. Here is a long, obscure attempt to explain why, which discusses things like the Council of Carthage. Mostly it’s about Pelagianism.
First a disclaimer: I studied Late Antiquity briefly a long time ago, so I’ve no doubt screwed this up, but not worse than the movie. I am not a student of church history.
Pelagianism was a big deal to the early Church, but you wouldn’t understand it at all from the movie. Pelagius was a real monk, probably from Ireland, and a contemporary of such figures as St. Augustine. He did travel to Rome but left it permanently around 411 and after returning to Ireland he went on to North Africa and to Palestine. He disappears from history around 418 and most likely died in the East (not in Rome and he was not, as far as anyone knows, murdered by the church or the civil government or anyone else).
He was figure of controversy at the time, when the church was still developing its doctrines, and arguments over what seem like obscure points were taken very seriously. He gave his name to the “Pelagian heresy” which was condemned by the church. As near as I’ve understood it, the controversy is not about men being equal with one another and men being born free in the modern sense, but all about the existence of original sin and grace, doctrines that were in the process of being firmly established at the time. Pelagius (along with a guy called Caelestius) rejected the idea of original sin, meaning that he didn’t believe that Adam and Eve’s sin of disobeying God was passed on to their offspring or that prior to the crucifixion it was impossible to be without sin. Pelagianism argued that sinless life was possible through free will and you did not need outside help to achieve heaven (which is not the same as the more modern ideal of freedom that Arthur appears to believe). Pelagius adopted the Stoic ideas of free will, and the inherent goodness of man and nature. This was a big deal for the church (especially the part about not needing outside help—outside help was mostly the church), and many African bishops, where the Pelagian heresy had caught on, were anxious to have the matter settled (a lot of Augustine’s writings are in reaction to this heresy (as well as others)). After various accusations and attempts to settle matters, and appeals to two different popes, the Council of Carthage was held in 418, which set out canons that became central to church doctrine, and killed off any wiggle room in which Pelagians operated. They were:
There’s also potentially a ninth canon, but I’m ignoring that, because it would take more explaining and I’m already way off the obscure radar. Meanwhile, the civil government put it’s foot in and the Western Emperor Honorious (from Ravenna, not Rome) banished all Pelagians from the cities of Italy. Augustine had more literary duels about Pelagianism with a bishop called Julian of Eclanum.
The pope subsequently demanded the condemnation of the Pelagian heresy and he may have commanded all bishops to affirm that in writing. To illustrate what a controversy this whole thing was, 18 Italian bishops refused and were deposed from their sees. Some of the exiles (and Caelestius) took refuge at Court of the Patriarch of Constantinople, who supported them. Due to some machinations (probably by Augustine or his followers) the Eastern Emperor Theodosius II decreed their banishment in 430. In 431 the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus condemned Pelagianism, and Pelagianism died in the East. Pelagianism continued to smolder on in the West for a while (notably in Wales and Ireland) until about 529.
All of this is a very longwinded way of saying that the “free will” that was the subject of the Pelagian heresy, was not the freedom of the sort the movie has Arthur talk about. It’s not about all men being born free and all men being equal, but about all people being born free of sin and able to reach grace by their own acts, and not needing outside help to do so. If Arthur was a true Pelagian (and I wonder once more about the choice to set the movie in 452, which was not only after the Romans left Britain, but after Pelagius’ death and his condemnation—an Arthur in 452 could conceivably have ascribed to Pelagianism, but could not have known Pelagius personally--did the filmmakers not have access to any history books?) his preoccupations would be with things like the existence of original sin and the idea of free will (humans were not tainted by Adam’s sin, and heaven can be achieved by your own good acts, you didn’t need the church as a gateway to heaven (you can see why the church didn’t like that)). But I suppose the history of the formation of early church doctrine is dry (as I’ve no doubt demonstrated) and is not the stuff of wannabe rousing movie speeches, especially when you can fling words heroic words like freedom and equality around.
Okay, now that I've gotten that somewhat straight in my flighty brain, I’m done for now.
I have whined a lot about how Arthur’s philosophies are anachronistic. Here is a long, obscure attempt to explain why, which discusses things like the Council of Carthage. Mostly it’s about Pelagianism.
First a disclaimer: I studied Late Antiquity briefly a long time ago, so I’ve no doubt screwed this up, but not worse than the movie. I am not a student of church history.
Pelagianism was a big deal to the early Church, but you wouldn’t understand it at all from the movie. Pelagius was a real monk, probably from Ireland, and a contemporary of such figures as St. Augustine. He did travel to Rome but left it permanently around 411 and after returning to Ireland he went on to North Africa and to Palestine. He disappears from history around 418 and most likely died in the East (not in Rome and he was not, as far as anyone knows, murdered by the church or the civil government or anyone else).
He was figure of controversy at the time, when the church was still developing its doctrines, and arguments over what seem like obscure points were taken very seriously. He gave his name to the “Pelagian heresy” which was condemned by the church. As near as I’ve understood it, the controversy is not about men being equal with one another and men being born free in the modern sense, but all about the existence of original sin and grace, doctrines that were in the process of being firmly established at the time. Pelagius (along with a guy called Caelestius) rejected the idea of original sin, meaning that he didn’t believe that Adam and Eve’s sin of disobeying God was passed on to their offspring or that prior to the crucifixion it was impossible to be without sin. Pelagianism argued that sinless life was possible through free will and you did not need outside help to achieve heaven (which is not the same as the more modern ideal of freedom that Arthur appears to believe). Pelagius adopted the Stoic ideas of free will, and the inherent goodness of man and nature. This was a big deal for the church (especially the part about not needing outside help—outside help was mostly the church), and many African bishops, where the Pelagian heresy had caught on, were anxious to have the matter settled (a lot of Augustine’s writings are in reaction to this heresy (as well as others)). After various accusations and attempts to settle matters, and appeals to two different popes, the Council of Carthage was held in 418, which set out canons that became central to church doctrine, and killed off any wiggle room in which Pelagians operated. They were:
1. Death did not come to Adam from a physical necessity, but through sin.
2. New-born children must be baptized on account of original sin.
3. Justifying grace not only avails for the forgiveness of past sins, but also gives assistance for the avoidance of future sins.
4. The grace of Christ not only discloses the knowledge of God’s, but also imparts strength to will and execute them.
5. Without God’s grace it is not merely more difficult, but absolutely impossible to perform good works.
6. Not out of humility, but in truth must we confess ourselves to be sinners.
7. The saints refer the petition of the Our Father, "Forgive us our trespasses", not only to others, but also to themselves.
8. The saints pronounce the same supplication not from mere humility, but from truthfulness.
There’s also potentially a ninth canon, but I’m ignoring that, because it would take more explaining and I’m already way off the obscure radar. Meanwhile, the civil government put it’s foot in and the Western Emperor Honorious (from Ravenna, not Rome) banished all Pelagians from the cities of Italy. Augustine had more literary duels about Pelagianism with a bishop called Julian of Eclanum.
The pope subsequently demanded the condemnation of the Pelagian heresy and he may have commanded all bishops to affirm that in writing. To illustrate what a controversy this whole thing was, 18 Italian bishops refused and were deposed from their sees. Some of the exiles (and Caelestius) took refuge at Court of the Patriarch of Constantinople, who supported them. Due to some machinations (probably by Augustine or his followers) the Eastern Emperor Theodosius II decreed their banishment in 430. In 431 the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus condemned Pelagianism, and Pelagianism died in the East. Pelagianism continued to smolder on in the West for a while (notably in Wales and Ireland) until about 529.
All of this is a very longwinded way of saying that the “free will” that was the subject of the Pelagian heresy, was not the freedom of the sort the movie has Arthur talk about. It’s not about all men being born free and all men being equal, but about all people being born free of sin and able to reach grace by their own acts, and not needing outside help to do so. If Arthur was a true Pelagian (and I wonder once more about the choice to set the movie in 452, which was not only after the Romans left Britain, but after Pelagius’ death and his condemnation—an Arthur in 452 could conceivably have ascribed to Pelagianism, but could not have known Pelagius personally--did the filmmakers not have access to any history books?) his preoccupations would be with things like the existence of original sin and the idea of free will (humans were not tainted by Adam’s sin, and heaven can be achieved by your own good acts, you didn’t need the church as a gateway to heaven (you can see why the church didn’t like that)). But I suppose the history of the formation of early church doctrine is dry (as I’ve no doubt demonstrated) and is not the stuff of wannabe rousing movie speeches, especially when you can fling words heroic words like freedom and equality around.
Okay, now that I've gotten that somewhat straight in my flighty brain, I’m done for now.