The Growth of Catholicism

[Flavius Claudius Iulianus]

Hi everyone. I'm trying to find reasons as to why Catholicism eventually became the dominant form of Christianity in Europe during Late Antiquity and the Dark Ages, and it would be greatly appreciated if I received people's opinions here about this subject. I have some specific points in mind, but I think it's best if I wait and see the responses before I let my inferior knowledge become known.

 

Also, it would be fantastic if I'm directed to some relevant books on the matter. Thanks in advance for the help!

[Publius Nonius Severus]

This is a little out of my specality but I will git it a shot. I guess this is another one of those aspects of history that will never see the whole picture exactly as it was since there is so little evidence left from the less "mainstream" christian branches from those times. The winner gets recorded for all history, the loser is forgotten.

 

Anyway, I always assumed the First Council of Nicaea was the major determining factor. Here is where the Catholic Church really got their act together. Consolidated their doctrine, tried to resolve differences of belief and practice, divide and conquer. Once this was done, I don't think any of the "heretical" branches of christianity had a shot as long as the mainstream church worked together and urged their followers to avoid the heretical churches

 

Obviously there were still bumps in the road that eventually led to the schisms between Rome and the East but once they established a track record (via Apolstolic Succession and orthodoxy of doctrine) I don't think any other branches had a chance. I am sure this is overly simplistic but seems to make sense to me.

[docoflove1974]

I think the urbanization, or lack thereof, after the fall of Rome had something to do with it. Once the various Germanic tribes had a stranglehold on the running of the Roman Empire, the (Catholic) monasteries were often a hub life, not just for religious purposes, but for sustenance (as I recall, the monasteries had the most complete gardens, and often the only oven and grain mill for the area), medicine, and a sense of community.

 

So, if the (Catholic) monasteries are the hub of life in the Dark Ages, one could understand that this would help to enforce the Catholic church as 'the' religion, as well help to spread it.

[Julius Ratus]

Looking at history, the Catholics and the Orthodox churches were always rather well balanced in size, until the growth of Islam. The Catholic nations had their backs to the Ocean and only had to face the Moslems that invaded through Iberia, and those that made it through the Orthodox states. The Orthodox, on the other hand, were surrounded by enemies. To the South East were the Arabs, to the East and North were the Steppe people, many of whom had converted to Islam. To the West were the Catholics themselves who were often as grave a threat as the Moselms were. Basically, the Catholics never lost territory, they only gained it, and the Orthodox areas were under constant threat.

 

Also, the Easternb Church was far more fragmented early on than the Western Church was. This gave the Western Church time to consolidate while the Eastern Churches were still fighting amongst themselves.

[Ursus]

I'm trying to find reasons as to why Catholicism eventually became the dominant form of Christianity in Europe during Late Antiquity and the Dark Ages,

 

 

The propensity of the True Believers to remove any religion other than their own may have played a role.

[docoflove1974]

The propensity of the True Believers to remove any religion other than their own may have played a role.

 

What do you mean? Are you referring to the Crusades? Or something else?

[Kosmo]

Basically, the Catholics never lost territory, they only gained it, and the Orthodox areas were under constant threat.

 

The patriarh of Rome lost North Africa for good and most of Spain for 700 years. He also had under his authority, in the begining the west and south of the Balkans including Greece, Macedonia and today Serbia.

[Ursus]

The propensity of the True Believers to remove any religion other than their own may have played a role.

 

What do you mean? Are you referring to the Crusades? Or something else?

 

 

Not quite. The question was how did Catholicism become the dominant form of Christianity in Europe. I was making a slight jibe to the fact that Catholicism didn't exactly win peacefully in the "marketplace of ideas" - it won by exterminating competing strands of Christianity.

 

I'm not commenting on whether or not Catholicism is the "correct" version of Christianity, only that it was willing to use force to proclaim itself as such.

[Primus Pilus]

I'm not commenting on whether or not Catholicism is the "correct" version of Christianity, only that it was willing to use force to proclaim itself as such.

 

And once force established it as the dominant party, it smartly absorbed existing pagan concepts to make the transition more attractive to those outside the urban environment. This may have been less a condition of the church itself and more an indication of the spread of the religion, but the church wisely ignored such issues that may have been otherwise compromising if it helped bring people into the fold.

[Julius Ratus]

Basically, the Catholics never lost territory, they only gained it, and the Orthodox areas were under constant threat.

 

The patriarh of Rome lost North Africa for good and most of Spain for 700 years. He also had under his authority, in the begining the west and south of the Balkans including Greece, Macedonia and today Serbia.

 

I was thinking about that, but decided not to include NW Africa because the Church hadn't yet split. The Catholic West never lost territory after the 1054 split. The Balkans were under the Patriarchate of Rome, but after the 476 fall it was controled by the remaining Roman Empire, on and off. When the Western Church broke away, these areas were still aligned politically with the East.

[Kosmo]

Basically, the Catholics never lost territory, they only gained it, and the Orthodox areas were under constant threat.

 

The patriarh of Rome lost North Africa for good and most of Spain for 700 years. He also had under his authority, in the begining the west and south of the Balkans including Greece, Macedonia and today Serbia.

 

I was thinking about that, but decided not to include NW Africa because the Church hadn't yet split. The Catholic West never lost territory after the 1054 split. The Balkans were under the Patriarchate of Rome, but after the 476 fall it was controled by the remaining Roman Empire, on and off. When the Western Church broke away, these areas were still aligned politically with the East.

 

I fully agree, that's way I used the term "patriarh of Rome", but this brings another question: how you define catholicism especially in comparison with orthodoxy?

Usually authors name those who obeyed the Nicean edicts as catholics. So, Justinian was a catholic and so was Clovis.

Can we say the same about Vasile II Bulgarochton and Otto in early XI C (before the great schism)?

Can we speak of orthodox and catholics before 1054? We could say that each patriarch had control over an area within the greater christian church and we could call this areas catholic, orthodox (with an added problem for the 3 patriarchs of the Middle East)

Edited April 19, 2007 by Kosmo

[M. Porcius Cato]

If I can interject a couple more elementary questions: WHEN did Catholicism grow? What is the starting date? How is its size being estimated?

[docoflove1974]

If I can interject a couple more elementary questions: WHEN did Catholicism grow? What is the starting date? How is its size being estimated?

 

I don't know about the overall spread of Catholocism, but I do know that in the 9th-11th centuries many monasteries were forming "cults" (I use this term very loosely; this is not meant to say that they were full-on crazies drinking the kool-aid, but that they were followers of a specific area of the religion more than another), predominantly following key members of the faith; the Cult of the Virgin, particularly active among the Cistercian order, is a good example of this. Many of these "cults" produced much literature--in prose and poetry, in Latin and vernacular--to not only discuss the finer details of their group and beliefs, but also to 'teach' the population about the good points of these 'beliefs'. This is how we get the various versions (Latin and vernacular) of the Miracles of Our Lady (Gautier de Coinci's Miracle de Nostre Dame, Gonzalo de Berceo's Milagros de Nuestra Se

[M. Porcius Cato]

So, knowing that, I would say that by the mid-Medieval period (1000ish) the monastic system was in full swing, that the monasteries and churches were the center of life and power. If that is the case, then the Catholic religion would have had to be a powerful part of the culture and life--go to church, pay your tithes, or else.

 

This is interesting, but the power of the Church in some locations doesn't tell us about how widely Catholicism had spread. For example, were the orders you cited to be found in North Africa? Spain? Turkey? Japan? There had to be some limits, and it's impossible to talk about the growth of the Church without knowing its spatial and temporal boundaries.

[Moonlapse]

Is it possible that it had to do with the monasteries' role in preserving/controlling literacy and scholarship?