The political and religious implications of the defeat of Arianism.

[reddogs]

The views of Arius, a theorizing presbyter in 4th century Alexandria, trained in the schools of Greek philosophy and rationality, spread throughout the Roman Empire and gained. Arius had a much younger political rival and adversary in the shape of a fellow Alexandrian, Athanasius, a protégé of the then bishop (Alexander). At this stage, there wasno universally recognised orthodox creed so their competing views on God were seen as more thelogical debate than religious controversy. Arius was an proficient orator, writer and many began to accept his veiws on God. Because of his views, Arius was forced to leave Alexandria in 319, and he went first to Palestine and then in Roman Asia, where he spread his views and finally caused the controversy to spread to the point where the emperor had to convene a Church Council to decide the matter.

Rivals in every sense, Arius and Athanasius were threathening any hopes Constantine had of a united Christian Empire. He convened the first (ecumenical) Church Council and demanded an agreed ("orthodox") creed. Convening at Nicaea in 325, for several months the theologians wrangled, but finally decided the matter as the assembled bishops (with only two exceptions) endorsed the "Nicaean Creed" veiw of God . Though Constantine's Council of Nicaea was ever after hailed as the lodestone of Catholic Orthodoxy, Constantine vacilated between the competing schools of thought.
Athanasius gained the bishop's throne in 328 and the controversy with Arianism intesified as it spread even further into the many tribes on the edge of the Roman Empire.

Challenge of Arianism.--But the fourth century was destined to witness an obstacle thrown across the path of this ambitious dream. The prophecy had declared that the power represented by the little horn would "subdue three kings." In the rise and development of Arianism early in the fourth century and the challenge it presented to church supremacy, we find the causes leading to the crushing of three of the kingdoms of Western Rome.

Arius, parish priest of the ancient and influential church of Alexandria, promulgated his doctrine to the world, occasioning so fierce a controversy in the Christian church that a general council was called at Nicaea, by the emperor Constantine in A.D. 325, to consider and rule upon its teaching. Arius maintained "that the Son was totally and essentially distinct from the Father; that He was the first and noblest of those beings whom the Father had created out of nothing, the instrument by whose subordinate operation the Almighty Father formed the universe, and therefore inferior to the Father, both in nature and dignity." This opinion was condemned by the council, which decreed that Christ was of one and the same substance with the Father. Hereupon Arius was banished to Illyria, and his followers were compelled to give their assent to the creed composed on that occasion. John L. Mosheim, An Ecclesiastical History, Ancient and Modern, Vol. I, p. 412; Arthur P. Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church, pp. 239, 240.

The controversy itself, however, was not to be disposed of in this summary manner. For ages it continued to agitate the Christian world, the Arians everywhere becoming the bitter enemies of the pope and of the Roman Catholic Church. It was evident that the spread of Arianism among the arising tribes pushing into the weakening Roman Empire would check the onward march of Catholicism, and that the possession of Italy and spiritual capital of Rome by a people of the Arian persuasion would be fatal to the supremacy of a Catholic bishop.

As the Roman Empire eventully started to crumble these tribes started their rise in power to became kingdoms, the Alamanni (Germany), the Franks (France), the Burgundians (the Swiss), the Suevi (Portugal), the Lombards (Italy), the Visigoths (Spain) and the Anglo-Saxons (England) and became powers to be dealt with. As Arianism had spread three of the tribes that had accepted this view were attacked and crushed. Those three were the Heruli (destroyed 493 AD), the Vandals (destroyed 534 AD) ,and the Ostrogoths (destroyed 538 AD) essentually leaving no rivals or competing veiws on orthodoxy to the Roman Catholic Church, they were essentually destroyed because of their belief of Arianism.

The position is here confidently taken that the three powers, or horns, plucked up by the roots were the Heruli, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths; and this position rests upon reliable historical data. Odoacer, the leader of the Heruli, was the first of the barbarians who reigned over the Romans. He took the throne of Italy, A.D. 476. Of his religious belief Gibbon says: "Like the rest of the barbarians he had been instructed in the Arian heresy; but he revered the monastic and episcopal characters; and the silence of the Catholics attests the toleration which they enjoyed." Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. III, chap. 36, pp. 515, 516.

"The Ostrogoths, the Burgundians, the Suevi, and the Vandals, who had listened to the eloquence of the Latin clergy, preferred the more intelligible lessons of their domestic teachers; and Arianism was adopted as the national faith of the warlike converts who were seated on the ruins of the Western Empire. This irreconcilable difference of religion was a perpetual source of jealousy and hatred; and the reproach of barbarian was embittered by the more odious epithet of heretic. The heroes of the north, who had submitted with some reluctance to believe that all their ancestors were in hell, were astonished and exasperated to learn that they themselves had only changed the mode of their eternal condemnation." Ibid., chap. 37, p. 547.

The Arian doctrine had a marked influence on the church at that time, as will be observed in the following paragraphs: "The whole of the vast Gothic population which descended on the Roman Empire, so far as it was Christian at all, held to the faith of the Alexandrian heretic. Our first Teutonic version of the Scriptures was by an Arian missionary, Ulfilas. The first conqueror of Rome, Alaric, the first conqueror of Africa, Genseric, were Arians. Theodoric the Great, king of Italy, and hero of the 'Nibelungenlied,' was an Arian. The vacant place in his massive tomb at Ravenna is a witness of the vengeance which the Orthodox took on his memory, when on their triumph they tore down the porphyry vase in which his Arian subjects had enshrined his ashes." Arthur P. Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church, p. 151.


Machiavelli says: "Nearly all the wars which the northern barbarians carried on in Italy, it may be here remarked, were occasioned by the pontiffs; and the hordes with which the country was inundated, were generally called in by them." Niccolo Machiavelli, History of Florence, p. 14.

The relation which these Arian kings sustained to the pope is shown in the following testimony from Mosheim in his church history:
"On the other hand, it is certain, from a variety of the most authentic records, that both the emperors and the nations in general were far from being disposed to bear with patience the yoke of servitude which the see of Rome was arrogantly imposing upon the Christian church. The Gothic princes set bounds to the power of the bishop of Rome in Italy, permitted none to be raised to the pontificate without their approbation, and reserved to themselves the right of judging concerning the legality of every new election." John L. Mosheim, An Ecclesiastical History, Ancient and Modern, Vol. I, p. 113, 114.

An instance in proof of this statement occurs in the history of Odoacer, the first Arian king above mentioned. When, on the death of Pope Simplicius, A.D. 483, the clergy and people had assembled for the election of a new pope, suddenly Basilius, lieutenant of King Odoacer, appeared in the assembly, expressed his surprise that any such work as appointing a successor to the deceased pope should be undertaken without him, in the name of the king declared all that had been done null and void, and ordered the election to be begun anew.

Later, Theodoric established his Ostrogoths in the Italian peninsula. He was an Arian, and the law of Odoacer subjecting the election of the pope to the approval of the king, was still retained. The bishop of Rome was under the power of the Arian king who ordered him not to set foot again upon Italian soil until he had carried out the will of the king. The church could certainly not hope for much advancement toward any kind of supremacy in the politcal and religous realm until that Arain power was taken out of the way.


While the Catholics were thus feeling the restraining power of an Arian king in Italy, they were suffering a violent persecution from the Arian Vandals in Africa. Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. III, chap. 37, pp. 548-552.

(http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/clt4/drdan7.htm#f18)Elliot says: " The Vandal kings were not only Arians, but persecutors of the Catholics; in Sardinia and Corsica under the Roman Episcopate, we may presume, as well as in Africa." Edward B. Elliott, Horae, Apocalypticae, Vol. III, p. 139, Note 3.

Such was the position of affairs, when, A.D. 533, Justinian entered upon his Vandal and Gothic wars. Wishing to obtain the influence of the pope and the Catholic party, he issued that memorable decree which was to constitute the pope of all the churches, and from the carrying out of which A.D. 538, and whoever will read the history of the African campaign, 533-534, and the Italian campaign, 534-538, will notice that the Catholics everywhere hailed as deliverers the army of Belisarius, the general of Justinian.

From the historical testimony above cited, we think it clearly established that the three horns plucked up were the powers named: the Heruli, A.D. 493, the Vandals, in 534, and the Ostrogoths finally in 553, though effective opposition by the latter to the decree of Justinian ceased when they were driven from Rome by Belisarius in 538. See Student's Gibbon, pp. 309-319.

[OntheDL]

All pagan religions worshipped a trinity: father, son and mother trinity. Although the word Trinity does not appear in in the bible, Arianism was problematic.

[reddogs]

The point is that until Arianism was rejected theologically and millitarily the Catholic church could not project itself as the one true religion and assume its church supremacy.

[OntheDL]

The point is that until Arianism was rejected theologically and millitarily the Catholic church could not project itself as the one true religion and assume its church supremacy.

Yeah, I agree. I was pointing out Trinitianism fits the religious system of the universal church.

[reddogs]

A question to mod's, how far are we allowed to discuss the nature of the Trinity in this site?.......

[OntheDL]

The views of Arius, a theorizing presbyter in 4th century Alexandria, trained in the schools of Greek philosophy and rationality, spread throughout the Roman Empire and gained. Arius had a much younger political rival and adversary in the shape of a fellow Alexandrian, Athanasius, a protégé of the then bishop (Alexander). At this stage, there wasno universally recognised orthodox creed so their competing views on God were seen as more thelogical debate than religious controversy. Arius was an proficient orator, writer and many began to accept his veiws on God. Because of his views, Arius was forced to leave Alexandria in 319, and he went first to Palestine and then in Roman Asia, where he spread his views and finally caused the controversy to spread to the point where the emperor had to convene a Church Council to decide the matter.

Rivals in every sense, Arius and Athanasius were threathening any hopes Constantine had of a united Christian Empire. He convened the first (ecumenical) Church Council and demanded an agreed ("orthodox") creed. Convening at Nicaea in 325, for several months the theologians wrangled, but finally decided the matter as the assembled bishops (with only two exceptions) endorsed the "Nicaean Creed" veiw of God . Though Constantine's Council of Nicaea was ever after hailed as the lodestone of Catholic Orthodoxy, Constantine vacilated between the competing schools of thought.
Athanasius gained the bishop's throne in 328 and the controversy with Arianism intesified as it spread even further into the many tribes on the edge of the Roman Empire.

Challenge of Arianism.--But the fourth century was destined to witness an obstacle thrown across the path of this ambitious dream. The prophecy had declared that the power represented by the little horn would "subdue three kings." In the rise and development of Arianism early in the fourth century and the challenge it presented to church supremacy, we find the causes leading to the crushing of three of the kingdoms of Western Rome.

Arius, parish priest of the ancient and influential church of Alexandria, promulgated his doctrine to the world, occasioning so fierce a controversy in the Christian church that a general council was called at Nicaea, by the emperor Constantine in A.D. 325, to consider and rule upon its teaching. Arius maintained "that the Son was totally and essentially distinct from the Father; that He was the first and noblest of those beings whom the Father had created out of nothing, the instrument by whose subordinate operation the Almighty Father formed the universe, and therefore inferior to the Father, both in nature and dignity." This opinion was condemned by the council, which decreed that Christ was of one and the same substance with the Father. Hereupon Arius was banished to Illyria, and his followers were compelled to give their assent to the creed composed on that occasion. John L. Mosheim, An Ecclesiastical History, Ancient and Modern, Vol. I, p. 412; Arthur P. Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church, pp. 239, 240.

The controversy itself, however, was not to be disposed of in this summary manner. For ages it continued to agitate the Christian world, the Arians everywhere becoming the bitter enemies of the pope and of the Roman Catholic Church. It was evident that the spread of Arianism among the arising tribes pushing into the weakening Roman Empire would check the onward march of Catholicism, and that the possession of Italy and spiritual capital of Rome by a people of the Arian persuasion would be fatal to the supremacy of a Catholic bishop.

As the Roman Empire eventully started to crumble these tribes started their rise in power to became kingdoms, the Alamanni (Germany), the Franks (France), the Burgundians (the Swiss), the Suevi (Portugal), the Lombards (Italy), the Visigoths (Spain) and the Anglo-Saxons (England) and became powers to be dealt with. As Arianism had spread three of the tribes that had accepted this view were attacked and crushed. Those three were the Heruli (destroyed 493 AD), the Vandals (destroyed 534 AD) ,and the Ostrogoths (destroyed 538 AD) essentually leaving no rivals or competing veiws on orthodoxy to the Roman Catholic Church, they were essentually destroyed because of their belief of Arianism.

The position is here confidently taken that the three powers, or horns, plucked up by the roots were the Heruli, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths; and this position rests upon reliable historical data. Odoacer, the leader of the Heruli, was the first of the barbarians who reigned over the Romans. He took the throne of Italy, A.D. 476. Of his religious belief Gibbon says: "Like the rest of the barbarians he had been instructed in the Arian heresy; but he revered the monastic and episcopal characters; and the silence of the Catholics attests the toleration which they enjoyed." Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. III, chap. 36, pp. 515, 516.

"The Ostrogoths, the Burgundians, the Suevi, and the Vandals, who had listened to the eloquence of the Latin clergy, preferred the more intelligible lessons of their domestic teachers; and Arianism was adopted as the national faith of the warlike converts who were seated on the ruins of the Western Empire. This irreconcilable difference of religion was a perpetual source of jealousy and hatred; and the reproach of barbarian was embittered by the more odious epithet of heretic. The heroes of the north, who had submitted with some reluctance to believe that all their ancestors were in hell, were astonished and exasperated to learn that they themselves had only changed the mode of their eternal condemnation." Ibid., chap. 37, p. 547.

The Arian doctrine had a marked influence on the church at that time, as will be observed in the following paragraphs: "The whole of the vast Gothic population which descended on the Roman Empire, so far as it was Christian at all, held to the faith of the Alexandrian heretic. Our first Teutonic version of the Scriptures was by an Arian missionary, Ulfilas. The first conqueror of Rome, Alaric, the first conqueror of Africa, Genseric, were Arians. Theodoric the Great, king of Italy, and hero of the 'Nibelungenlied,' was an Arian. The vacant place in his massive tomb at Ravenna is a witness of the vengeance which the Orthodox took on his memory, when on their triumph they tore down the porphyry vase in which his Arian subjects had enshrined his ashes." Arthur P. Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church, p. 151.


Machiavelli says: "Nearly all the wars which the northern barbarians carried on in Italy, it may be here remarked, were occasioned by the pontiffs; and the hordes with which the country was inundated, were generally called in by them." Niccolo Machiavelli, History of Florence, p. 14.

The relation which these Arian kings sustained to the pope is shown in the following testimony from Mosheim in his church history:
"On the other hand, it is certain, from a variety of the most authentic records, that both the emperors and the nations in general were far from being disposed to bear with patience the yoke of servitude which the see of Rome was arrogantly imposing upon the Christian church. The Gothic princes set bounds to the power of the bishop of Rome in Italy, permitted none to be raised to the pontificate without their approbation, and reserved to themselves the right of judging concerning the legality of every new election." John L. Mosheim, An Ecclesiastical History, Ancient and Modern, Vol. I, p. 113, 114.

An instance in proof of this statement occurs in the history of Odoacer, the first Arian king above mentioned. When, on the death of Pope Simplicius, A.D. 483, the clergy and people had assembled for the election of a new pope, suddenly Basilius, lieutenant of King Odoacer, appeared in the assembly, expressed his surprise that any such work as appointing a successor to the deceased pope should be undertaken without him, in the name of the king declared all that had been done null and void, and ordered the election to be begun anew.

Later, Theodoric established his Ostrogoths in the Italian peninsula. He was an Arian, and the law of Odoacer subjecting the election of the pope to the approval of the king, was still retained. The bishop of Rome was under the power of the Arian king who ordered him not to set foot again upon Italian soil until he had carried out the will of the king. The church could certainly not hope for much advancement toward any kind of supremacy in the politcal and religous realm until that Arain power was taken out of the way.


While the Catholics were thus feeling the restraining power of an Arian king in Italy, they were suffering a violent persecution from the Arian Vandals in Africa. Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. III, chap. 37, pp. 548-552.

Elliot says: " The Vandal kings were not only Arians, but persecutors of the Catholics; in Sardinia and Corsica under the Roman Episcopate, we may presume, as well as in Africa." Edward B. Elliott, Horae, Apocalypticae, Vol. III, p. 139, Note 3.

Such was the position of affairs, when, A.D. 533, Justinian entered upon his Vandal and Gothic wars. Wishing to obtain the influence of the pope and the Catholic party, he issued that memorable decree which was to constitute the pope of all the churches, and from the carrying out of which A.D. 538, and whoever will read the history of the African campaign, 533-534, and the Italian campaign, 534-538, will notice that the Catholics everywhere hailed as deliverers the army of Belisarius, the general of Justinian.

From the historical testimony above cited, we think it clearly established that the three horns plucked up were the powers named: the Heruli, A.D. 493, the Vandals, in 534, and the Ostrogoths finally in 553, though effective opposition by the latter to the decree of Justinian ceased when they were driven from Rome by Belisarius in 538. See Student's Gibbon, pp. 309-319.

I have seen other sources 'sugguest' these three horns plucked by the roots were bible-believing, 7th-day sabbath keepers.

I'm not convinced one way or another if they were arians or sabbath keepers.

[reddogs]

I am not trying to convince you of that, I am showing what challenges to church supremacy were emerging that had to be defeated before the power of papal Rome became the spiritual and political rule of the land.......

[OntheDL]

I am not trying to convince you of that, I am showing what challenges to church supremacy were emerging that had to be defeated before the power of papal Rome became the spiritual and political rule of the land.......

Right, these three horns had obvious theological differences from the Little Horn. What exactly were these differences that they had to be uprooted is not clear to me.

[Jimlarmore]

Reddogs,

Belarsarius, defeated these three nations under the command of Justinian but in 538 the pope came back from Constantinople and took possession of the city as well. It was this move that marked the beginning of the 1260 day prophecy as we know it. The final defeat of arianism occurred as you say in 553 when the last of the Ostrogoths were destroyed.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

[Sophia7]

A question to mod's, how far are we allowed to discuss the nature of the Trinity in this site?.......

You are allowed to discuss the nature of the Trinity. Just be aware that in order to post in the Christians-Only sections of CF, you must profess a belief in the Trinity, according to Rule 1.3:

1.3 Misrepresentation of Beliefs Prohibited

You will not misrepresent your beliefs to make posts in those areas of the site designated "Christians Only" or to use one of the "Christian" icons. You may only make posts in those sections if you agree with the contents of the Nicene Creed and the Trinitarian nature of God, with the exception of threads containing the [OPEN] tag in their titles. You may only use one of the "Christian" icons if you agree with the contents of the Nicene Creed and the Trinitarian nature of God.The Nicene Creed can be found here (http://www.christianforums.com/rules). What is necessary for CF purposes is not reciting the exact words but just agreeing with the beliefs expressed in the Nicene Creed.

I know some Adventists who do not accept the Trinitarian nature of God; we have a whole group of them in one of our local churches. They follow in the footsteps of some of the early Adventist pioneers who were Semi-Arian, including James White and Joseph Bates, who denied the Trinity because of their Christian Connexion background. Some Adventists today still hold anti-Trinitarian views although their issue is not so much with the nature of Christ and His relationship to the Father. Most of the Adventists that I know who object to the concept of the Trinity don't believe that the Holy Spirit is a person. I also know of at least one Adventist here at CF who doesn't believe in the Trinity and thus can't use a Christian logo or post in the Adventist forum (except for in [OPEN] threads).

[reddogs]

Jim,

You are correct, but I am focusing on the geopolitics and theological aspects, it was not the total destruction of the Arian kingdoms but their power, politically and religious which what was blocking the supremecy of the church. At this time period the "three horns," which were waging war against pagan Rome, were also waging a theological or religious war against Catholicism.

The Heruli, the Goths, and the Vandals, symbolized by the three horns, embraced the Arian faith and created a real danger of Arian influence over the church. During this time period Justinian declared the bishop of Rome to be the head of the church, and the corrector of heretics, in an attempt to restrain the Arian faith from dominating Catholic doctrines.

Justinian's efforts to uphold Catholic doctrines against the Arians opened the door for the Catholic Church to dominate with its orthodoxy, begin persecution, restrict certain books which threatened their doctrines "of traditions of man". This restriction alos included the Bible, for they began to teach that only the church could safely read it. The total domination of the theological orthodoxy, and the political and religious power through the appointment of the bishop of Rome to the head of the church was the beginining of the rise of the Papal Power.

When Clovis, the king of France, converted and dedicated his sword and his country to the church and its fight against the other Arian kingdoms, it was almost a 'domino' affect. France became the first Catholic nation, the first of seven kingdoms found in Europe to renounce their pagan beliefs and embrace Catholicism, and also the first to submit the nation to the service of the church, but the others began to follow. The conversion of Clovis [496 A.D.] is said to have been the occasion of bestowing upon the French monarch the titles `Most Christian Majesty' and `Eldest Son of the Church.' France became the first Catholic nation, the first of seven kingdoms found in Europe to renounce their pagan beliefs and embrace Catholicism, and also the first to submit the nation to the service of the Papacy. This alliance had influence on the kingdoms around it as started a 'domino' affect and provided the ways and means to defeat the three Arian kingdoms as they were caught in a vise, classical divided and conquer. By AD 508 the other seven kingdoms of Europe slowly were brought into subjection or converted.


In 508 A.D. these powers of Europe began to turn against the last of the unconverted Arian kingdoms leaving them to face Justininians army and by 538 A.D. the last of the three kingdoms met defeat and thus it eliminated this obstruction to papal power, and the Papacy ascended to political and religious leadership which made all the former tribes/kingdoms/horns of Europe follow it.

Now some have the following issues, all the 3 kingdoms were not "immeadiately and completely destroyed" as the remnants took time to hunt down and eliminate, the rise of the papal power was still met with some resistance from the Emperor, and of course the other Bishops from Alexandria and other centers of religion fought to hold on to their power and influence.

But AD 538 marks the elimination of the political and religious obstruction of the last of the 3 kingdoms and in the stream of History AD 538 is the "beginning" of the Papal Supremecy or we can chase minute issues of degree till time eternal and never agree, much as the Arians did in their theology on the trinity and fell into differing views which have not been resolved to this day.

I am getting more understanding as I study and the Holy Spirit is opening my eyes and allowing me to comprehending it.

God Bless
Red

[reddogs]

In the river of time AD 538 is a historical reference point the equivalent of 1776 for America, there were many events in the timeline leading up to it and many after, but this is where the political landscape change. Ask any red blooded American lover of liberty and freedom, and invariably they will point to 1776 as the reference to the start of our nation.

[RC_NewProtestants]

In the river of time AD 538 is a historical reference point the equivalent of 1776 for America, there were many events in the timeline leading up to it and many after, but this is where the political landscape change. Ask any red blooded American lover of liberty and freedom, and invariably they will point to 1776 as the reference to the start of our nation.

Really what happened in 538? As I recall 1776 was the signing of the declaration of independence which was an official declaration that the American colonies were no longer under the control of the English. What is the equivalent in 538.

to think that the destruction of various Barbarian tribes was because of their Arian beliefs is historically naive. But then that is also the case for those who hold to the mythical date of 538 so not really a surprise. Other groups such as the Lombards were also Arian but the belief died out as it became harder to correlate with the Christian religion. Historians may note the conflict between Arian and Nicene Christians but it is the philosophical side that deals with why one argument won over another argument.

[RC_NewProtestants]

The inclusion of the Heruli in the 3 kingdom theory is actually kind of funny as they were pretty minor at the time and they were basically destroyed by the Lombards (aka Langobards)

By the end of the 4th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_century) the Heruls were subjugated by the Ostrogoths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrogoths). When the Ostrogothic kingdom of Ermanaric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ermanaric) was destroyed by the Huns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns) in about 375 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/375), the Heruls became subject to the Hunnic empire. Only after the fall of the Hunnic realm in 454 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/454), were the Heruls able to create their own kingdom in southern Slovakia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovakia) at the March and Theiss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tisza) rivers.


After this kingdom was destroyed by the Langobards, however, Herulian fortunes waned. Remaining Heruls joined the Langobards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langobard) and moved to Italy, and some of them sought refuge with the Gepids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gepid). Marcellinus comes recorded that the Romans (meaning the Byzantines) who allowed them to resettle depopulated "lands and cities" in Moravia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravia), near Singidunum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singidunum) (Belgrade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgrade)); this was done "by order of Anastasius Caesar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastasius_I_%28emperor%29)" sometime between June 29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_29) and August 31 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_31), 512 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/512). After one generation, this minor federate kingdom disappeared from the historical records.


Records indicate, however, that the Heruli served in the armies of the Byzantine emperors for a number of years, in particular in the campaigns of Belisarius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belisarius), when much of the old Roman territory, including Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy), Syria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria), and North Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa) was recaptured. Pharus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharas_the_Herulian) was a notable Herulian commander during this period. Several thousand Heruli served in the personal guard of Belisarius throughout the campaigns. They disappear from historical record by the mid-6th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_century).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heruli

[reddogs]

What happened in 1776, a few people got together and put their names on a piece of paper, it wasnt even a decree from a King or Emperor, just a few colonist and half of them where against the idea. But the few colonist had influence in the political arena and military muscle to win enough battles and gradually wear out the British redcoats over the the years and eventually America came to be.........so dates are made or can be made significant by the eventual outcome, not what happened on them as if they had failed, no one would know what 1776 signified.......

[OntheDL]

Really what happened in 538? As I recall 1776 was the signing of the declaration of independence which was an official declaration that the American colonies were no longer under the control of the English. What is the equivalent in 538.

to think that the destruction of various Barbarian tribes was because of their Arian beliefs is historically naive. But then that is also the case for those who hold to the mythical date of 538 so not really a surprise. Other groups such as the Lombards were also Arian but the belief died out as it became harder to correlate with the Christian religion. Historians may note the conflict between Arian and Nicene Christians but it is the philosophical side that deals with why one argument won over another argument.

"The Papacy's power became supreme in Christiandom in 538AD due to the letter of Roman emperor Justinian known as Justinian decree, which set up and acknowledged the Bishop of Rome the head of all churches it gave the papacy political power as well as civil power as well as ecclesiastical. This letter became a part of Justinian code, the foundmental law of the mpire, and in the year, [538] Pope Vigalist ascended to the papal chair under the military protection of Belasarius." --- Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol 3, p327, Charles Scribner and Company, 1867.

[RC_NewProtestants]

"The Papacy's power became supreme in Christiandom in 538AD due to the letter of Roman emperor Justinian known as Justinian decree, which set up and acknowledged the Bishop of Rome the head of all churches it gave the papacy political power as well as civil power as well as ecclesiastical. This letter became a part of Justinian code, the foundmental law of the mpire, and in the year, [538] Pope Vigalist ascended to the papal chair under the military protection of Belasarius." --- Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol 3, p327, Charles Scribner and Company, 1867. I don't know if that is true or not, I do know that it is not found in the 1910 edition which is available on line at:
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/About.htm

You can easily search each chapter which I did for "538"
It should not be a real surprise to anyone that something which provides it's best historical evidence from something written in 1867, that the likely hood of it being accurate history yet not found in modern history books is not likely really accurate.

The closet to your quote is this:
Through her influence the Monophysite Anthimus was made patriarch of Constantinople (535), and the characterless Vigilius bishop of Rome (538), under the secret stipulation that he should favor the Monophysite doctrine. The former, however, was soon deposed as a Monophysite (536), and the latter did not keep his promise.1685 (http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch09.htm#_edn395) Meanwhile the Origenistic controversies were renewed. The emperor was persuaded, on the one hand, to condemn the Origenistic errors in a letter to Mennas of Constantinople; on the other hand, to condemn by an edict the Antiochian teachers most odious to the Monophysites: Theodore of Mopsuestia (the teacher of Nestorius), Theodoret of Cyros, and Ibas of Edessa (friends of Nestorius); though the last two had been expressly declared orthodox by the council of Chalcedon. Theodore he condemned absolutely, but Theodoret only as respected his writings against Cyril and the third ecumenical council at Ephesus, and Ibas as respected his letter to the Persian bishop Maris, in which he complains of the outrages of Cyril’s party in Edessa, and denies the communicatio idiomatum. These are the so-called Three Chapters, or formulas of condemnation, or rather the persons and writings designated and condemned therein.1686 (http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch09.htm#_edn396)
§ 144. The Three, Chapters, and the Fifth Ecumenical Council, A.D. 553. Chapter 9 You can understand how during the foundation of our Churches history that they may have well accepted Schaff's error as reality, they were not looking at history books they mainly looked at books of others who interpreted history from a Christian perspective, like much of the 1800's it was an anti-catholic perspective. However we are not subject to such poor information sources.

[OntheDL]

I don't know if that is true or not, I do know that it is not found in the 1910 edition which is available on line at:
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/About.htm

You can easily search each chapter which I did for "538"
It should not be a real surprise to anyone that something which provides it's best historical evidence from something written in 1867, that the likely hood of it being accurate history yet not found in modern history books is not likely really accurate.

The closet to your quote is this:You can understand how during the foundation of our Churches history that they may have well accepted Schaff's error as reality, they were not looking at history books they mainly looked at books of others who interpreted history from a Christian perspective, like much of the 1800's it was an anti-catholic perspective. However we are not subject to such poor information sources.

I don't know if it can be termed error from an online version of a supposed later edition.

There are actually a few more 'outside' sources about the date of papacy gaining supremacy...

" Do not cry out, Monsignori! To fear history is to own yourselves conquered; and, moreover, if you made the whole waters of the Tiber pass over it, you would not cancel a single page. Let me speak, and I will be as short as it is possible on this most important subject.—Pope Vigilius (538) purchased the papacy from Belisarius, lieutenant of the Emperor Justinian. It is true that he broke his promise and never paid for it. Is this a canonical mode of binding on the tiara? The second Council of Chalcedon had formally condemned it. In one of its canons you read that 'the bishop who obtains his episcopate by money shall lose it and be degraded.' Pope Eugenius III (IV. in original) (1145) imitated Vigilius. St. Bernard, the bright star of his age, reproves the pope, saying to him, 'Can you show me in this great city of Rome any one who would receive you as pope if they had not received gold or silver for it?' ---Bishop Strossmayer of Diakovar to the Vatican Council I (1870), p19-20.

History is written by victors. The lack of it does not prove it did not exist. Again, the identification of the Little Horn power is not merely based on these dates. There are 9 characteristics from Daniel 7. Three and half years is only one of them.

A believer needs not to know all the facts and proves. The presence of elements of unseen is the very definition of the faith. In fact a person who needs to know everything before he can believe never will. He will always be a critic or a skeptic.

[RC_NewProtestants]

I don't know if it can be termed error from an online version of a supposed later edition.You should at least realize that the main books in the multivolume set are from the 1885 or the 1910 edition, there appears to be 5 editions. You have cited a date from what must have been the first edition. I recall reading that the first version was written between 1850-1870 You can even pretend that it is a "supposed" edition even though it was prepared by "
* (http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/About.htm#_ednref1) Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church. This material has been carefully compared, corrected¸ and emended (according to the 1910 edition of Charles Scribner's Sons) by The Electronic Bible Society, Dallas, TX, 1998."
And is sponsored by Calvin College Classic Classics Ethereal Library. Also I highly doubt you have seen the book you are quoting, you are most likely quoting somebody else who is quoting the older version of the book.



I don't have any problem with your above quote, the history as I linked to in a different thread was that Justinan choose Vigilus and that became a common way for popes to be to be chosen, that is they were elected by means of the Roman Emperor's influence. That continued for generations. If your best reason for 538 is that a person became pope, he should have at least been a notable pope. Even though this pope was hand picked by the Emperor in a short time he tried to stand up against the Emperor but it did not amount to much and he did not stay as pope for very long anyway.

All this happened on the eve of Belisarius' invasion of Italy and Justinian may have had strategic reasons for wanting to keep the pope on his side. But when Agapetus died shortly after consecrating a successor to Anthimus, Theodora (http://www.roman-emperors.org/dora.htm), apparently with Justinian's support, plotted to have elected as the next pope Vigilius, a deacon who had come to Constantinople with Agapetus and promised flexibility. But before Vigilius could return to Rome, a new pope, Silverius, the son of Pope Hormisdas, had been chosen with Theodahad's backing. However, during the one year and nine day siege of Rome by the Goths, Silverius was deposed by Belisarius and Antonina at Theodora's (http://www.roman-emperors.org/dora.htm) behest and replaced by Vigilius. Thus it was Vigilius who represented Rome and Catholicism during the 'Three Chapters' dispute.
...
Justinian had his way in the end, but Vigilius did not give up the fight until February 554 when at last he anathematized the 'Three Chapters'. By then he was a sick man and he died on his way back to Rome, where his body was refused interment in St. Peter's basilica. As his successor Justinian chose the papal nuncio Pelagius who had vigorously defended the 'Three Chapters' while the dispute was raging, but, now that he was offered the papal throne on condition that he accept the condemnation, he accepted. The Roman populace was hostile, but Narses and his troops maintained firm control and Pelagius was ordained by two bishops and a presbyter, for the usual compliment of three bishops could not be mustered. Little by little Pelagius won acceptance in Italy south of the Po River, though Italy north of the Po remained hostile until the Lombard invasion made unity seem more essential.


http://www.roman-emperors.org/justinia.htm

That someone would even continue to argue this is simply amazing and I think shows how willingly blind people can become in simply defending the indefensible.

[OntheDL]

You should at least realize that the main books in the multivolume set are from the 1885 or the 1910 edition, there appears to be 5 editions. You have cited a date from what must have been the first edition. I recall reading that the first version was written between 1850-1870 You can even pretend that it is a "supposed" edition even though it was prepared by "
* (http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/About.htm#_ednref1) Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church. This material has been carefully compared, corrected¸ and emended (according to the 1910 edition of Charles Scribner's Sons) by The Electronic Bible Society, Dallas, TX, 1998."
And is sponsored by Calvin College Classic Classics Ethereal Library. Also I highly doubt you have seen the book you are quoting, you are most likely quoting somebody else who is quoting the older version of the book.


would you like a photocopy of the page?


I don't have any problem with your above quote, the history as I linked to in a different thread was that Justinan choose Vigilus and that became a common way for popes to be to be chosen, that is they were elected by means of the Roman Emperor's influence. That continued for generations. If your best reason for 538 is that a person became pope, he should have at least been a notable pope. Even though this pope was hand picked by the Emperor in a short time he tried to stand up against the Emperor but it did not amount to much and he did not stay as pope for very long anyway.

http://www.roman-emperors.org/justinia.htm

That someone would even continue to argue this is simply amazing and I think shows how willingly blind people can become in simply defending the indefensible.

I'm not sure what you are arguing here. Are you disputing the identity of the Little Horn based on the 9 characteristics from Daniel 7? I've not seen you making much of a case against it. Please see my previous post. I had addressed what you brought up in this post.

[RC_NewProtestants]

would you like a photocopy of the page?


I would love to see a photocopy of the page. Clearly it is not found in other editions so if you have the front page showing the edition or copyright info that would be helpful too. It appears that there were already 2 editions by 1867. I collect old religious books so I did some research, there are a couple of copies of the 1867 version but they are 50 dollars apiece so I won't be buying it (it is a hobby not a real book collector thing so money spent is a big factor to me). In any case there are abundant other editions and copyrights out there. That this is restricted to the very early edition tells me that they no longer have that part in the book.

When I said I had no problem with your quote I was referring to where you said the following:

There are actually a few more 'outside' sources about the date of papacy gaining supremacy...

" Do not cry out, Monsignori! To fear history is to own yourselves conquered; and, moreover, if you made the whole waters of the Tiber pass over it, you would not cancel a single page. Let me speak, and I will be as short as it is possible on this most important subject.—Pope Vigilius (538) purchased the papacy from Belisarius, lieutenant of the Emperor Justinian. It is true that he broke his promise and never paid for it. Is this a canonical mode of binding on the tiara? The second Council of Chalcedon had formally condemned it. In one of its canons you read that 'the bishop who obtains his episcopate by money shall lose it and be degraded.' Pope Eugenius III (IV. in original) (1145) imitated Vigilius. St. Bernard, the bright star of his age, reproves the pope, saying to him, 'Can you show me in this great city of Rome any one who would receive you as pope if they had not received gold or silver for it?' ---Bishop Strossmayer of Diakovar to the Vatican Council I (1870), p19-20.

I don't have a problem with that quote though of course it says nothing about the papacy gaining supremacy in 538 it only shows the political side of becoming a pope. And that was very common.

[Acts6:5]

Sorry for the length. It’s just the way it is.

As Arianism had spread three of the tribes that had accepted this view were attacked and crushed. Those three were the Heruli (destroyed 493 AD), the Vandals (destroyed 534 AD) ,and the Ostrogoths (destroyed 538 AD) essentually leaving no rivals or competing veiws on orthodoxy to the Roman Catholic Church, they were essentually destroyed because of their belief of Arianism. The Visigoths and Sueves were also Arians, and continued in their faith for several decades after the fall of the Ostrogoths. Then about 16 years after the Gothic war ended, the Arian Lombards swept into Italy and took about a hundred years to convert to Catholicism. So there were still three Arian rivals that remained within the former Western Roman Empire after 538AD.

The position is here confidently taken that the three powers, or horns, plucked up by the roots were the Heruli, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths; and this position rests upon reliable historical data. Odoacer, the leader of the Heruli, was the first of the barbarians who reigned over the Romans. He took the throne of Italy, A.D. 476.Odovacer wasn’t actually the leader of the Heruls. He became the leader of a mixed band of mercenaries that came to Italy from tribes like the Scirii, Turcilingi, Heruli, and Rugians, etc. These men left their kingdoms and joined the Roman army in Italy as foederati, and Odovacer served under the Roman Master of Soldiers as a member of the Imperial guard. Charles Oman put it this way; Odovacar became “king of a land and an army, but not of a nation” (The Dark Ages, Charles Oman, pg. 4)

“But he was really not the king of any nation but only of the mingled host belonging to many barbarian races who served under the Romans.”(The Goths, from the Earliest Times to the End of the Gothic Dominion in Spain, Henry Bradley, pg. 128)

Of his religious belief Gibbon says: "Like the rest of the barbarians he had been instructed in the Arian heresy; but he revered the monastic and episcopal characters; and the silence of the Catholics attests the toleration which they enjoyed." Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. III, chap. 36, pp. 515, 516.Yes, Odovacer did revere the “monastic and Episcopal characters” of the Catholic Church, and he stressed a policy of religious toleration. You won’t find any Bishop of Rome likening Odovacer to Diocletian, as both Agapetus I and Vigilius did to Justinian.

“The rule of Odovacar so far as it depended on himself was wise and merciful. Although an Arian he gave the Catholics full liberty of worship, the Roman state officials were allowed to keep their places and the system of government was little changed.” (The Goths, from the Earliest Times to the End of the Gothic Dominion in Spain, Henry Bradley, pg. 131)

“Though an Arian himself, he (Odovacer) refrained from all religious persecution…” (The Dark Ages, Charles Oman, pg. 13)

"Between the Church and Odovacar, albeit he was Arian, no difficulties arose, the Pope Simplicius (468-483) recognized the authority of Odovacar and the king preserved excellent relations. Epiphanius, bishop of Pavia, and with St Severinus whose requests was accustomed to treat with marked deference and respect. (The Cambridge Medieval History, pg. 436)

Theodoric the Great, king of Italy, and hero of the 'Nibelungenlied,' was an Arian. The vacant place in his massive tomb at Ravenna is a witness of the vengeance which the Orthodox took on his memory, when on their triumph they tore down the porphyry vase in which his Arian subjects had enshrined his ashes." Arthur P. Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church, p. 151. Even if that tale were true, the vacant tomb does not tell the complete story. Theodoric spent almost his entire reign governing by the principle "...We cannot command the religion of our subjects, since no-one can be forced to believe against his will." Despite the zealotry of those men in Ravenna who desecrated his remains, there were many Catholics who recognized Theodoric as a great man and an honorable protector of the Church. Maximianus, who became Bishop of Ravenna during the second half of the Gothic War, said this about Theodoric after his death:

“He was an illustrious man, and full of good-will towards all. He reigned thirty-three years, and during thirty of these years so great was the happiness of Italy that even the wayfarers were at peace. For he did nothing wrong. So did he govern the two nations, the Goths and Romans, as if they were one people, belonging himself to the Arian sect, yet he ordained that the civil administration should remain for the Romans as it had been under their Emperors. He gave presents and rations to the people, yet, though he found the Treasury ruined, he brought it round, by his own hard work, into a flourishing state. He attempted nothing against the Catholic faith.”

Procopius, a 6th Century Greek historian, said of Theodoric, “love for him among both Goths and Italians flourished mightily”.

“Theodoric deserves the highest praise; for, during the thirty-eight years he reigned in Italy, he brought the country to such a state of greatness, that her previous sufferings were no longer recognizable." (History of Florence, Niccolò Machiavelli, pg. 8)

Had those few tomb raiders known what life under Byzantine occupation would have in store for them over the next several decades, I don’t believe they would have been so quick to dishonor Theodoric. In the very near future, those same people would long for the days of peace and prosperity they had seen under their heretical king. By 569AD, the Romans were so worn out by the Byzantine administration that they sent a letter to Emperor Justin II warning him that if he did not replace the current Exarch in Ravenna they would welcome the invading Arian Lombards as their sovereigns.

The relation which these Arian kings sustained to the pope is shown in the following testimony from Mosheim in his church history: "On the other hand, it is certain, from a variety of the most authentic records, that both the emperors and the nations in general were far from being disposed to bear with patience the yoke of servitude which the see of Rome was arrogantly imposing upon the Christian church. The Gothic princes set bounds to the power of the bishop of Rome in Italy, permitted none to be raised to the pontificate without their approbation, and reserved to themselves the right of judging concerning the legality of every new election." John L. Mosheim, An Ecclesiastical History, Ancient and Modern, Vol. I, p. 113, 114.If you read Mosheim’s book, the very next sentence provides a footnote to inform the reader that 6th-Century Catholic Frankish kings (like Clovis, Childebert, and Theudebert) also interfered in ecclesiastical matters. Same thing goes with the Roman emperors.

When compared to the Roman emperors or the Catholic German monarchs of the early 6th Century, the Arian kings of Italy had far better relations with the papacy and allowed it to exercise greater authority than many of their orthodox counterparts did. For this reason, it is no coincidence that three of the greatest claims to papal supremacy (from popes Gelasius, Symmachus, and Hormisdas) were made during Gothic occupation of Italy.

"The barbarian invasions on the whole strengthened both the spiritual and temporal supremacy of the Holy See." (The Rise of the Medieval Church, Alexander Clarence Flick, pg. 180)

“In 490, Theodoric the Ostrogoth succeeded (Odovacer), and founded a military government, leaving the civil and ecclesiastical functions and income of the Imperial Pontiff un-interfered with, and the Roman power untouched.”(Quarterly Journal of Prophecy, pg 26)

“After the destruction of the Gothic monarchy, the Byzantine emperors went even farther than the heretical Ostrogoth in encroaching on ecclesiastical rights. Vigilius and Pelagius I were forced on the Church at imperial dictation. In the case of the latter there seems to have been no election: his title was validated solely through his recognition as bishop by clergy and people.”
(The Catholic Encyclopedia, pg 271)

[Acts6:5]

(Part 2)
An instance in proof of this statement occurs in the history of Odoacer, the first Arian king above mentioned. When, on the death of Pope Simplicius, A.D. 483, the clergy and people had assembled for the election of a new pope, suddenly Basilius, lieutenant of King Odoacer, appeared in the assembly, expressed his surprise that any such work as appointing a successor to the deceased pope should be undertaken without him, in the name of the king declared all that had been done null and void, and ordered the election to be begun anew.What is not mentioned here is that it seems Pope Simplicus had requested Basilius’ involvement in the election process. As a king and as the legal viceroy of the Emperor, Odovacar’s administration had the right to officiate over the kinds of ecclesiastical affairs that previous Roman rulers took for granted. If Odovacer’s involvement in the papal elections was such a restrictive power over the papacy (as Uriah Smith has inferred) then why did he refrain from forcing his nominee upon the Roman electorate?

“…and, if he (Odovacer) firmly asserted his right to confirm the election of bishops of Rome, we do not find that he ever forced his own nominees on the clergy and people. Indeed, he was noted as a repressor of the alienation of church lands and of simony.” (The Dark Ages, Charles Oman, pg. 13)

The only “restrictive” laws Odovacar put on the Church served to end simony over papal elections; he didn’t restrict the power of the papacy.

“During the Gothic rule in Italy (493-553), its representatives manifested the utmost tolerance in relation to religious questions, and showed little disposition to impose any restraints on the policy of the popes, although each monarch, by virtue of his title of “king of the Romans,” claimed the right to veto any election to the papal chair.” (The Historians’ History of the World, pg.528)

“At election time, intrigue and bribery were rife and the papal elections. At election time, intrigue and bribery were rife and the patrimony suffered from the repayment of debts incurred by the pope while campaigning for election. This law prevented him from promising away papal estates and thereby impoverishing the Church.
(The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages, Jeffrey Richards, pg. 58,59)

Later, Theodoric established his Ostrogoths in the Italian peninsula. He was an Arian, and the law of Odoacer subjecting the election of the pope to the approval of the king, was still retained.Even in the case of Theodoric’s push for Pope Felix IV’s nomination, the clergy still voted him in. However, as mentioned in the previous post, when Justinian nominated Pelagius I as Vigilius’ successor, he didn’t even give the Roman people an opportunity to hold an election - he just made Pelagius pope. I’m sorry, but that kind of civil intrusion into the papal electoral process was far more grievous than anything Odovacer or Theodoric ever did during an election. Their involvement in the papal elections was according to precedent and was sometimes even requested by the Catholic clergy (i.e; Symmachus’ election).

“He (Theodoric) had intervened decisively in the schism between Symmachus and Laurence, but only because he had been asked by the catholic bishops themselves to do so.” (Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: the Church, 450-680AD, John Meyendorff, pg. 218)

The bishop of Rome was under the power of the Arian king who ordered him not to set foot again upon Italian soil until he had carried out the will of the king. The church could certainly not hope for much advancement toward any kind of supremacy in the politcal and religous realm until that Arain power was taken out of the way.Your example is not representative of Theodoric’s religious policy towards the papacy and the Catholic Church throughout the entirety of his 30+ years of rule. His ultimatum to Pope John I was given within the last year of his life under a number of mitigating circumstances. Prior to 524AD, Theodoric’s reign was an era of great religious freedom and toleration that would be unmatched for many generations to come, and the papacy enjoyed a great deal of autonomy.

“No wonder that it is precisely under this benevolent Gothic rule, that Pope Gelasius could assert the apostolic claims of his church and challenge directly imperial power in his letters to Emperor Anastasius.” (Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: the Church, 450-680AD, John Meyendorff, pg. 218)

You say the church could not hope for much advancement in the political/religious realm under Arian rule, and yet it was precisely during Arian rule that the papacy’s ecclesiastical/political influence helped end the Acacian Schism that had divided the Eastern and Western Churches for almost 40 years. It was during the Arian rule of king Athalaric that a 150-year old law from Emperor Valentinian II was annulled at the behest of Pope Felix IV, a law that had forced the papacy to submit to the judgment of secular magistrates. This annulment greatly increased the Pope’s temporal authority.

So contrary to your claim, the political and ecclesiastical authority of the papacy was greatly advanced during Arian rule, while it decreased under Byzantine rule. It only began to increase again after the Lombard invasion diminished Byzantine control of Italy. Autonomy and isolation from Imperial authority is what led to the papacy’s power in the Middle Ages.

Such was the position of affairs, when, A.D. 533, Justinian entered upon his Vandal and Gothic wars. Wishing to obtain the influence of the pope and the Catholic party, he issued that memorable decree which was to constitute the pope of all the churches, and from the carrying out of which A.D. 538…True, Justinian’s letter was dated to 533AD, but I have not found any historical sources that claim the letter was carried out in 538AD. This idea seems to be the sole possession of Historcists, not a documented fact from history. If you are interested, I can give a detailed explanation why I feel that way in another post.

…and whoever will read the history of the African campaign, 533-534, and the Italian campaign, 534-538, will notice that the Catholics everywhere hailed as deliverers the army of Belisarius, the general of Justinian.True, but that wasn’t always the case. Before Emperor Justin I and Justinian took the throne, an entire generation of Romans had grown up never knowing direct Imperial rule, and the 37-year religious division between the East and West over the Acacian Schism and the Henotikon caused many Italians to despise the East and their emperor.
From the historical testimony above cited, we think it clearly established that the three horns plucked up were the powers named: the Heruli, A.D. 493…If the Heruli kingdom was plucked up in 493, then how is it that King Theodoric sent two letters to the king of the Heruli in the early 500’s, in an attempt to seek their aid against the Franks?

“After the power of the Huns was broken, about A.D. 480, a large body of Heruli established a considerable empire on the Danube, or rather about the upper course of the Theiss, as the banks of the Danube were in the hands of the Rugii, Longobardi, and Gepidae. The second of the tribes, however, soon became subject to the Heruli. The great power of the Heruli in those parts is attested by the fact that Theodoric, the Ostrogoth, solicited their alliance against the Franks, declaring their king his son in arms (Cassiod. Var. iii. 3, iv.2). But about A.D. 512 the Longobardi, impatient to bear the rule of the Heruli an longer rose in arms against them, and almost destroyed them. “(Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, William Smith, pg. 1062)

[FONT=Verdana]] ….the Vandals, in 534, and the Ostrogoths finally in 553, though effective opposition by the latter to the decree of Justinian ceased when they were driven from Rome by Belisarius in 538. See Student's Gibbon, pp. 309-319. You are right about the Vandals, but what exactly do you mean when you say effective opposition by the Ostrogoths “to the decree of Justinian ceased” in 538AD? You do realize that the Goths elected a new king and besieged the city of Rome twice in the following decade, successfully sacking the city in each instance? Totila succeeded where Wittiges had failed. By 550AD, Justinian only had control of 4 cities in all of Italy, and Belisarius was recalled back to Constantinople because he was unable to stop the Goths.

“Before the end of 540, however, the departure of Belisarius, the wrangling among his successors, the oppressions of Alexander the Logothete, the disaffection of the ruined soldiery had completely changed the face of affairs. An army of considerable size, consisting in great measure of deserters from the Imperial standard, obeyed the orders of Ildibad; he won a great pitched battle near Treviso over Vitalius, the best of the Imperial generals, and the whole of Italy north of the Po again owned the sway of the Gothic king.”

“Hence, it came to pass, that in the spring of 544, when Totila had been only for two and a half years king, he had gained two pitched battles by land and one by sea, had taken Naples and Beneventum, could march freely from one end of Italy to the other, and in fact, with the exception of Ravenna, Rome, and a few other strongholds, had won back from the Empire the whole of that Italy which had been acquired with so much toil and so much bloodshed.” (Theodoric the Goth, Thomas Hodgkin, pg.344,347)

“For eleven years Totila was able to hold at bay the whole force of the Empire, to reconquer the whole of Italy, and to ruin the reputation of Belisarius." (The Cambridge Medieval History, pg. 16)

That’s pretty effective opposition in my book. I think some historians (like George Finley, for instance) go a little overboard in dismissing the very real threat that the Gothic kingdom still posed after 540AD, and downplay the precarious hold that the Byzantine military had on Italy after Belisarius’ first departure.

[Acts6:5]

(Part 3)
The Heruli, the Goths, and the Vandals, symbolized by the three horns, embraced the Arian faith and created a real danger of Arian influence over the church.But once again, Odovacer’s kingdom, the Goths, and the Vandals were not the only Arian kingdoms in the Empire during the reign of Justinian. If the Arian faith created such a danger to the Church, then why weren’t the Visigoths or the Sueves destroyed? Why are only three of the Arian kingdoms singled out in the study you presented, while the rest are ignored?

During this time period Justinian declared the bishop of Rome to be the head of the church, and the corrector of heretics, in an attempt to restrain the Arian faith from dominating Catholic doctrines.First off, the primacy of the bishop of Rome was established by the Edict of Valentinian III and Theodosius II in 445AD, over 80 years before Justinian’s reign. This imperial decree did the following:
- confirmed the "primacy of the Apostolic See".
- decreed that nothing should be done that was contrary to the "authority of that See".
- decreed that all Bishops could not "attempt anything contrary to ancient custom" without the authority of the Pope.
- recognized the Pope as the "ruler" of the "whole body" of the Church.
- mandated that the Pope's decrees should be "accepted as law by all".
- warned that no bishop was to "oppose the orders of the Roman Bishop".
- Commanded Aetius, the "Supreme Commander of the armed forces", to enforce observance of the decrees by the "authority of the law of the present Edict", and to exact a heavy fine on any judge who disregarded the emperors’ orders.

So as you can see, the Edict of Valentinian III and Theodosius II established the primacy of the papacy in terms far more specific than Justinian’s letter to Pope John II. I think even you would have to admit that. And this is precisely why Pope John II maintained in his letter that he was indeed the head of all Churches, as the rules of the Fathers and the “decrees of the Emperors” asserted. Justinian’s 533AD decree only “testified” of what had already been established by previous emperors; he was not creating something new.

Second, I’ve read through Justinian’s Codex and Novellae many times, and none of the ecclesiastical letters incorporated into the law contain the phrase “corrector of heretics”. I believe this idea comes from George Croly, but having read both Scott’s and Blume’s translation of the Justinian Code, I can tell you that the “corrector of heretics” phrasing does not seem to be accurate, and is definitely not a title. The claim is based off of a letter Justinian sent to the Patriarch of Constantinople in 533AD, which you will find in Blume’s translation, but not Scott's. In it he says this, “For we do not permit anything pertaining to the status of the Church to be kept from His Blessedness, in as much as he is the head of the Holy priests of God, and because the heretics that have arisen in his jurisdiction have been restrained by the decision and the correct judgment of his venerable seat.”

So Justinian was informing Epiphanius in a letter that the pope had already “restrained” heretics in his jurisdiction by the “decision and the correct judgment of his venerable seat”. Simple enough. But the letter does not call the Pope by some new title like “the corrector of heretics”, as if the authority had not been there before; it only tells us that at some point in the recent past the Pope had corrected heresy (which would have been during Ostrogothic occupation, by the way…just thought I’d point that out). I’ll also point out that the Codex incorporated imperial legislation from previous emperors dealing with the issue of heresy, as well as new laws from Justinian, and none them designated the Pope as the “corrector of heretics” either. The laws do, however, give both civil rulers and provincial ecclesiastics authority to deal with heresy within their own jurisdiction. There is no imperial law in the Codex or Novellae that makes the Roman Bishop the ultimate arbiter concerning heresy.

Third, the idea that Justinian recognized the primacy of the papacy “in an attempt to restrain the Arian faith” is a bit preposterous since the Council of Constantinople and the ecclesiastical legislation within the Theodosian Code had already done far more to “restrain” the Arian faith than any new papal recognition could. Albert Barnes believed the Roman See's primacy was recognized in order to help settle a doctrinal dispute between Justinian and Scythian monks concerning the formula "one person of the Trinity suffered in the flesh" in the hopes the papacy would evaluate the arguments of both parties and decide the matter in Justinian’s favor. It’s an interesting theory.

When Clovis, the king of France, converted and dedicated his sword and his country to the church and its fight against the other Arian kingdoms, it was almost a 'domino' affect. France became the first Catholic nation, the first of seven kingdoms found in Europe to renounce their pagan beliefs and embrace Catholicism, and also the first to submit the nation to the service of the church, but the others began to follow. The conversion of Clovis [496 A.D.] is said to have been the occasion of bestowing upon the French monarch the titles `Most Christian Majesty' and `Eldest Son of the Church.' France became the first Catholic nation, the first of seven kingdoms found in Europe to renounce their pagan beliefs and embrace Catholicism, and also the first to submit the nation to the service of the Papacy. This alliance had influence on the kingdoms around it as started a 'domino' affect and provided the ways and means to defeat the three Arian kingdoms as they were caught in a vise, classical divided and conquer.

By AD 508 the other seven kingdoms of Europe slowly were brought into subjection or converted.Of the six dominant, Germanic kingdoms that existed within the Western Empire’s former borders in 508AD, only the Franks and Burgundians had converted to the Catholic faith. The other four kingdoms (the Visigoths, Sueves, Ostrogoths, and Vandals) were all quite Arian. You say the Frank’s conversion started a domino effect, but more than 90 years passed before another one of the dominant kingdoms would convert to Catholicism (the Visigoths). And during the interim, the Arian Lombards invaded Italy and took the place of the fallen Ostrogoths, adding another Arian kingdom to the roster.

As for the minor kingdoms/duchies that were found around the Empire’s borders; the Heruls were given land in Pannonia by Justinian in exchange for their conversion after 527AD (see, they didn’t need to be ‘uprooted’), the Thuringi fell in the 530’s, the Gepids fell in the 560’s, the Anglo-Saxons converted from paganism around 597AD, the remaining Alammani Germans sometime in the 7th Century, and the Bavarians in the 8th.
So I do not know which European kingdoms you are referring to when you say by AD 508 the other seven kingdoms of Europe slowly were brought into subjection or converted. Would you care to elaborate?

[Acts6:5]

(Part 4)
In 508 A.D. these powers of Europe began to turn against the last of the unconverted Arian kingdoms leaving them to face Justininians army and by 538 A.D…507AD was the Battle of Vouillé between the Franks and the Visigoths. Now you say the “powers of Europe” (which in 507AD would have been the converted Franks and Burgundians) began to turn against the Arian kingdoms, but after the Battle of Vouille there were no real advances against the dominant Arian kingdoms of Europe. The Visigoths (under the leadership of Italy’s Theodoric) even managed to restore some of the territory which had been lost to the Franks. There was roughly two decades of relative peace between the Arians and the Catholic kingdoms until Justinian’s war against the Vandals in 533AD. The Franks may have harassed some of the minor tribes during that time, but they were of no real, historical consequence when it comes to the papacy.

It is interesting to note that when Justinian began his war against the Vandals, the Catholic Franks weren’t teaming up with him to attack Arians; they were busy subjugating their Catholic brethren, the Burgundians. And despite promising Justinian that he wouldn’t fight against him, the Catholic king of the Franks sent 10,000 Burgundians to the Arian Goths’ aid sometime after 538AD, a move that helped Wittiges take Milan. And then “the Most Christian King” of the Franks betrayed both the Goths and the Byzantines by leading a huge army into Northern Italy, routing one of Justinian’s armies and plundering numerous Roman cities:

“Among the cities which they captured and ruined was Genoa, where the most frightful excesses that barbarism and lust could prompt were perpetrated upon the inhabitants, thousands of whom are said to have been massacred; while a great number of women and children were reserved, in order to be sacrificied, after the old Druidical rites, to the God of War…” (The Pictorial History of France, Thomas Gaspy, pg. 79)

…the last of the three kingdoms met defeat and thus it eliminated this obstruction to papal power, and the Papacy ascended to political and religious leadership which made all the former tribes/kingdoms/horns of Europe follow it. But again, how could the last Arian obstruction to papal power be eliminated by 538AD when Arian kingdoms continued to reign in Europe after the fall of your three horns? The arrival of the Lombards in 568AD simply added another obstruction.

"Spain was Arian and persecuted the Catholic Church, and England had relapsed into Paganism, the light of faith had gone out the heathenism of the Saxons, and the Danes reigned over it. Lombardy was Arian and the Lombards ravaged Italy up to the walls of Rome. Such was the world over which St Gregory reigned and sorrowed His life like that of Jeremias." (The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, Henry Edward Manning, pg 201)

It seems that your premise is based on the idea that seven kingdoms of Europe were slowly subjugated or converted from Arianism/paganism to Catholicism between 508-533AD, while three Arian horns remained defiant and required plucking. But other than the conversion of the Heruli (ironically enough) after 527AD, I don't see your scenario played out in Roman history at all.

Now some have the following issues, all the 3 kingdoms were not "immeadiately and completely destroyed" as the remnants took time to hunt down and eliminate, the rise of the papal power was still met with some resistance from the Emperor, and of course the other Bishops from Alexandria and other centers of religion fought to hold on to their power and influence.Here are the issues I have:
1.) You presented the idea that the destruction of the Vandals, Ostrogoths, and Odovacer’s kingdom essentially left “no rivals or competing veiws on orthodoxy” to compete with the Catholic Church by 538AD, when in reality Arian kingdoms continued to thrive within the former Western Empire after that date.
2.) You presented the few blemishes on Odovacer and Theodoric’s ecclesiastical records as if they were reflective of the papacy’s overall condition under the Germans, when history is pretty clear that their negative involvement in Church affairs is notable mostly due to just how rare such involvement actually was. Justinian’s ecclesiastical meddling was far more intrusive, and yet you interpret the end of the Gothic siege of Rome in 538AD as the beginning of liberation for the papacy, rather than a descent into further bondage, which is actually what it was.
3.) You claim Justinian’s decree to Pope John II was issued in 533AD, but you maintain the notion that it was only “carried out” in 538AD when no historian outside of Historicist’ circles support such an idea.
4.) You maintain that Justinian declared the bishop of Rome to be the head of the church and the corrector of heretics, but in reality the primacy of the papacy and its rulership over the entire Church body had already been enacted into law through the Edict of Valentinian III and Theodosius II in 445AD. And not one of Justinian’s imperial decrees in the Code made the pope the chief arbiter of ecclesiastical justice against heretics.
5.) You believe that after AD 508 the other “seven kingdoms” of Europe slowly were brought into subjection or converted and were turned against the “last of the three” Arian kingdoms, but from 508-533AD only two of those Germanic kingdoms became Catholic, and the Vandals, Ostrogoths, and Odovacar’s kingdom were by no means the last of the Arian realms in the West even after 538AD.

But AD 538 marks the elimination of the political and religious obstruction of the last of the 3 kingdoms and in the stream of History AD 538 is the "beginning" of the Papal Supremecy…”I don’t believe this can be true, not if there were three more Arian kingdoms residing within Italy and Europe to obstruct the papacy’s authority in the West after 538AD, not if the true beginning of Papal Supremacy was established by imperial decree 80 years before Justinian’s legislation.

… or we can chase minute issues of degree till time eternal and never agree, much as the Arians did in their theology on the trinity and fell into differing views which have not been resolved to this day.

I think arguing over whether Odovacer’s kingdom should be classified as Heruli or not is definitely not worth wrangling over, certainly, but I think many of the points I’ve raised here deal with some pretty important issues involving the Historicist understanding of 6th Century Roman history. What do you think?

In Christ,

Acts6:5

[SoldierOfTheKing]

If not 538 AD, what would the date for the beginning of papal supremacy in Western Europe be?

[Acts6:5]

If not 538 AD, what would the date for the beginning of papal supremacy in Western Europe be?

There are several possibilities. The year Constantine moved the capital of the empire to the East and left the pope as the most powerful figure in the West is considered a beginning of the Roman See’s temporal authority in Europe. Also, 445AD is a viable candidate since that was the year the edict of Valentinian was enacted; it was the first imperial law to legally give the Pope supreme ecclesiastical authority in the West, some 80 years before Justinian’s decree. The donation of Pepin in 752AD gave the papacy its first sovereign territory - that was also a beginning.

Let me ask you, Soldier; why do you think 538AD should be considered the beginning of papal supremacy in Western Europe?

In Christ,

Acts6:5

[SoldierOfTheKing]

I don't recall saying that it should be. I'm following your arguments, and trying to keep an open mind, but I might find them more convincing if you could argue for a definite alternative date. If there are several possibilities, then I find it more difficult to understand why 538 couldn't be one of them. If you are so sure that papal supremacy didn't begin in 538, I'd think you would have a better idea as to when it did begin.

[Acts6:5]

I don't recall saying that it should be.
Ok, fair enough. Sorry for making the assumption.

I'm following your arguments, and trying to keep an open mind, but I might find them more convincing if you could argue for a definite alternative date.
I’m not a historicist, so I don’t believe there has to be a definitive date. But if you want my opinion, I think the beginning of papal supremacy in Western Europe probably started with the Donation of Pepin in 752AD. That act constituted the first legal dominion of the papacy and gave it temporal sovereignty over its own territory. The imperial edicts of the emperors Justinian and Phocas may have acknowledged the Roman See’s ecclesiastical primacy, but those edicts did not grant it any temporal power or earthly dominion. The edict of Valentinian did grant the Roman See a certain amount of temporal power, in that it stated “whatever the authority of the Apostolic See decrees or shall decree, be accepted as law by all”, but that decree may only have pertained to matters of the Church. In any event, all three decrees were pretty much toothless, and in the case of Justinian’s decree, it was never actually enforced.

If there are several possibilities, then I find it more difficult to understand why 538 couldn't be one of them.
Because nothing happened in 538AD that constituted a “beginning” of any kind. Plenty of Historicists claim that the edict of Justinian “went into effect in 538AD”, and Joe Crews from Amazing Facts ministry even stated that this was a fact of history and could be verified “by any authoritative historical source”. But yet I have not found a single “authoritative historical source” that recognizes 538AD as the year Justinian’s decree went into effect (and I've read plenty). I don’t know of anyone outside of historicist circles who holds this belief. So until someone can provide authoritative historical sources stating that the decree pertaining to the papacy went into effect in 538AD then there is no real reason to believe that it did. If such sources exist, I would love to read them for myself. That’s where I’m coming from.

If you are so sure that papal supremacy didn't begin in 538, I'd think you would have a better idea as to when it did begin.
Well, like I said, 752AD seems like the best bet. Albert Barnes believed the 1260-year prophecy commenced on that date…which means the end of the 1260th year will be 2012. Seeing as there is already a hubbub over the end of the Mayan Long Count calendar in that year and numerous End-of-the-World prophecies connected to it, seems Barnes may have been on to something.;)

In Christ,

Acts6:5

[Acts6:5]

I don't know if that is true or not...
It's not. Whoever came up with that quote based part of it on Schaff's History of the Christian Church, but the whole thing is not from Schaff. The writer didn't even spell Vigilius' name correctly.

You can easily search each chapter which I did for "538"
It should not be a real surprise to anyone that something which provides it's best historical evidence from something written in 1867, that the likely hood of it being accurate history yet not found in modern history books is not likely really accurate.

The closet to your quote is this:You can understand how during the foundation of our Churches history that they may have well accepted Schaff's error as reality, they were not looking at history books they mainly looked at books of others who interpreted history from a Christian perspective, like much of the 1800's it was an anti-catholic perspective. However we are not subject to such poor information sources.
There is a book on Church history called The Church of the Sixth Century written by William Holden Hutton, and in it he explains that it was once customary for papal historians to declare Vigilius an antipope until the death of Silverius. But once he died, Vigilius’ papacy was then accepted from the date of his consecration and enthronement on March 29, 537. According to Hutton, Vigilius appears on a June 537AD inscription as “beatissimus papa”, and the few surviving papal letters we have of his show that he was acting with full papal authority even before the end of the Gothic siege.

The problem the historians had with Vigilius’s consecration was the fact that they did not view Silverius' deposition as canonical. But once he died, they recognized Vigilius retroactively from the date of his consecration and enthronement in 537AD. I believe Schaff’s date proves to be inaccurate and may have been influenced by the “custom” mentioned earlier, not on the historical data.

"...Vigilius was consecrated under the protection of Belisarius in 537." (History of the Christian Church)

"…Vigilius was elected pope in place of Silverius and consecrated and enthroned on 29 March, 537." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, An International Work on the Constitution, Doctrine, Discipline, and History of the Catholic Church)

"Vigilius was consecrated and enthroned on March 29, 537. The majority of the Roman clergy and people, however, refused to recognize him until the news came of St. Silverius’ death, then they accepted him as pope." (Vicars of Christ: A History of the Popes)

“Though no canonical deposition of Silverius had taken place, the majority yielded, and on March 29, 537, Vigilius was consecrated." (The Church of the Sixth Century: Six Chapters in Ecclesiastical History)

"Vigilius was unanimously elected in his (Silverius’) place under pressure from Byzantium (29 March 537)." (The Cambridge Medieval History)

In Christ

Acts6:5

[Acts6:5]

Belarsarius, defeated these three nations under the command of Justinian but in 538 the pope came back from Constantinople and took possession of the city as well. It was this move that marked the beginning of the 1260 day prophecy as we know it.
The pope hadn't been in Constantinople in 538AD. The last Roman Bishop to journey to New Rome had been Agapetus I in 536AD. He either died there or on his way back to Italy. The bishop who was pope when Belisarius took Rome in December 536AD was Silverius, but he had never traveled to Constantinople during his pontificate. Vigilius, Silverius' successor, had been in Rome since Belisarius' triumphal entry and was elected and consecrated in Rome in March 537AD.

You seem to be under the impression that the pope had been exiled to Constantinople prior to the Gothic war and returned to Rome once the city was back in Byzantine possession, but that was not the case. So such an event (the pope coming back from Constantinople) did not mark the beginning of the 1260 day prophecy in 538AD.

The final defeat of arianism occurred as you say in 553 when the last of the Ostrogoths were destroyed.
That can't be the case, not if the Arian Visigoth and Sueve kingdoms remained after 553AD, and not if the Arian Lombard kingdom in Italy took the place of the Ostrogoths 16 years later.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

[Acts6:5]

Reddogs,

The reason you posted part of Uriah Smith’s study in the OP was that it supported your belief that the Catholic Church could not project itself as the one, true religion and assume its church supremacy until Arianism was rejected theologically and militarily in the former Western Empire. The Arian challenge to church supremacy had to be defeated before the power of papal Rome became the spiritual and political rule of the land. It was your contention that AD 538 marked the elimination of the political and religious obstruction of the last of the 3 Arian kingdoms in the stream of history and was the beginning of papal supremacy.

But as I have pointed out in several posts, if Arianism was still accepted by Germanic nations within Europe after 538AD (as evidenced by the existence of the Arian kingdoms of the Visigoths, Sueves, and later the Lombards), and if the Ostrogoths were not the last Arian kingdom within the former Western Empire, then the political and religious power of Arianism against the papacy was not eliminated in 538AD.

So Reddogs, based on what you wrote in your earlier posts, you believed the papacy could not have assumed supremacy until the religious and political power of Arianism in Europe was removed. So do you now recognize that the continued existence of several Arian powers within the former Western Roman Empire shows that the political and religious obstruction to papal supremacy remained intact after 538AD, and that the beginning of papal supremacy was still obstructed by the theology and militaries of existing Arian powers in Europe, despite the uprooting of the Ostrogothic horn? How does this new information alter your conclusions regarding the political and religious implications of the defeat of Arianism?

What are your thoughts on this?

In Christ,

Acts6:5

[Acts6:5]

"Bump" for Reddogs. I'm still interested in hearing what your thoughts were concerning what I posted in post #32 (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=47604732&postcount=32).

In Christ,

Acts6:5

[TrustAndObey]

"Bump" for Reddogs. I'm still interested in hearing what your thoughts were concerning what I posted in post #32 (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=47604732&postcount=32).

In Christ,

Acts6:5

I think Red is just obeying our own rules here, Acts. This is a non-debate area, and he chose to put the thread here for a reason probably.

We know the alternate view, we just don't agree.

[Acts6:5]

I think Red is just obeying our own rules here, Acts. This is a non-debate area, and he chose to put the thread here for a reason probably.

We know the alternate view, we just don't agree.
Hi Trust,

My #32 post was not framed as a debate. I asked several reasonable questions that are quite appropriate in light of Red’s OP. I certainly do not expect anyone on this board to debate the information I presented in posts #22-25 (that would be appropriate for another forum), but I do not believe my questions to Red in Post #32 would in any way cause him to violate the rules of this forum.

He addressed RCProtestants’ posts on this thread, and they were posts I happened to find far more combative and debate-oriented than anything I brought to the table. So I don’t believe asking Red for his opinion would be a problem in this case.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

[reddogs]

I think Red is just obeying our own rules here, Acts. This is a non-debate area, and he chose to put the thread here for a reason probably.

We know the alternate view, we just don't agree.


I just noticed it was in the non-debate area and have moved it to D/D.

I will go over my posts as this was a while back and go over the questions as soon as I get some time...

[Acts6:5]

I will go over my posts as this was a while back and go over the questions as soon as I get some time...
Ok, sounds good. No rush.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

[reddogs]

Sorry for the length. It’s just the way it is.

The Visigoths and Sueves were also Arians, and continued in their faith for several decades after the fall of the Ostrogoths. Then about 16 years after the Gothic war ended, the Arian Lombards swept into Italy and took about a hundred years to convert to Catholicism. So there were still three Arian rivals that remained within the former Western Roman Empire after 538AD.

Odovacer wasn’t actually the leader of the Heruls. He became the leader of a mixed band of mercenaries that came to Italy from tribes like the Scirii, Turcilingi, Heruli, and Rugians, etc. These men left their kingdoms and joined the Roman army in Italy as foederati, and Odovacer served under the Roman Master of Soldiers as a member of the Imperial guard. Charles Oman put it this way; Odovacar became “king of a land and an army, but not of a nation” (The Dark Ages, Charles Oman, pg. 4)

“But he was really not the king of any nation but only of the mingled host belonging to many barbarian races who served under the Romans.”(The Goths, from the Earliest Times to the End of the Gothic Dominion in Spain, Henry Bradley, pg. 128)

Yes, Odovacer did revere the “monastic and Episcopal characters” of the Catholic Church, and he stressed a policy of religious toleration. You won’t find any Bishop of Rome likening Odovacer to Diocletian, as both Agapetus I and Vigilius did to Justinian.

“The rule of Odovacar so far as it depended on himself was wise and merciful. Although an Arian he gave the Catholics full liberty of worship, the Roman state officials were allowed to keep their places and the system of government was little changed.” (The Goths, from the Earliest Times to the End of the Gothic Dominion in Spain, Henry Bradley, pg. 131)

“Though an Arian himself, he (Odovacer) refrained from all religious persecution…” (The Dark Ages, Charles Oman, pg. 13)

"Between the Church and Odovacar, albeit he was Arian, no difficulties arose, the Pope Simplicius (468-483) recognized the authority of Odovacar and the king preserved excellent relations. Epiphanius, bishop of Pavia, and with St Severinus whose requests was accustomed to treat with marked deference and respect. (The Cambridge Medieval History, pg. 436)

Even if that tale were true, the vacant tomb does not tell the complete story. Theodoric spent almost his entire reign governing by the principle "...We cannot command the religion of our subjects, since no-one can be forced to believe against his will." Despite the zealotry of those men in Ravenna who desecrated his remains, there were many Catholics who recognized Theodoric as a great man and an honorable protector of the Church. Maximianus, who became Bishop of Ravenna during the second half of the Gothic War, said this about Theodoric after his death:

“He was an illustrious man, and full of good-will towards all. He reigned thirty-three years, and during thirty of these years so great was the happiness of Italy that even the wayfarers were at peace. For he did nothing wrong. So did he govern the two nations, the Goths and Romans, as if they were one people, belonging himself to the Arian sect, yet he ordained that the civil administration should remain for the Romans as it had been under their Emperors. He gave presents and rations to the people, yet, though he found the Treasury ruined, he brought it round, by his own hard work, into a flourishing state. He attempted nothing against the Catholic faith.”

Procopius, a 6th Century Greek historian, said of Theodoric, “love for him among both Goths and Italians flourished mightily”.

“Theodoric deserves the highest praise; for, during the thirty-eight years he reigned in Italy, he brought the country to such a state of greatness, that her previous sufferings were no longer recognizable." (History of Florence, Niccolò Machiavelli, pg. 8)

Had those few tomb raiders known what life under Byzantine occupation would have in store for them over the next several decades, I don’t believe they would have been so quick to dishonor Theodoric. In the very near future, those same people would long for the days of peace and prosperity they had seen under their heretical king. By 569AD, the Romans were so worn out by the Byzantine administration that they sent a letter to Emperor Justin II warning him that if he did not replace the current Exarch in Ravenna they would welcome the invading Arian Lombards as their sovereigns.

If you read Mosheim’s book, the very next sentence provides a footnote to inform the reader that 6th-Century Catholic Frankish kings (like Clovis, Childebert, and Theudebert) also interfered in ecclesiastical matters. Same thing goes with the Roman emperors.

When compared to the Roman emperors or the Catholic German monarchs of the early 6th Century, the Arian kings of Italy had far better relations with the papacy and allowed it to exercise greater authority than many of their orthodox counterparts did. For this reason, it is no coincidence that three of the greatest claims to papal supremacy (from popes Gelasius, Symmachus, and Hormisdas) were made during Gothic occupation of Italy.

"The barbarian invasions on the whole strengthened both the spiritual and temporal supremacy of the Holy See." (The Rise of the Medieval Church, Alexander Clarence Flick, pg. 180)

“In 490, Theodoric the Ostrogoth succeeded (Odovacer), and founded a military government, leaving the civil and ecclesiastical functions and income of the Imperial Pontiff un-interfered with, and the Roman power untouched.”(Quarterly Journal of Prophecy, pg 26)

“After the destruction of the Gothic monarchy, the Byzantine emperors went even farther than the heretical Ostrogoth in encroaching on ecclesiastical rights. Vigilius and Pelagius I were forced on the Church at imperial dictation. In the case of the latter there seems to have been no election: his title was validated solely through his recognition as bishop by clergy and people.”
(The Catholic Encyclopedia, pg 271)


Yes the Visigoths and Sueves were also Arians but they were not in the way, they were in what is now in Spain and Portugal, while the the Heruli (destroyed 493 AD) was in Italy, the Vandals (destroyed 534 AD) to the south of Italy across in what was once Carthage,and the Ostrogoths (destroyed 538 AD) in Northen Italy with a different orthodoxy than the Roman Catholic Church, which had to be cleared out before the bishop of Rome could become the Pontiff which could make or break kings.

Most of these tribes served as axilliaries to the Roman army so were trained in fighting, and many chiefs arose of which Odovacer was one, and he allowed freedom of religion, but they used it against him and grew stronger until they became the deciders of kingdoms and shapers of power.

Now as to the exact years, in history the timeline is pegged to a article being signed like the Magna Carta or a battle, but sometimes its not crystal clear. A good example is the current Iragi war, we can ask when the Iraqi conflict came to a end, was it when the Iragi army was defeated in 60-90 days, was it when the chief architech of Osama Bin Laden strategy was killed by American forces, or was it when the coming election of a new American President. Historians can argue the exact time but the fact that the Iraqis were beaten as a military force is a fact, not a theory...

[Acts6:5]

Yes the Visigoths and Sueves were also Arians but they were not in the way, they were in what is now in Spain and Portugal…
Hi Reddogs,

The Visigoths and Sueves were on the same continent as Italy, unlike the Vandal kingdom, which was on an entirely different continent and separated from Italy by a sea. The Visigothic kingdom shared Italy’s border; the Vandal kingdom did not. The essay you used in your OP considered the Vandals a threat to the Church because of their persecution of Catholics, not because of their proximity to Italy. The Visigoths also persecuted the Catholics in their kingdom, as I pointed out with the Henry Edward Manning reference back on page 3. And remember that the Lombards invaded Italy and divided it up amongst themselves, persecuting Catholics and isolating the papacy. Even after their conversion, the Lombards were still the enemies of papal Rome until they were subdued by Pepin’s Franks some 200 years later.

You had originally said that the other seven kingdoms (including the Visigoths and Sueves) were out of the way because they had been slowly brought into subjection or converted by 508AD, leaving the last of the remaining unconverted Arian kingdoms to be dealt with. But that assertion has been proven to be incorrect. The Arian Visigoths and Sueves were neither subjugated nor converted by 508AD, let alone 538AD, and the Arian Lombard kingdom of Italy was only a few decades away.

In your #3 (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=32667402&postcount=3) post, you made your point very clear; until Arianism was rejected theologically and militarily the Catholic church could not project itself as the one true religion and assume its church supremacy. You also said challenges to church supremacy were emerging that had to be defeated before the power of papal Rome became the spiritual and political rule of the land. The fact of the matter is that Arianism was not rejected either theologically or militarily after the fall of the Ostrogoths, neither in Europe nor in Italy. Arian Germanic kings continued to rule in Italy and over 1/3 of the former Western Empire. Arian kingdoms continued to persecute Catholics and rule over the land, even up to the very “walls of Rome” as Manning said about the Lombards. The papacy had no spiritual or political authority to stop such persecutions and conquests from happening. This was the same position the pope had been in prior to the fall of Odovacar’s kingdom, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths. The Arian shadow over the papacy’s potential supremacy in Europe still remained after the fall of the Ostrogothic kingdom.

while the the Heruli (destroyed 493 AD) was in Italy…
The mercenaries from various tribes under Odovacer’s command were defeated in 493AD, but the Arian Heruli kingdom was not. I provided ample historical documentation in posts #22 (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=47428654&postcount=22) and #23 (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=47428676&postcount=23) to confirm this. The Heruli kingdom was destroyed by the Arian Lombards in the early 6th Century, and the Heruli tribe was converted to Catholicism thru Emperor Justinian’s handiwork after 527AD. The Heruli were converted, not destroyed.

the Vandals (destroyed 534 AD) to the south of Italy across in what was once Carthage
Correct. And the Arian Visigoth and Sueve kingdoms were to the West of Italy, with the Visigoths on Italy’s very doorstep. The Vandals were not.

and the Ostrogoths (destroyed 538 AD) in Northen Italy with a different orthodoxy than the Roman Catholic Church
The Ostrogoths suffered a defeat in 538AD, but they were not destroyed at that time. In fact, Justinian agreed to a peace treaty between himself and the Goths after 538AD, giving the Gothic kingdom all of the Italian land above the Po river. Why would Justinian agree to a peace treaty with the Goths if their kingdom was destroyed at that time? As I said in a previous post, by the year 550AD, Justinian lost the city of Rome and the entire Italian peninsula to Gothic reconquest, except for three coastal cities. The rest of the land was restored to the Gothic Kingdom.

which had to be cleared out before the bishop of Rome could become the Pontiff which could make or break kings.
Wouldn’t the Lombard kingdom of Italy also have to be cleared out before the Pope could assume that kind of power?

Most of these tribes served as axilliaries to the Roman army so were trained in fighting, and many chiefs arose of which Odovacer was one, and he allowed freedom of religion, but they used it against him and grew stronger until they became the deciders of kingdoms and shapers of power.
I agree, although the Catholic Church never used their freedom against Odovacer during his reign. It is certainly clear from history that the papacy had more freedom and power under Germanic rule than it did under Byzantine rule. Imperial influence over the papacy always served to weaken the Roman See, not strengthen it, which is why, when the temporal yoke began to slip off of the papacy in the centuries to follow, it began to accumulate the kind of power you referred too above.

Now as to the exact years, in history the timeline is pegged to a article being signed like the Magna Carta or a battle, but sometimes its not crystal clear. A good example is the current Iragi war, we can ask when the Iraqi conflict came to a end, was it when the Iragi army was defeated in 60-90 days, was it when the chief architech of Osama Bin Laden strategy was killed by American forces, or was it when the coming election of a new American President. Historians can argue the exact time but the fact that the Iraqis were beaten as a military force is a fact, not a theory...
Before I respond I want to make sure I understand you correctly so that we are not talking over each other; are you comparing the defeat of the Gothic military force in 538AD with the defeat of the Iraqi military force in 2003 because they are both identifiable marks in history’s timeline? I don’t want to jump to any conclusions, so I’ll wait for your answer.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

[reddogs]

Hi Reddogs,

The Visigoths and Sueves were on the same continent as Italy, unlike the Vandal kingdom, which was on an entirely different continent and separated from Italy by a sea. The Visigothic kingdom shared Italy’s border; the Vandal kingdom did not. The essay you used in your OP considered the Vandals a threat to the Church because of their persecution of Catholics, not because of their proximity to Italy. The Visigoths also persecuted the Catholics in their kingdom, as I pointed out with the Henry Edward Manning reference back on page 3. And remember that the Lombards invaded Italy and divided it up amongst themselves, persecuting Catholics and isolating the papacy. Even after their conversion, the Lombards were still the enemies of papal Rome until they were subdued by Pepin’s Franks some 200 years later.

You had originally said that the other seven kingdoms (including the Visigoths and Sueves) were out of the way because they had been slowly brought into subjection or converted by 508AD, leaving the last of the remaining unconverted Arian kingdoms to be dealt with. But that assertion has been proven to be incorrect. The Arian Visigoths and Sueves were neither subjugated nor converted by 508AD, let alone 538AD, and the Arian Lombard kingdom of Italy was only a few decades away.

In your #3 (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=32667402&postcount=3) post, you made your point very clear; until Arianism was rejected theologically and militarily the Catholic church could not project itself as the one true religion and assume its church supremacy. You also said challenges to church supremacy were emerging that had to be defeated before the power of papal Rome became the spiritual and political rule of the land. The fact of the matter is that Arianism was not rejected either theologically or militarily after the fall of the Ostrogoths, neither in Europe nor in Italy. Arian Germanic kings continued to rule in Italy and over 1/3 of the former Western Empire. Arian kingdoms continued to persecute Catholics and rule over the land, even up to the very “walls of Rome” as Manning said about the Lombards. The papacy had no spiritual or political authority to stop such persecutions and conquests from happening. This was the same position the pope had been in prior to the fall of Odovacar’s kingdom, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths. The Arian shadow over the papacy’s potential supremacy in Europe still remained after the fall of the Ostrogothic kingdom.


The mercenaries from various tribes under Odovacer’s command were defeated in 493AD, but the Arian Heruli kingdom was not. I provided ample historical documentation in posts #22 (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=47428654&postcount=22) and #23 (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=47428676&postcount=23) to confirm this. The Heruli kingdom was destroyed by the Arian Lombards in the early 6th Century, and the Heruli tribe was converted to Catholicism thru Emperor Justinian’s handiwork after 527AD. The Heruli were converted, not destroyed.


Correct. And the Arian Visigoth and Sueve kingdoms were to the West of Italy, with the Visigoths on Italy’s very doorstep. The Vandals were not.


The Ostrogoths suffered a defeat in 538AD, but they were not destroyed at that time. In fact, Justinian agreed to a peace treaty between himself and the Goths after 538AD, giving the Gothic kingdom all of the Italian land above the Po river. Why would Justinian agree to a peace treaty with the Goths if their kingdom was destroyed at that time? As I said in a previous post, by the year 550AD, Justinian lost the city of Rome and the entire Italian peninsula to Gothic reconquest, except for three coastal cities. The rest of the land was restored to the Gothic Kingdom.


Wouldn’t the Lombard kingdom of Italy also have to be cleared out before the Pope could assume that kind of power?


I agree, although the Catholic Church never used their freedom against Odovacer during his reign. It is certainly clear from history that the papacy had more freedom and power under Germanic rule than it did under Byzantine rule. Imperial influence over the papacy always served to weaken the Roman See, not strengthen it, which is why, when the temporal yoke began to slip off of the papacy in the centuries to follow, it began to accumulate the kind of power you referred too above.


Before I respond I want to make sure I understand you correctly so that we are not talking over each other; are you comparing the defeat of the Gothic military force in 538AD with the defeat of the Iraqi military force in 2003 because they are both identifiable marks in history’s timeline? I don’t want to jump to any conclusions, so I’ll wait for your answer.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

History is not like quantum physics, you have historical bits and pieces that you put together, we go by what the powers that be at the time signed into legislation, or put forth, and sometimes the affects of battles are not seen and their significance is not realized until much later. You are trying to discern history which has already happened, the end results are clear, yet you are trying to reshape it with reinterpretation and argument.

What happened is historical fact, the papacy began to emerge in 538AD, how you interpret it depends on your honesty to the facts and proper reading of it. Everyone agrees that this is the beginning of the power of the papacy, the exact sequence of the events leading to it is what is left to debate, and we dont have the daily journal news to tell us how each days events occured. The argument on the rise of the papacy is over, the exact day or hour which can be argued to infinity, or majoring on the minors is all you are debating...

[Acts6:5]

History is not like quantum physics, you have historical bits and pieces that you put together, we go by what the powers that be at the time signed into legislation, or put forth, and sometimes the affects of battles are not seen and their significance is not realized until much later. You are trying to discern history which has already happened, the end results are clear, yet you are trying to reshape it with reinterpretation and argument.
Hi Reddogs,

What I have tried to do on this thread is explain to you that a number of the historical premises upon which your OP was based were incorrect, and that such errors should effect your view on the defeat of Arianism. The idea that the Herulis were destroyed by Byzantine-sanctioned forces, the idea that the seven Germanic kingdoms/horns of Europe were subjugated or converted by 508AD, the idea that Odovacer’s kingdom, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths were the last Arian unconverted kingdoms to stand in the way of the papacy, etc.; all of these ideas and more were used to lay the foundation for why you believe 538AD was so important to the defeat of Arianism. My hope is that you’ll consider the issues that I raised back in June and take the opportunity to further study 6th Century Roman history and rework your theory so that it aligns with the historical record.

I don’t believe that I ever gave you my reinterpretation; what I did was provide you with documented references for each and every issue that I had concerning the information presented in your OP. At times, I even went so far as to provide you with as many as 3-4 references on a given issue. And every single reference that I gave you came from books that I myself have read; I didn't copy articles off of the web. The only way I could be reshaping history through reinterpretation and argument is if the information I provided about Odovacer, Theodoric, the Justinian Code, the Ostrogothic War, etc, ignored the historical record that we have available. On the contrary, my #22-#25 posts were replete with historical documentation in order to show you that I wasn't giving you my opinion, but rather the testimony of historians.

What happened is historical fact, the papacy began to emerge in 538AD, how you interpret it depends on your honesty to the facts and proper reading of it.
Over the years I have examined over 40 books dealing with the subjects of 6th Century Roman/Church history, the Gothic War, and Byzantine/Roman law, and in that time I have yet to find even one source that claims Justinian’s letter to Pope John II went into effect after the Goths ended their siege in 538AD, or that 538AD marked the beginning of the papacy’s power. Not one.

I can read Meyendorff state that the papacy began to emerge during the reigns of Popes like Leo, Gelasius, and Hormisdas. I can read George Croly state that Roman authorities dated the supremacy of the Papacy to the year 533AD. I can examine the Justinian Code and find decrees in the Novels that were sent from the emperor to the pope and were put into effect in Italy during the Gothic occupation of Italy. I can read Carlisse state that during the war with the Goths, the Justinian Code was put into effect in Italy through the Editale Programma following the fall of Ravenna in 540AD. I can read A.C. Flick state that the barbarian invasions on the whole strengthened both the spiritual and temporal supremacy of the Holy See, while historians like J.W. Draper, Littledale, Bury, and Fisher state that Justinian’s conquest of Italy led to the degradation of the papacy’s spiritual and temporal power.

So Reddogs, how can “honesty to the facts and proper reading of them” lead you to the conclusion that Byzantine victory in 538AD was the beginning of the papacy’s power when every historian who addresses the issue claims otherwise? As I said in an earlier post, this theory surrounding 538AD seems to be the sole possession of historicists, not an idea that is confirmed by the historical record. It is a religious theory, not a documented fact from history. But as I said to SoldieroftheKing, if you know of an historian that claims the papacy’s authority through the Justinian Code went into effect in 538AD then post the name of the book and I will certainly read it. Until then, I submit that the your OP is clearly a theory that is not based on historical fact or on a proper reading of history, but based on the desire to view the papacy as the fulfillment of scriptural prophecy.

Everyone agrees that this is the beginning of the power of the papacy, the exact sequence of the events leading to it is what is left to debate, and we dont have the daily journal news to tell us how each days events occured.
I’m sorry Reddogs, but no one agrees that 538AD was the beginning of the power of the papacy except historicists, and even some historicists (like George Faber and Albert Barnes) completely rejected the significance some put on the letter to the Pope recognizing him as the "head of all churches". But again, if you can provide historical documentation that shows the Justinian Code was put in effect in 538AD, and that 538AD was the beginning of the power of the papacy (despite all of the historians who claim otherwise), then I would certainly readjust my viewpoint.

The argument on the rise of the papacy is over, the exact day or hour which can be argued to infinity, or majoring on the minors is all you are debating...
I understand that you see it that way, and if I were an historicist I might agree with you on that (although spirited, written disagreement over the issue between men like William Cuninghame and George Faber wasn't viewed as majoring on minors over a hundred years ago). But I’m not a Christian who holds to the historicist eschatology, so suggesting that the argument about the rise of the papacy is over is not a convincing statement in my opinion. And I say that as a non-Catholic, too.

So as I explained earlier in the post, my goal in bringing this thread back from the dead was not to change your mind about historicism; my goal was to show you the factual problems in your theory in the hope that this might spur you to do some more research on the matter and readjust your theory in accordance with the historical record. Again, I will ask you; do y