The "Germanic influence" on western Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alethiaphile
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Alethiaphile

Guest
Good, bad, or exaggerated?

Warning: this is a somewhat long and in-depth post: I hope some here will find the topic worth exploring.

Historically speaking, one of the biggest differences in the courses of the western and eastern churches is that the western was influenced by the Germanic peoples, especially the Franks, who came to dominate western Europe politically in the early middle ages. From the Eastern/Orthodox point of view, this has been characterized as a generally negative influence, with the Germanic influence being blamed for distinctive western developments such as the increase in papal power, the acceptance of the Filioque clause, and the triumph of the Augustinian views of original sin and grace.
A book I am presently reading, The End of the Modern World, by Romano Guardini, a pre-Vat. II RC theologian, agrees that the Germanic influence was significant, but argues, in general terms, that it was beneficial, indeed essential. Here is his argument: it is given in the context of his discussion of the transition of the western Church from the classical to the medieval periods; I’ve included some preliminary passages to establish this context. I have tried to mark off the major points by asterisks. Note he doesn’t specifically contrast with the Christian East, in fact, he talks as if the West constituted the whole of Christianity:

The Middle Ages transformed radically man’s sense and his vision of the world. Medieval man centered his faith in Revelation…
In this Faith [based on Revelation] the world was born afresh… The mythical bonds which had chained man to the universe were destroyed. A new freedom dawned in history for the human spirit…
Deeply significant for the new religious outlook of medieval man was the influx of the Germanic spirit. The religious bent of the Nordic myths, the restlessness of the migrating peoples and the armed marches of the Germanic tribes revealed a new spirit which burst everywhere into history like a spear thrust into the infinite. This mobile and nervous soul worked itself into the Christian affirmation… In its fullness it produced that immense medieval drive which aimed at cracking the boundaries of the world.
This medieval impatience with all limitations cannot be explained, however, simply in terms of the Christian view of man and his relationship to God. Nothing akin to the medieval drive can be found in the first centuries of the Faith, when the classical sense of limitation still retained its hold on Christian man. Although he experienced transcendence, he experienced it only as an inner freedom from the world and as a personal responsibility for his own life, a responsibility transcending the dmeands and service of society. Only after the Germanic ferment has quickened the European world throughout the course and aftermath of migrations was man’s relationship to God freed from the boundaries fixed by antiquity. Only then did man scale the barriers of the world and reach into the infinite that he might embrace the Godhead and return from Him to make all things new.
The Germanic longing to embrace the whole of being was one with the drive for transcendence. The Germanic spirit wished to surround the world in order to penetrate it completely. This passion both to embrace and to enter deeply the full sweep of existence explains the new vision of the world fashioned by medieval man.

Whew, ok, sorry about that, but I wanted to do Guardini justice. Although he is verbose and sometimes frustratingly vague, it seems to me Guardini’s basic point is fairly clear and interesting: he agrees with the Eastern viewpoint that the Germanic influence sigificantly changed western theology from its patristic roots, but, unlike most Eastern authors, he thinks this was necessary; he thinks that Patristic Christianity was somehow incomplete. I think this is an unstated viewpoint behind a lot western theologians and apologists. I’m interested in hearing what some people here think of this idea. Joe
 
I always get nervous when I hear people talk about such intangible things like a “Germanic spirit” and it seems Guardini goes on to talk about a “Germanic longing” and a “Germanic ferment.” These things are so hard to define and to nail down and only seem to lead to muddled and somewhat nebulous thinking that attributes historical changes and processes to some indefinite force that may or may not only belong to a certain tribe or people instead of where it belongs with real people and their society.

Now, where he seems to have gotten it right is that the Franks, since they established the first major and stable alternative kingdom in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire (Western), had a significant influence on Christianity and its look and spread. Indeed some of the things that were characteristic of the Franks and their theology has become ingrained in Western Christianity, like the Filioque (which inclusion in the creed may have had more to do with political posturing rather than a theological necessity). I believe the Franks were also opposed to the use of icons in their worship so they stopped or hindered devotion to icons in the west.

So it seems he’s on to something but I might not have used the exact words he did.

ChadS
 
Germanic or Celtic? Take a look at the spread of western Christianity after Rome fell. Who preserved Christianity? Germans? I don’t think so. Christiianity was preserved in the west in Ireland and it was Irish missionaries who moved east and taught the Sasenach. Alcuin of York was an Irish trained Anglo-Saxon who went to Charlemagne’s court and did such nice things such as revising the handwriting of the court among other things.

The Irish reintroduced Christian learning into western Europe not the Germans.
 
Although we do have to say that the Franks stopped the spread of Islam 😃 but they didn’t have such a good track record against the Norse :D. Course, neither did the Irish or the Sasenach for that matter…And the Holy Roman Empire founded by Charlemagne was neither Roman nor holy. 😛

Oooooh, let’s talk early medieval history… 😃
 
The Germanic spirit wished to surround the world in order to penetrate it completely. **This passion both to embrace and to enter deeply the full sweep of existence explains the new vision of the world fashioned by medieval man
Click to expand...
what does this mean? i think it’s all gibberish. way too vauge and nebulous.

as i understand it, it was the rediscovery of aristole by the angelic doctor via the crusades during the 13th century that defined western catholicism. i don’t think the franks had much to do with that. icons are platonic philosophy; statues and western art are arostoliean.

it was the irish who preserved christianity during the early middle ages and not the franks.
 
brotherhrolf,

Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t the Franks lead in the conversions of the Saxons to Christianity?

Perhaps the Celtic peoples did do more for the preservation and spread of Christianity than the Germanic peoples did. Seems Guardini may have it wrong.

Dee Dee, I believe the reasons the West does not use icons instead of statuary has less to do with any philosophical constructs and more to do with cultural preferences and biases exhibited by the Franks toward anything Eastern. The philosophical differences may have always been there but that shouldn’t have been a hindrance to their adoption or use on either side.

ChadS
 
ChadS said:
brotherhrolf,

Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t the Franks lead in the conversions of the Saxons to Christianity?

Perhaps the Celtic peoples did do more for the preservation and spread of Christianity than the Germanic peoples did. Seems Guardini may have it wrong.
Click to expand...
Even that is not correct. You are thinking of the Saxon Germans in Germany (which is nowhere near the same as the Anglo-Saxons, Jutes, Frisians etc). When all the turmoil in the 400s started, Ireland was a sea of civility and not affected by what went on the continent or in England. Ireland sent the first missionaries back into western Europe. First into England (even though there wasn’t an England per se) and then they trained/educated monks who went on. Alcuin of York (he of the wonderful carolingian miniscule handwriting) learned from Irish monks and then went to the court of Carolus Magnus (Charlemagne). That brief renaissance under Charlemagne fueled Europe’s recovery from both the Norse and Islam until the Twelfth Century Renaissance.

😃 I love history. Western civilization - " We’re not dead yet…we’re feeling better. Sorry, couldn’t help myself. 😃
 
brotherhrolf said:
Even that is not correct. You are thinking of the Saxon Germans in Germany (which is nowhere near the same as the Anglo-Saxons, Jutes, Frisians etc). When all the turmoil in the 400s started, Ireland was a sea of civility and not affected by what went on the continent or in England. Ireland sent the first missionaries back into western Europe. First into England (even though there wasn’t an England per se) and then they trained/educated monks who went on. Alcuin of York (he of the wonderful carolingian miniscule handwriting) learned from Irish monks and then went to the court of Carolus Magnus (Charlemagne). That brief renaissance under Charlemagne fueled Europe’s recovery from both the Norse and Islam until the Twelfth Century Renaissance.
Click to expand...
That makes sense concerning the Irish. After all Ireland wasn’t an outpost of the Roman Empire so when the Roman Empire finally collapsed their internal structure would’ve been largely unaffected allowing them the opportuninty for missionary work. Although it seems that the church in Rome also sent missionaries to the isles to begin converting the native population.

Actually I do believe the Franks and Chalemagne did attempt to convert the Saxons of mainland Europe but mostly failed. The Saxon upper classes converted leaving the masses to be converted a century or so later by English missionaries.

ChadS
 
brotherhrolf said:
Germanic or Celtic? Take a look at the spread of western Christianity after Rome fell. Who preserved Christianity? Germans? I don’t think so. Christiianity was preserved in the west in Ireland and it was Irish missionaries who moved east and taught the Sasenach. Alcuin of York was an Irish trained Anglo-Saxon who went to Charlemagne’s court and did such nice things such as revising the handwriting of the court among other things.

The Irish reintroduced Christian learning into western Europe not the Germans.
Click to expand...
No one will dispute the magnificent work of the Celtic missioners of those days. The fact is that they were working primarily in Germanic (Lombard, Burgundish, Goth & Suevic) conquered and occupied lands and Frankish imperial territory (a very helpful fact, because of the support the Frankish nobility provided them).

In fact, much of north-central Europe (mostly Gemanic) had for a time two parallel and rival church structures: the often generally lackluster and innefective native diocese (that sometimes went back hundreds of years) and the bounding more recently established Irish missions. The princes and Popes largely overcame this problem (of two rival and sometimes hostile church groups) by appointing some Irish missioners into the episcopal posts and thereby affecting a merger of sorts.

The whole spirituality question in this case revolves around the fact that kings usually appointed the bishops from among their own more recently converted kin and culture, sometimes sponsored (or insisted upon) the local councils and set the direction of the church.

The Second Council of Orange and the Council of Aachen and other such formative assemblies were not Celtic, they were Germanic. These had an enormous impact on the development of the western church’s theology. Eventually this theological development backflushed into the Emerald Isle as well.

One of my favorite books is “The Lord” by father Romano Guardini. It still has a prominant place on my bookshelf. However I never read any of his historical analysis as presented here.

I must say I prefer his spiritual literature.
 
brotherhrolf said:
Which would also make sense since the German Saxons, if I remember my geography correctly, lived just south of the Danes and Norse who didn’t convert until around 1000 AD.

amazon.com/Irish-Saved-Civilization-Hinges-History/dp/0385418493/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212587057&sr=8-1

This is a great book and one that can be used to springboard into other stories - e.g. Alcuin of York and Charlemagne.
Click to expand...
I think your geography memory is pretty accurate. I believe the Saxons inhabited areas in and adjacent to modern Jutland along with different tribes of Jutes and Frisians (who eventually with the Angles all became the Anglo-Saxons). I would agree I think the Norse and Vikings were the last pagans in western Europe to convert to Christianity.

I see on Amazon the book you linked gets a pretty heavy mix of positive and negative reviews. What’s your general sense of the book? Are the unfair reviews deserved or not?

Have you read “The Barbarian Conversion” by Richard Fletcher?

ChadS
 
I don’t believe that the book was ever intended to be a scholarly treatise but to stimulate thought and discussion. It was a featured selection of the History Book Club when I got it years ago, when it first came out.

Cahill simply summed up what I had already learned in an upper level history course on the Early Middle Ages. I haven’t read The Barbarian Conversion but I thank you for calling it to my attention. The period is absolutely fascinating.

The utterly massive migrations of peoples in the early Middle Ages went on for centuries on the continent. Until the Norse invasions (starting in 795 AD), Ireland was largely spared the turmoil experienced on the continent and in England. And, it is undeniably true that the Irish sent missionaries into England and then on to the continent - why else the Synod of Whitby, St. Columba et al?

No, I don’t believe in a “Celtic” church. IMHO, the “Celtic” church was in contact with the rest of Christianity however tenuous. One need only look at the similarities between some forms of Celtic knotwork and Coptic knotwork. It makes me wonder.
 
Dee Dee, I believe the reasons the West does not use icons instead of statuary has less to do with any philosophical constructs and more to do with cultural preferences and biases exhibited by the Franks toward anything Eastern.
Click to expand...
i got this from B16 (ratzinger) in one of his books, can’t remember which one but may have been spirit of the liturgy. everything has its roots in a philosophy, from the reformation to the cathars. christianity is essentially the product of greek philosophy conjoined to the hebrew God of creation. ethnicity has little to do with it.

all you have to do is see how art changed in the west. icons were widely used in the west before the 13th century. even the liturgy was more similar to the east than it is today. this idea that the germans were the bad influence on the roman church is silly. it comes from an over emphasis on ethnicity which is a problem with the eastern orthodox.
 
And as one learns in upper level medieval history courses there is the concept of the Twelfth Century Renaissance. It was a western phenomena and has nothing whatsoever to do with “Germanic” inlfluences. As was stated in the course: “The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman”.

And as a medieval calligrapher and illuminator, the west had iconographic images which are not the same as icons. Icons and iconographic images inserted into a manuscript are apples and oranges. I know all too well that I would never, ever style myself as an iconographer although I have illuminated iconographic images. Iconography is of the East and has specific applications and strictures.

A manuscript “iconographic image” of St. Dunstan:

http://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/cms_misc/images/teaching_and_research/history/dunstan.JPG

shows St. Dunstan kissing the hem of Our Lord’ robe.

Western iconography deviated from the Eastern in major ways long before the 13th century. Western calligraphy and illumination parted ways from the Eastern Church long before that.

See:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Kells

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindisfarne_Gospels

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Durrow

There is very little in these books which are iconographic in the eastern sense. These are manuscripts/illuminations drawn from the Celtic mind not the Greek.
 
The Germanic influence on Western Christendom in the early middle ages wasn’t the only influence. The churches that existed in Ireland, the British Isles, the Iberian Peninsula and in Italy all exerted influences of differing degrees at different times. For their differences in cultural and linguistic traditions they were remarkably united and had a great deal of contact with each other and shaped how each other practiced their Christianity.

Throughout history that’s how popular devotions to some saints spread and some liturgical feast days gained wide acceptance and popularity. There’s proof that Italian popes went out of their way to acquire Gallic, Frankish and Anglo-Saxon liturgical books to incorporate different offices, antiphons and chants into more centralized Latin rite books.

If there was Germanic influence it was probably a mixed bag of both good and bad. It was by no means the only culture going in Europe at the time. As brotherhrolf pointed out the “Dark Ages” probably weren’t all that dark. Learning went on, people kept moving around and influencing their surroundings.

ChadS
 
Western iconography deviated from the Eastern in major ways long before the 13th century. Western calligraphy and illumination parted ways from the Eastern Church long before that
Click to expand...
all pre rennasiance christian art in the west has its roots in the east. the picture you show has many elements of traditional iconography: lack of perspective, the cross behind Christ’s head, the scriptures in his hands.

celtic influence nonwithstanding, all ancient art in the west has two major influences: greek and rome, which were influenced by the orient.
 
I know John Henry Newman often lamented the church’s loss of the Germanic or Teutonic influence due to the Reformation. But he was referring to the post Reformation Germanic influence. He thought the Church was too submerged in Italian or “Southern” influences in his own day. 🙂
 
AmbroseSJ said:
I know John Henry Newman often lamented the church’s loss of the Germanic or Teutonic influence due to the Reformation. But he was referring to the post Reformation Germanic influence. He thought the Church was too submerged in Italian or “Southern” influences in his own day. 🙂
Click to expand...
That is obviously a different topic, but I think there is a lot to that. Joe
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top