The Donatist heresy argued that, for the sacraments to be effective, the priest must himself be in a faultless state of grace. You can see their point — if the sacraments are effective regardless, what’s the point of the priesthood? It also makes the sacraments seem perilously close to magic spells, but whatever, the theology of it all is above my pay grade. Donatism has been roundly condemned several times, by real popes (not that fraud Bergoglio, who is quite clearly in league with The Other Guy), and that’s good enough for me.
But like all things theological in the Christian Centuries, Donatism had important socio-political implications. Again, I’m about the furthest thing from a medievalist, but as I understand it, Jan Hus — a proto-Luther if anyone was — advanced a kind of Donatist argument against the Holy Roman Emperor (and / or the King of Bohemia, I forget which, or even if they were separate guys at that point). He was also, IIRC, echoing the English heretic John Wyclif, whose arguments had a similar political import in a similarly anarchic time. They held (again IIRC, which I might not) that since kings derive their authority from God, any king that is obviously on the outs with the Lord has lost his right to rule. A heretic or schismatic king, in other words, is no king at all.
You could call this a Christian version of the old Chinese idea of “The Mandate of Heaven”, and if you want to do that I’m not going to argue with you, but it’s considerably easier to identify a heretic. A Christian king’s most basic responsibility is to his own spiritual health; closely followed by his obligation to his realm’s spiritual health. It’s pretty easy to tell when a king’s not doing that.
Severian, “The New Donatism?”, Founding Questions, 2021-11-20.
May 15, 2025
QotD: The Donatist heresy
Comments Off on QotD: The Donatist heresy
No Comments
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
