Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 10 - Hilarius (461-468)

I mentioned Leo I in the last post, and he'd seem like the obvious choice for this century. He served as pope for 21 years, solidified Roman primacy among churches with an edict from the emperor, ended heresies, was named a Doctor of the Church, and became the first pope to be called "the Great." A lot going on, and a pivotal time for the church. So how do you follow that up?

If you're Hilarius, who prior to becoming pope worked with Leo, you continue your predecesor's work without drawing too much attention to yourself. A game plan that works as well today as it did back then. Hilarius continued to work on issues in Gaul and heresies, and got several buildings completed. So not the most exciting run, but sensible given who was in his job before him.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 9 - Zosimus (417-418)

Zosimus is the only pope in this half-century to not have his name used by another pope. There's the first Innocent, Celestine, Boniface and Leo, all of which were repeated later, in some cases several times. But there remains only one Zosimus. Why is that?

Turns out that Sozimus was probably a bit to belligerent to serve effectively, as he inserted himself in situations in Gaul and Africa that didn't end well (or end at all - Leo had to solve one the problems, and he didn't start as pope until the 440s). Zosimus was either highly suggestible or not that bright, as he seemed to take the side of whomever he was talking to at the time. This was most notable in his acceptance of supporters of the Pelagianic heresy (who argued that original sin didn't taint human nature).

He also banned clerics from taverns, a move that you think would get him blackballed from sainthood. But Zosimus is officially St. Zosimus, sort of an early ecclesiastical George W. Bush who didn't let intellectual shortcomings get in the way of the top job.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 8: Liberius (352-366)

Liberius is the earliest serving pope who isn't a saint, at least to Western Catholics. I was curious how he didn't make the cut while everyone else before him - many with little to no surviving information about their lives or term as pope - did.

As with most of these early popes, there's not a lot of detail as to his term. One major item was his stand against the emperor regarding Athanasius, a noted theologian who argued against Arianism. The emperor wanted all the bishops to sign a condemnation of Athanasius, and Liberius was among a small group that refused. For their trouble, the emperor (Constantius II) exiled the non-signers to Thrace. This led to the appointment of an antipope, Felix II, who would be deposed by the Roman people when Liberius was finally allowed to return to Rome. All in all an interesting story, but not enough to get sainted.

What probably doesn't help Liberius is that he wasn't smart enough to get martyred, or at least have someone spread the idea that he was martyred. Another example of the benefits of good PR.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 7 - St. Sylvester I (314-355)

Not surprisingly, for a pope with such a long reign (the 8th longest to date), quite a bit happened to the church during Sylvester's tenure. The Roman emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, putting to rest (for the moment) the fear of persecution. Many of the great churches of Rome - including St. John's Lateran and the first St. Peter's - were built. And the first Council of Nicaea was held, marking the first attempt to bring some uniformity to Christian worship and practice.

And yet, we have little idea of how involved Sylvester was with any of this. Legends abound regarding Sylvester's relationship with Constantine, but most of the documentation on this is apparently fraudulent (from the Donation of Constantine on down). He must have had a hand in the building of churches, but we don't know how much. And he didn't even attend the council, sending his legates instead (though he would approve of the council's actions afterwards).

Some of this can be chalked up to the intervention of years, but you'd think someone who served at a time like this would have a better paper trail.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 6: St. Sixtus II (257-258)

There are two major facts I could figure out about this Sixtus - he reconciled with orthodox churches in Asia and Africa after a dispute over re-baptizing heretics threatened to end relations completely, and he was martyred by beheading during the persecutions of the Roman emperor Valerian. Care to guess which one caught my eye?

(It also appears that this Sixtus was often confused with a writer and philosopher of the same name, though that's not so interesting.)

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 5: St. Pontius (230-235)

Pontius is the first pope where we have exact dates for holding office, thanks to some unknown scribe who wrote about third century clerics. It was during this period that the schism started by Hippolytus (who you may remember from the last entry) was closed, thanks in large part to Hippolytus seeking - and getting - reconciliation with the Roman church.

Not that there was much time to celebrate, as not long after this the emperor decided to exile a number of churchmen - Pontius and Hippolytus included - to Sardinia. Pontius abdicated before going away, and eventually died due to the exertions from working in the mines. He is also joined to Hippolytus by feast date, which makes me think that things worked out pretty well for Hippolytus, going from potential anitpope to saint like that.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 4: Pope Zephyrinus (199-217)

You don't have to dig too far into the lives of the popes to find that they all weren't loved, or particularly suited for the job. Zephyrinus may be the first in the series of such popes, as contemporary writers seem pretty well united in the belief that he was too simple and too weak for the job. Many pointed to his deacon, Callixtus (who would succeed him as pope), as the real power.

With that in mind, it's no surprise that what little we know about his term as pope is negative. For starters, conditions for Christians under Roman rule grew steadily worse, until emperor Septimus Severus formally started persecuting them again (particularly converts). It also appears that Zephyrinus helped spur the first schism in the church, when he was unable to properly counter the teachings of a priest named Hippolytus regarding the unified nature of the Holy Trinity. Callixtus would inherit the problem, which grew to the point where Hippolytus is considered by some to be the first antipope.

What Zephyrinus does have in common with many of the early popes is that he is sainted, probably because of his martyrdom, of which we know nothing. Based on his performance, it's really the only way he'd get sainted.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 3: St. Telesphorus (126-137, give or take a year on both ends)

Again, we don't have many facts about Telesphorus outside of him being Greek and having served as pope during the reigns of the Roman emperors Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. Traditionally, he's credited with popularizing midnight mass at Christmas, celebrating Easter on Sunday, the seven week period of Lent, and the singing of the Gloria at the start of mass. That seems like a lot for one guy.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 2: Pope Anacletus or Cletus (77-88 or 80-92)

The third pope, the most we know about Anacletus is that we don't know if he is also Pope Cletus. The church and most historical sources consider them to be the same person, while some other sources continue to list two separate people. There were two feast days, which were merged into one in the early 1960s. It's all very confusing and required some level of papal intervention to get things as relatively clean as they are now.

As with most of the early popes, not much is known about him, as you might tell from the two different periods attributed to his pontificate. He is traditionally thought to be Roman and responsible for the division of Rome into parishes. He's also believed to have been martyred, though how isn't explained.

There is a religious order in the US called the Anacletians, who (ironically) don't believe that the pope is in charge of the Catholic church. This somehow relates back to the Old Catholic movement and the Syraic Orthodox Church, and leaves them in some sort of semi-legal status with Rome. I cannot even begin to pretend that I understand how it all works.

I was on my way home last night, and got to thinking about yesterday's post and possible topics on Lenten posting. It then occurred to me that we've had just over 2000 years of popes, and that divides nicely into a 40 day period, leading to...

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

The idea being I'll talk about someone who was pope for each 50 year segment of the office. This being day one, we start at the beginning of the first century AD, which pretty much gives us one option.

Day 1: St. Peter (circa 30-64 or 67)

For a guy who was an apostle and saint, there's a fair bit of confusion about Peter's role as the first pope. Or if he was even pope at all; doing a Google search on the topic will return a plethora of pages arguing both sides at various levels of hysteria.

We also don't know much about what Peter did while in Rome. The sources we do have were mostly written well after Peter's death, which could easily allow tradition to become fact.

And, of course, the actual title pope wasn't used in reference to the Bishop of Rome until much later, though that's the least of Peter's problems.

Obviously, this is a sensitive topic for the Catholic hierarchy, as without Peter being pope (or some sort of pope-like substance) the whole idea of the papacy being an unbroken line of leadership starting with Jesus goes away. This undermines the current leadership, and the next thing you know we're all Presbyterians or something.

Not surprisingly, it's not a topic that comes up in Sunday school, and I can't say I'd really ever considered it until now. I can say that I have a hard time caring either way.

Lent kicks of tomorrow, which usually sees me do two things around these parts:

1. Solicit ideas for what to give up, and

2. Run the Lentorama, a 40 day posting festival of things Catholic.

This year, I'm doing neither.

I've pretty much determined that I'm going to do what I did last year and give up unnecessary use of escalators and elevators. It's on the minor side, but if nothing else it'll give me a little extra workout. I suppose I'll pair that with not going to the vending machine in the basement of the building where I work, seems like a good pairing.

As for Lentorama, I have no good ideas and didn't even finish last year's edition (so much for Lenten discipline). So I think I'll take a pass this year, unless inspiration strikes in the next 24 hours. Sorry to both of you who were looking forward to that.

Book Log 2010 #2: The Devil's Company by David Liss

Boxer turned private eye Benjamin Weaver is back, involved this time in intrigue involving the British East India Company. His client, rather than hiring him for work, blackmails him into the job by putting several friend and family members at risk of debtor's prison. Weaver's work sees him involved in the various intrigues, financial and otherwise, that are the usual stock in trade of the series, though there's more of an international flavor here, not surprisingly. There's also a female character introduced who may prove to be Weaver's match - both professionally and personally.

As always an excellent historical novel, with the period detail we've come to expect. There's also a little plot movement back towards Weaver's personal life and interactions with London's Jewish community, which are also welcome. Very much worth the read.

Book Log 2010 #1: Hitler's War by Harry Turtledove

Turtledove's latest multi-volume reimagining of history involves World War II, which in this case starts much earlier, and without the appeasement that helped the Germans establish themselves in Austria and Czechoslovakia before actual fighting commenced.

As usual, the book covers multiple plot lines - I can think of at least seven - with the story unfolding across Europe and Asia. It avoids the narrative repetition that made Give Me Back My Legions! tedious, but is perhaps a little sprawling. The variety of plot lines waters down the personalities and stunts the growth of the more promising story arcs. I worry a bit that some of the people and events of the first book will be well forgotten by the time the second book comes out.

Even with the sprawl problem the book is still fairly entertaining, certainly enough for World War II buffs or alt history nerds.