WI Donatism prevailed? Could this lead to a stricter Church?

Don_Giorgio

About 4th Century AD Bishop Donatus of Carthage started an early Christian sect... The Donatists held that all sacraments were invalid if performed by sinful clerics: by their sinful act, such clerics had rendered themselves incapable of celebrating valid sacraments. This is known as: ex opere operantis — Latin for from the work of the one doing the working, that is, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the worthiness and holiness of the minister confecting it. The Catholic position was (and is): ex opere operato— from the work having been worked, in other words, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the holiness of God, the minister being a mere instrument of God's work. Hence, to the Donatists, a priest who had been an apostate but who repented could speak the words of consecration forever, but he could no longer confect the Eucharist. To the Catholics, a person who received the Eucharist from the hands of even an unrepentant sinning priest still received Christ's Body and Blood, their own sacramental life being undamaged by the priest's faults.
WI Donatism was incorporated to the Catholic Doctrine? Could this lead to a stricter Church? How is this altering History? Any thoughts?
 

Matthais Corvinus

Don_Giorgio said:
About 4th Century AD Bishop Donatus of Carthage started an early Christian sect... The Donatists held that all sacraments were invalid if performed by sinful clerics: by their sinful act, such clerics had rendered themselves incapable of celebrating valid sacraments. This is known as: ex opere operantis — Latin for from the work of the one doing the working, that is, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the worthiness and holiness of the minister confecting it. The Catholic position was (and is): ex opere operato— from the work having been worked, in other words, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the holiness of God, the minister being a mere instrument of God's work. Hence, to the Donatists, a priest who had been an apostate but who repented could speak the words of consecration forever, but he could no longer confect the Eucharist. To the Catholics, a person who received the Eucharist from the hands of even an unrepentant sinning priest still received Christ's Body and Blood, their own sacramental life being undamaged by the priest's faults.

WI Donatism was incorporated to the Catholic Doctrine? Could this lead to a stricter Church? How is this altering History? Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

So the Church has an earlier security apparatus to make sure that its priests are performing correctly?

Perhaps a reforming Western Emperor who wants to gain control of the Church? What was the specific conflict between the theology of the mainstream Church and the theology of Donatus' heresy?
 

Tom_B

This would create an uneasiness within the Church that would periodically fester up. In a few centuries someone important is going to try to resolve this tension by a radical deemphasis of the importance of the sacraments leading to something not far removed from Calvinism.
 

Don_Giorgio

Tom_B said:
This would create an uneasiness within the Church that would periodically fester up. In a few centuries someone important is going to try to resolve this tension by a radical deemphasis of the importance of the sacraments leading to something not far removed from Calvinism.
Click to expand...

Does this means an earlier "reverse" Reformation in Church?
The principal idea of Donatism was that a sinner deacon/priest/Bishop had lost the authority to perform Sacraments because of his sins (something like "ipso facto" excommunication) while Catholicism teach that even a sinful priest can perform Sacraments validly because its God's Grace that is performing them through the Priest... Donatism concentrated on man as a performer of Sacraments while Catholicism concentrates on God performing Sacraments through men...
 
Last edited:

Tom_B

My original point is that Donatism creates intense anxiety about sacramental validity (remember that in the Middle Ages it was commonly believed that only a small fraction of 1% of people are saved and that clergy were only a little better than laity in that regard) and sooner or later someone is going to resolve this anxiety by trying to make the sacraments less important to salvation which will be a big step on the road to Protestantism.

Before this happens some other attempts to resolve this problem will occur. In the case of the Eucharist I think it means concelebrated Mass will become fairly common with the idea that if one of the concelebrants is in the state of grace the consecration is valid.

In Baptism the concept that any Church member can perform Baptism gets more important. When a child is baptized the parents would in effect concelebrate with the priest and if any of them is in the state of grace the sacrament is valid.

This would likewise have an impact on the development of the sacrament of Penance (aka Reconciliation). Public confession may emerge as the norm.

But again all of these tortured partial solutions will not completely solve the problem.
 

Don_Giorgio

Tom_B said:
In Baptism the concept that any Church member can perform Baptism gets more important. When a child is baptized the parents would in effect concelebrate with the priest and if any of them is in the state of grace the sacrament is valid.
Click to expand...

According to Church Canons only Bishops and Priests can perform Baptism with only one exception... The "emergency" Baptism...
When the newborn is in danger of death any member of the church even laymen can baptise the child... If the child dies the Baptism is valid... If the child survive the Baptism must be completed from a Priest...
In my opinion if Donatism had prevailed this "emergency" Baptism would be invalid... Moraly stricter Church could have ended in numerous sects in 6th-7th century i guess...
 

Tom_B

You are misinterpreting my response. Parents would not be performing the baptismal rite solo (except in emergencies). There would still be a priest or bishop involved but the parents would also have an active role in the rite so if either of them is in the state of grace it makes the sacrament valid even if the priest/bishop is not.

The problem is that a morally stricter Church is still not even close to a solution to the validity problem as there are so many ways to fall from grace many of which a morality police could never catch.
 

ChucK Y

AFAIK, the Donatist controversy involved specifically the priests and bishops who had renounced their faith during the persecution of Diocletian. The Donatists maintained that those leaders could not ever be restored to their office, while the larger Church accepted them back after appropriate penance. This controversy was not about the general spiritual state of priests. Those particular priests and bishops (and priests and bishops consecrated by them) were considered by the Donatists to not perform valid sacraments. It would be AH for Donatism to move toward rigor in the spiritual state of priests in general.
 

Don_Giorgio

ChucK Y said:
AFAIK, the Donatist controversy involved specifically the priests and bishops who had renounced their faith during the persecution of Diocletian. The Donatists maintained that those leaders could not ever be restored to their office, while the larger Church accepted them back after appropriate penance. This controversy was not about the general spiritual state of priests. Those particular priests and bishops (and priests and bishops consecrated by them) were considered by the Donatists to not perform valid sacraments. It would be AH for Donatism to move toward rigor in the spiritual state of priests in general.
Click to expand...

Yes Donatism started because of lapsed Bishops and Priests during persecutions... But after the cease of persecutions this was extended to everyone... Donatus of Carthage said that if a priest was a sinner he had lost the right to perform sacraments... or in other words he had lost the ideligible mark (sic) of his ordination/consecration...
If Donatism prevailed we could see a more Iran-like Church today...
 

Matthais Corvinus

Don_Giorgio said:
Yes Donatism started because of lapsed Bishops and Priests during persecutions... But after the cease of persecutions this was extended to everyone... Donatus of Carthage said that if a priest was a sinner he had lost the right to perform sacraments... or in other words he had lost the ideligible mark (sic) of his ordination/consecration...
If Donatism prevailed we could see a more Iran-like Church today...
Click to expand...

This is asking to be flamed. There is no comparison between the Catholic and Iranian clerical structures.
 

Matthais Corvinus

Alright, so this would require that something like the Inquistion is instituted MUCH earlier in the Church's history. This could end up really rippling history because the much earlier Inquistion would impose a much tighter theological jacket on Latin Church, where iOTL there was a lot of theological wiggle room up to the invention of the printing press.
 

Hazazel

Tom_B said:
My original point is that Donatism creates intense anxiety about sacramental validity (remember that in the Middle Ages it was commonly believed that only a small fraction of 1% of people are saved and that clergy were only a little better than laity in that regard) and sooner or later someone is going to resolve this anxiety by trying to make the sacraments less important to salvation which will be a big step on the road to Protestantism.
Click to expand...

Protestantism =/= de-emphasis on sacraments. Or, alternatively, Lutheranism isn't a Protestant denomination.
 

Don_Giorgio

Matthais Corvinus said:
Alright, so this would require that something like the Inquistion is instituted MUCH earlier in the Church's history. This could end up really rippling history because the much earlier Inquistion would impose a much tighter theological jacket on Latin Church, where iOTL there was a lot of theological wiggle room up to the invention of the printing press.
Click to expand...

An Inquisition in early Church could mean that Orthodox Church too has Inquisition if Schism occurs as OTL... Then Catholic and Orthodox would compete on who is the stricter...
 

Matthais Corvinus

Don_Giorgio said:
An Inquisition in early Church could mean that Orthodox Church too has Inquisition if Schism occurs as OTL... Then Catholic and Orthodox would compete on who is the stricter...
Click to expand...

Since this POD is so early I think the schism is butterflied away. What I foresee is that this Donatist-inspired Inquisition is going to allow the Emperor in Constantinople to exercise a far greater amount of control over the Western Church. The Inquisition would allow the Imperial-controlled church to crush independent tendencies in the West by "excommunicating" (or whatever the term is) any clerics who assert independence from Imperial control.

Keeping the western church much closer to the eastern one is going to end up doing all sorts of weird things to European history. I would think the first thing that would really change is that it would be the Head of the Inquisition who is the true head of the Church, being able to short-circuit the rise of the Papacy as an institution.
 

Don_Giorgio

Matthais Corvinus said:
. I would think the first thing that would really change is that it would be the Head of the Inquisition who is the true head of the Church, being able to short-circuit the rise of the Papacy as an institution.
Click to expand...

Interesting... A Shadow-Pope (Head of Inquisition) answerable only to the Emperor...
 

Midgard

What I wonder is how much more enticing to convert this new Christianity would be, or if it is going to be detrimental to its expansion. Will it lead to barbarians not adopting Christianity, or at least not adopting Donatism? After all, the last thing various post-Western Roman states want is the Emperor in Constantinople having a major say in their affairs. Therefore, I can imagine Donatism being eventually restricted to the Eastern Empire and the territories it influences, if only for political reasons.
 

Hazazel

Midgard said:
What I wonder is how much more enticing to convert this new Christianity would be, or if it is going to be detrimental to its expansion. Will it lead to barbarians not adopting Christianity, or at least not adopting Donatism? After all, the last thing various post-Western Roman states want is the Emperor in Constantinople having a major say in their affairs. Therefore, I can imagine Donatism being eventually restricted to the Eastern Empire and the territories it influences, if only for political reasons.
Click to expand...

Maybe Arianism will be more successful?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top