What was the golden age of the Church?

[DL82]

If there was one.

If anyone wants to post reasons for their answer, that could make the thread a lot more interesting.

 

[DL82]

If there was one.

If anyone wants to post reasons for their answer, that could make the thread a lot more interesting.

 

[Vouthon]

I would say that it hasn’t come yet

I look foward to a new “springtime” and “pentecost”.

 

[po18guy]

Clearly, the birth of and building up of the Church as recorded in the Book of Acts was the first golden age, as I see it. The rapid growth, the first council and the generation of the NT scriptures was a vitally important time for the Church.

Withstanding the pre-Constantine Roman persecution was another golden age, as it was the period of many of the great martyrs, and the furtherance of the formation of the early Church. That rough time frame also pitted the Arian heresy against the Church. That took hundreds of years to put down. It set in concrete the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

Withstanding the reformation was another golden age, as it produced Trent and the stting in concrete of the canon of scripture.

Withstanding the “enlightenment” in Europe was another test of the Church, as Napoleon truly thought he could ruin the Church. He was exiled and the Pope he sought to ruin continued on, presiding over the restoration of the European faith.

But, we are in another golden age right now. The Church is being reconstituted, with orthodox and faithful men being moved into prime positions. For perhaps the first time in America, the Bishops were 100% united against the HHS mandate. As persecution of the Church increases, the strength of the Church follows.

Interesting times, indeed.

 

[catholictiger]

there are probably multiple golden ages of the church one I can think of for sure is around the time of augustine when Christians were not persecuted any more. In the 4th and 5th century the Roman Schools where like the Harvard of today if not better. I believe some of the smartest Catholic thinkers came out of that time period.

maybe the time when St. Thomas Aquinas was around was one to.

maybe a couple others.

 

[LegoGE1947]

there are probably multiple golden ages of the church one I can think of for sure is around the time of augustine when Christians were not persecuted any more. In the 4th and 5th century the Roman Schools where like the Harvard of today if not better. I believe some of the smartest Catholic thinkers came out of that time period.

maybe the time when St. Thomas Aquinas was around was one to.

maybe a couple others.

It has existed in one form or other since the day of Pentacost.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Any honest historian or enthusiast for Church history will tell you that there is no “golden age” of the Church; never has been and there never will be until Christ comes in His glory. This is because the Church is a reflection, an oftentimes very imperfect reflection, of the age to come.

There have been abuses, heresies, reforms, etc., etc., etc., throughout the long history of the Church. Sexual immorality among both laity and clergy, drunkenness, liturgical abuse, etc., have been around at least since the time of St. Paul. He wrote against such things in his letters, especially his letter to the Corinthians.

The earliest Ecumenical Councils were convened not only to correct heresy, but also to correct abusive and/or self-destructive behavior among both clergy and laity. And if you’ve ever read any of the documents of any of the Lateran Councils, particularly Lateran IV (around the time of Sts. Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure), you’ll realize that those Councils weren’t so much about dogma as they were discipline among the clergy.

Most of the saints that we honor didn’t live in peaceful times within the Church. Sts. Francis and Clare of Assisi, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Catherine of Sienna, Sts. John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila, etc., etc., etc. were all very avid and outspoken reformers of the Church. They spoke boldly yet charitably against the abuses that existed in their day. St. Augustine himself combatted the heresy of Pelagianism (although sometimes went to the opposite extreme), and St. Dominic founded his great Order to combat the Albigensian heresy of his day.

I tend to agree with the likes of Fr. Robert Taft, S.J. There is no “golden age” of the Church, save for the age in which we live now. By this he means, there’s no point in daydreaming about the past and longing for an elusive “golden age.” Our lot is to make the best of the age in which we live, just as the saints of old have done throughout the history of the Church.

 

[Joe_5859]

I think the other posters are right about there not being a true “golden age” in the Church except for that which is to come in eternity.

That said, some ages are more fruitful than others. Take a look at the 13th century. You have the rise of the mendicant orders: St. Francis, St. Clare, and St. Dominic all founded their orders which did much to revitalize the Church. Then you get the great theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas (the Dominican) and St. Bonaventure (the Franciscan) and the flowering of the University system. Lots of good stuff happening.

But then, every age has its challenges and successes – even our own age. We have in the 20th century the first pope to be canonized in nearly 500 years. And it seems most if not all of our recent popes are on the canonization track. We have lots of new tools at our disposal: the documents of the Second Vatican Council, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, etc. We have a rise in lay apostolates that are doing much to spread the faith. Lots of good stuff happening.

 

[CB_Catholic]

I think the other posters are right about there not being a true “golden age” in the Church except for that which is to come in eternity.

That said, some ages are more fruitful than others. Take a look at the 13th century. You have the rise of the mendicant orders: St. Francis, St. Clare, and St. Dominic all founded their orders which did much to revitalize the Church. Then you get the great theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas (the Dominican) and St. Bonaventure (the Franciscan) and the flowering of the University system. Lots of good stuff happening.

But then, every age has its challenges and successes – even our own age. We have in the 20th century the first pope to be canonized in nearly 500 years. And it seems most if not all of our recent popes are on the canonization track. We have lots of new tools at our disposal: the documents of the Second Vatican Council, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, etc. We have a rise in lay apostolates that are doing much to spread the faith. Lots of good stuff happening.

It is so refreshing to hear something positive about the Church in or age. Sometimes I think we look at the problems and imagine that is all there is, forgetting all the good.

It is interesting that no one has mentioned the 40’s, 50’s and early 60’s as the golden age, as this is what many people refer to when they talk about the good old days. Having grown up in that era, I can assure people it was not.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It is so refreshing to hear something positive about the Church in or age. Sometimes I think we look at the problems and imagine that is all there is, forgetting all the good.

It is interesting that no one has mentioned the 40’s, 50’s and early 60’s as the golden age, as this is what many people refer to when they talk about the good old days. Having grown up in that era, I can assure people it was not.

I agree in part with your negative assessment of the 40s, 50s and 60s. After all, the priests and nuns who “went over the hill” en masse in the 1960s and 1970s, or went heretical, grew up and had their formation in the 40s, 50s and 60s. There were a few bishops whose conduct was terrible in lots of ways. Some “theologians” taught outright heresy and immorality. Something was clearly wrong. God may be rightly thanked that the young nuns, priests and bishops now coming on line are very different.

But among ordinary people in the pews, I think there was less apostasy than there seems to be in the last couple of decades. There was less willingness to canoodle with evil as so many do now in their political acts. There seems to have been more generosity if you look at the structures for the Church institutions of the time.

I think it was mixed then, just as it is now.

 

[Zekariya]

The first and second centuries were pretty good. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. The fourth century saw St Constantine establish the “imperial” Church and the first Ecumenical Council (a golden age of fighting heresies). Overall, each century has had it’s pros and cons (the fourth Council was not done that well and saw the followers of St Cyril of Alexandria, such as the Copts cast out due to retaining St Cyril’s saying, “one incarnate nature of God the Word”).

 

[Zekariya]

The first and second centuries were pretty good. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. The fourth century saw St Constantine establish the “imperial” Church and the first Ecumenical Council (a golden age of fighting heresies). Overall, each century has had it’s pros and cons (the fourth Council was not done that well and saw the followers of St Cyril of Alexandria, such as the Copts cast out due to retaining St Cyril’s saying, “one incarnate nature of God the Word”).

 

[Zekariya]

But, we are in another golden age right now. The Church is being reconstituted, with orthodox and faithful men being moved into prime positions. For perhaps the first time in America, the Bishops were 100% united against the HHS mandate. As persecution of the Church increases, the strength of the Church follows.

Interesting times, indeed.

Amen!!!

 

[Dolezal]

If there was one.

If anyone wants to post reasons for their answer, that could make the thread a lot more interesting.

There are three periods for me.

First, the period between Tertullian and St. Benedict. Reasons: Tertullian; development (or clarification) of Christian doctrine; persecution of the Christians; victory of the Church; St. Augustine; St. Jerome; Western monasticism and the Rule of St. Benedict; development of European civilization.

Second, the High Middle Ages. Reasons: Romanesque architecture; the crusades; rediscovery of Aristotle; St. Thomas Aquinas; and I guess Gothic architecture (but I don’t like the Gothic style).

Third, the Counter-Reformation. Reasons: re-invigoration and purification of the Church; Council of Trent; standardization of the liturgy.

A possible fourth period would have been between the Second Vatican Council and present, had the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, and the Council in general, been followed. I think we would have seen a revival of the Roman rite and Roman Catholic life. As Archbishop Chaput said, the Second Vatican Council was “the primary grace of God to the Catholic Church in 20th century”. Too bad we did not adhere to the Council.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

it may refer to a european period than anything else. when europe had almost lost the faith after the barbarians overcame the roman empire, paganism was winning out over european christianity which had spread initially through the roman empire.
it was the irish monk/friars who established centers of learning all over ireland, so that even italian scholars from rome were travelling to ireland to study in irish monasteries in the 500’s, 600’s, 700’s or something like that.
these traveling irish monks spread from ireland all over england and europe building monasteries, they re-christianized europe from the pagan barbarians.
the golden age of christianity; i see it as being this time, when christians went to work in the right spirit and so, were successful wherever they went as missionaries.

 

[Genesis315]

It depends what you mean by golden age, but there is always a crisis and problems.

Somewhat paradoxically, it’s when things appear worst for the Church from a worldly viewpoint, they are actually best, and vice versa.

That’s why St. Bernard applied the a verse of Isaiah to the Church “Behold, in peace is my bitterness most bitter (Is. 38:17).”
St. Bernard:

“It was once predicted of the Church, and now the time of its fulfillment draws near: Behold, in peace is my bitterness most bitter (Is. 38:17). It was bitter at first in the persecution of the martyrs, more bitter in later times in the struggle with the great heresiarchs, but most bitter of all now in the evil lives of her members. She cannot drive them away, and she cannot flee from them, so strongly established are they, and so multiplied are they above measure. The plague of the Church is inward; it is incurable. It is that which makes its bitterness most bitter, even in the midst of peace. But in what peace! Peace it is, and yet it is not peace. There is peace with the world, but not from her own sons. At this time is heard the voice of her complaining: I have nourished and brought forth children, and they have rebelled against me (Is. 1:2). They have rebelled. They have dishonored me with their evil lives, by their many works which walk in darkness.”