Attila the Hun/Catholic Church

[OrangeEmpire]

From the New Advent (Little History)

Attila / New Advent

Catholic interest in Attila centers chiefly in his relations with those bishops of France and Italy who restrained the Hunnish leader in his devastating fury. The moral power of these bishops, more particularly of the pope during the dissolution of the empire, is evidenced as well by the confidence in which the faithful looked to them for succour against the terrible invader as by the influence they sometimes exerted in staying that invader's destroying hand. St. Agnan of Orléans sustained the courage of his people and hastened the reinforcements that saved his apparently doomed city; at Troyes, St. Lupus prevailed upon Attila to spare the province of Champagne, and gave himself as a hostage while the Hunnish army remained in Gaul; when Rome seemed destined to meet the fate of the Lombard cities which Attila had pillaged, it was Pope Leo the Great who, by his eloquence and commanding personality, overawed the conqueror and saved the city.

Pope St. Leo I (The Great)

his far-reaching pastoral care of the Universal Church, in the West and in the East, the pope never neglected the domestic interests of the Church at Rome. When Northern Italy had been devastated by Attila, Leo by a personal encounter with the King of the Huns prevented him from marching upon Rome. At the emperor's wish, Leo, accompanied by the Consul Avienus and the Prefect Trigetius, went in 452 to Upper Italy, and met Attila at Mincio in the vicinity of Mantua, obtaining from him the promise that he would withdraw from Italy and negotiate peace with the emperor. The pope also succeeded in obtaining another great favour for the inhabitants of Rome. When in 455 the city was captured by the Vandals under Genseric, although for a fortnight the town had been plundered, Leo's intercession obtained a promise that the city should not be injured and that the lives of the inhabitants should be spared. These incidents show the high moral authority enjoyed by the pope, manifested even in temporal affairs.

The Roman bishop Leo I (440-461) is considered the first pope by historians, as he was the first to claim ultimate authority over all of Christendom. In his writings one can find all the traditional arguments for papal authority, most notably that which asserts Christ had designated Peter and his successors the "rock" on which the church would be built.

Leo's claims were strengthened greatly by his own impressive career as Bishop of Rome. In 445 he earned the express support of Emperor Valentian, who said the Bishop of Rome was the law for all. In 451, he called the important Council of Chalcedon, which put to rest Christological issues that had been plaguing the church. In 452, he impressively saved Rome from Attila the Hun. It is said that the Pope met the warrior at the gates and somehow persuaded him to spare the city. Legend has it that Attila saw Peter and Paul marching along with Leo to defend their city.

Did Catholic influence/power begin with Attila and Leo?

 

[BHAMVOLFAN]

Do you mean "did Catholic influence and power come from it's negotiations with Atilla?" If so, that certainly didn't hurt them in Italy at the time and probably did strengthen the organization. Constantine was really the first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, not Leo.

What other Christian Churches were in the region at the time? Were there any that we can actually document?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Do you mean "did Catholic influence and power come from it's negotiations with Atilla?"

Nope, did their present religous power start with Attila and Leo?

Constantine was really the first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, not Leo.

One could argue Peter.

Catholics believe that the bishop of Rome inherits the mantle of Peter, apostle of Jesus Christ who was entrusted with the administration of his church after he died. Peter travelled to Rome where he is believed to have established a Christian community before he was martyred. All popes are, then, successors of Peter not only as leading the Christian community in Rome, but also as leading the Christian community in general, and they maintain a direct connection to the original apostles.

Peter's position as leader of the Christian church is traced back to the Gospel of Matthew:

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
(Matthew 16: 18-19)

Based upon this Catholics have developed the doctrine of "papal primacy", the idea that as successor to Peter, the pope is the head of the worldwide Christian Church.

What other Christian Churches were in the region at the time?

Armenian Church (c.400 AD) (about 1.6 million); Coptic Church (c. 400 AD) (about 7 million). Muhammad (570 AD to 632 AD) initiated Islamic (Muslim) Reform Judaism
Jesus (4 BC to about 30 AD), was Crucified and became the basis of Christianity. (around 1869 million today)
Roman Catholic Church Letter East, Rossnacaheragh , Minogue's Church, The Assyrian Church of the East, African church etc.....

Were there any that we can actually document?

Want the links?

 

[therealUT]

Do you mean "did Catholic influence and power come from it's negotiations with Atilla?" If so, that certainly didn't hurt them in Italy at the time and probably did strengthen the organization. Constantine was really the first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, not Leo.

What other Christian Churches were in the region at the time? Were there any that we can actually document?

There are so many things wrong with the highlighted statement, that I do not know where to begin. Constantine was not a Pope. Constantine issued the Edict of Milan midway through the 4th Century. Leo was Pope during the end of the 4th Century and the beginning of the 5th. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and, therefore, the first Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Trut, do you think the Pope gained power religiously and political by the actions/conquests of Attila?

 

[therealUT]

Back to the question of whether the Hun provided more power to the Catholic Church:

I would state that whatever influence the Church gained after the reign of Atilla the Hun in Eastern and into Western Europe, were most likely gains due to the fact that Atilla was wiping out all peoples outside of Rome. This would include those who wished to persecute the faith, yet it would also include those who stood to defend the faith.

This leads me to my next point, being that there were few outside of Rome, during the Huns' rampage that were in disagreement with the Catholic Church. Most of the debate still centered around the paganists in Rome and the Catholics in Rome. There were relatively few outside of Rome, Greece, Turkey, and Jerusalem who practiced or attacked the Church at the time.

The Church probably owes more of its influence in Western Europe to the Visigoths and Vandals, before and after the Hun, respectively. The Visigoths actually respected the claim of sanctuary for Christians in Rome. Of course, this led to more Romans finding safety in Christian Churches, which in turn led to more Romans converting to Christianity. However, they still did not convert en masse.

 

[therealUT]

Trut, do you think the Pope gained power religiously and political by the actions/conquests of Attila?

If anything, the Pope gained respect and admiration for his courage in dealing with Attila. That admiration most likely led to some Romans converting. Still, I do not believe that a great deal of Romans converted at that time.

Attila had the power to wipe out Rome and do away with the center of the Christian world, and he was persuaded not to by Pope Leo. In that regard, I will state that Attila did not hinder the growth nor existence of the Catholic Church.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

The Church probably owes more of its influence in Western Europe to the Visigoths and Vandals, before and after the Hun, respectively. The Visigoths actually respected the claim of sanctuary for Christians in Rome. Of course, this led to more Romans finding safety in Christian Churches, which in turn led to more Romans converting to Christianity. However, they still did not convert en masse.

If anything, the Pope gained respect and admiration for his courage in dealing with Attila. That admiration most likely led to some Romans converting. Still, I do not believe that a great deal of Romans converted at that time.

Attila had the power to wipe out Rome and do away with the center of the Christian world, and he was persuaded not to by Pope Leo. In that regard, I will state that Attila did not hinder the growth nor existence of the Catholic Church.

Nice argument, I tend to lean toward your point of view on this subject. I have read and been around others who believe the present existence and power of the catholic church lends itself to Attila.

 

[therealUT]

Nice argument, I tend to lean toward your point of view on this subject. I have read and been around others who believe the present existence and power of the catholic church lends itself to Attila.

There will always be those who argue that point, and completely ignore the fact that Rome was under attack for about a 60 year stretch (Visigoths, Huns, Vandals,) and the Church was merely trying to survive during that period.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

There will always be those who argue that point, and completely ignore the fact that Rome was under attack for about a 60 year stretch (Visigoths, Huns, Vandals,) and the Church was merely trying to survive during that period.

In my case, those who argue that point generally believe the catholic church will produce the anti-christ.

 

[therealUT]

In my case, those who argue that point generally believe the catholic church will produce the anti-christ.

What do you mean "will"? There are plenty out there who believe that every single Pope is the anti-Christ.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

What do you mean "will"? There are plenty out there who believe that every single Pope is the anti-Christ.

True :biggrin2: