Investiture Controversy of 1075-1122: root of secularism in the West?

[Roma_Victrix]

Please re-read the post.

And please read the book. It's arguably the best book on the subject I've ever read. I don't agree with everything, but all the major points are spot on.

Does Fukuyama account for the evolution of Roman government by the period of late antiquity, after the Dominate was established by Diocletian? His government was a rather different beast than that of the late Republic or even the early Principate under Augustus, which were still struggling to cope with how to properly rule an empire. From the period of Augustus onwards, this also meant various provinces were assigned to the senate or the emperor, depending on their importance to the Roman army and frontier defense (in that case the Senate controlled the safest interior provinces). By the early Byzantine era, many Roman offices had been inherited from the bureaucratic system established by Diocletian, as well as new offices that were uniquely Byzantine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzant...Palace_offices

Does Fukuyama examine the role of these administrative offices at all? It's perhaps less complex and varied than the ancient Chinese bureaucracy that developed during the Tang dynasty (or even the nascent bureaucracy of the earlier Han dynasty), but these offices clearly reflect planning and organization for an empire beyond the city limits of Rome or Italia for that matter, and later Constantinople.

That said, let's not make this conversation excessively long, you guys. This is a thread about secularism and the Investiture Controversy, after all. Let's not stray too far from the original purpose.

[Rinan]

By the way, this discussion reminded me of a lecture I watched way back. A professor argues the importance of Arianism, and just how close it was that all of Europe turned to the Arian branch of christianity (The Visigoths and the Ostrogoths already were) - and how Clovis of the Franks turned the tide by choosing Catholicism. This he sees as a fundamental event. An all Arian Europe would have consisted of a disunited Christendom, with every kingdom having its own church. Instead, when Catholicism won out we end up with a more religiously united Europe... A centralised Christendom, with a powerful church and a powerful papacy. Which, to link it to the discussion, means a church that was better equipped for the investiture controversy. At the same time, it'd also explain why the investiture controversy happened in the West, and not the East (For Orthodox Christianity *has* fallen apart into several distinct units without any overarching authority extending across borders in practice)

So, if the premise of the opening post is true, and also this premise… Can we extend the origin of western secularism all the way back to the 6^th century?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grkKafwIpSY
(around 35:00 he begins with the "what ifs" if Catholicism hadn't won, but really I recommend watching the whole thing, I find it very fascinating! He doesn't directly touch on our discussion, but he raises a lot of important points that are of indirect relevance.

[Ecthelion]

Does Fukuyama account for the evolution of Roman government by the period of late antiquity, after the Dominate was established by Diocletian? His government was a rather different beast than that of the late Republic or even the early Principate under Augustus, which were still struggling to cope with how to properly rule an empire. From the period of Augustus onwards, this also meant various provinces were assigned to the senate or the emperor, depending on their importance to the Roman army and frontier defense (in that case the Senate controlled the safest interior provinces). By the early Byzantine era, many Roman offices had been inherited from the bureaucratic system established by Diocletian, as well as new offices that were uniquely Byzantine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzant...Palace_offices

Does Fukuyama examine the role of these administrative offices at all? It's perhaps less complex and varied than the ancient Chinese bureaucracy that developed during the Tang dynasty (or even the nascent bureaucracy of the earlier Han dynasty), but these offices clearly reflect planning and organization for an empire beyond the city limits of Rome or Italia for that matter, and later Constantinople.

That said, let's not make this conversation excessively long, you guys. This is a thread about secularism and the Investiture Controversy, after all. Let's not stray too far from the original purpose.

It's interesting you bring this up. And no Francis Blowing Mountain didn't bring it up in his book.
I was thinking about making another thread discussing my view that the Imperial Roman system was doomed from day one.
I mean, what other empire of comparable duration in human history can make the ignoble claim that more of its emperors died of assassination than natural causes? And despite having miraculously survived for almost 500 years still not manage to create a workable succession system?

The whole affair reminds me more of a college frat than a stable, centralized, bureaucratic government.

If you stop to think about it, succession in the traditional sense, where a father ruling the whole Empire, dies a natural death and successfully passes on the whole Empire, intact, into the hands of his son (born into the purple) only happened ONCE in the entire history of the Empire. That case being, of course, the ascension of Commodus, hardly an auspicious turn of events for the Empire.

And even when things were going as intended, the Empire was effectively ruled by a junta starting with the ascension of Septimius Severus. Civilian leadership completely lost control and the army was the ultimate source of authority bar none. It's no wonder that Severus told his sons to "take care of the army and scorn all other men".

So I would hardly consider the Roman Empire to be a good case study for stable bureaucratic state forming. In fact, it serves better as a counterexample, the "how not to do state forming".

Finally, Francis traces the same civilizations he studies in his first book through the modern period (he defines this as post French Revolution) to today. So that wouldn't really work with Rome or Egypt or even the Greeks.

[Rinan]

I was thinking about making another thread discussing my view that the Imperial Roman system was doomed from day one.

Any civilisation is doomed to fall one day.

And despite having miraculously survived for almost 500 years

1500 years

still not manage to create a workable succession system?

Well it worked, more or less. Succesion didn't always work out because a. there were a lack of eligible heirs or b. Other powerful institutions (the senate, the praetorians, the army in general) intervened. But then again, for a lot of medieval and early modern states the same can be said (The Carolingian divisions, 'The Anarchy', Hundred Years War, War of the Roses, etc. in the West. Or for example Time of Troubles in Russia.)
But yes, overall you're right. Succession was not as legally grounded as it was for later medieval monarchies. Still, you could also see it as a plus; it makes emperorship more 'meritocratic', in a way?

If you stop to think about it, succession in the traditional sense, where a father ruling the whole Empire, dies a natural death and successfully passes on the whole Empire, intact, into the hands of his son (born into the purple) only happened ONCE in the entire history of the Empire. That case being, of course, the ascension of Commodus, hardly an auspicious turn of events for the Empire.

To name but a few examples: Titus Flavius, legally speaking all the adoptive emperors of the 2nd century, Caracalla and Geta, Constantine II/Constans/Constantius and a lot of others as cousin or grandson, as happened in plenty of later monarchies.

the Empire was effectively ruled by a junta starting with the ascension of Septimius Severus. Civilian leadership completely lost control and the army was the ultimate source of authority bar none.

Since Emperor Augustus, really.

But we're going off-topic, I fear...

[Ecthelion]

1500 years

I'm obviously referring to the Empire, not the Republic. Please actually read.

To name but a few examples: Titus Flavius (not born into the purple), legally speaking all the adoptive emperors of the 2nd century (adoption doesn't count, that's basically cheating fate), Caracalla and Geta (nope, one emperor, one successor. The Roman practice of bequeathing the same empire to multiple heirs is fairly unique in the then civilized world), Constantine II/Constans/Constantius and a lot of others as cousin or grandson, as happened in plenty of later monarchies (again, one emperor, one successor. Constantine I succession was a unmitigated bloodbath that went nothing like the way the old man intended. This one isn't even close bro).

The Roman practice of letting multiple Emperors succeed to the same throne has very rarely gone well. Marcus A. and Lucius V. managed to pull it off only cause of LV distinct lack of **** to be given and dying early helped too. The practice itself is systemic failure.

Theodosius was smart to split his Empire upon death, but had the Romans developed a Chinese level of bureaucratic efficiency, they would not have needed to split the Empire to begin with. That's another major fundamental failing of the Imperial system, one man had far too much on his plate, there was no effective delegation even to the last days of the Empire.

[Rinan]

I was referring to the Empire, not the Republic.

Secondly, the "born into the purple"-one-son restriction seems kind of unfair; that way you're masking the amount of succesions that did go rather smoothly. Of course, I agree with you, it was far from perfect. But then again, so was any succession in many premodern states; from medieval England to the Ottoman Empire. Though, admittedly, China and also Japan may have been more stable.
Anyway, we should stop derailing the thread, lol. I'm willing to grant you that Roman imperial succession was far from perfect. Just be careful about generalising from there on! Perhaps a much more interesting question would be: How did the Roman empire manage to survive that long having such a messy succesion-policy (or lack thereof)? For example, the Roman state did not need an extensive bureaucracy (nor did one man get too much on his plate -- Just too much military stuff), because most of the actual governing was done on local level by city councils, governors, prefects, bishops, etc. But again, that's another discussion.

[Aikanár]

^Gentlemen, if you wish to pursue this tangent further, please let me know via pm and I'll split off the relevant posts to a new thread.

[Roma_Victrix]

So, if the premise of the opening post is true, and also this premise… Can we extend the origin of western secularism all the way back to the 6^th century?

Only in that the Catholic Church was eventually responsible for trying to divorce the connection and interference of secular, temporal rulers with ecclesiastical affairs and appointments. However, it's hard to see something like an Investiture Controversy occurring at all if each country maintained its own Arian church that would lack a supranational structure, like that of the Catholic Church, whose bishops and archbishops infiltrated and planted themselves into every realm of Western Christendom. Even if something comparable to the Investiture Controversy occurred in one of the many disunited Arian churches attached to a single kingdom, it would have arguably only affected that country and not others. The effects of the Investiture Controversy were almost immediately felt in every Catholic kingdom by 1122, seeing how it was a reform of the entire church and sought the obedience of all Catholic monarchs on the matter.

^Gentlemen, if you wish to pursue this tangent further, please let me know via pm and I'll split off the relevant posts to a new thread.

I think they left it at a good point.

[ArmoredCore]

I would have to say no, because the Church was at the core of the structure of 'Western' civilization, as in Western Europe.
Rome laid the foundation under Constantine with the idea of one religion to rule all under the Roman Empire.
The difference was Constantine was both the leader of both sides, secular and religious as High Priest and God King.
The Holy Roman empire followed up on that whereas instead of everything being bound up in one person there was a division of labor so to speak.
But the Holy Roman empire basically was modeled on the idea that the Pope was Gods authority in the flesh, while the Kings were his deputies and agents of divine authority or 'the law'. That structure is what gave rise to the Crusades and from that came the cementing of the relationship between Holy Authority and Secular authority. This relationship allowed the Religious authorities wide sway in secular affairs, as the "God Kings" of the West needed 'higher authority' as the basis of their secular 'word of law'. And this isn't new as all civilizations had the same concept, where the King was both the high priest of the temple, the secular authority, the religious authority and the living incarnation of the law and the divine on earth. And in the West, this same concept continued but under different guises. This same concept was obviously found in Islam as well, which also had a profound impact on the structure and relationship between secular and religious authority in Europe. If you read almost any royal decree or 'legal' document you will see this in the way the King declares himself as authorized by God to do such and thus. And most of the expansion of the West around the world was authorized and supported by Holy Authority in the name of the various papal bulls. Calling Western Europe from the 10th to 18th century secular is misleading to say the least, as the relationship between church and state was much tighter than that implies.

If that was true, then there would have been no Crusades, there would have been no Inquisition and there would have been no Colonies, for starters.

[Roma_Victrix]

@ArmoredCore: who or what are you aiming your rebuttal at? The OP? If so I'm not sure how this is a rebuttal to anything in the OP.

For starters, nowhere in my OP is there a claim that secularism existed in the Middle Ages. Nederman and Forhan put forward the idea that the Investiture Controversy was the root of secularism, which obviously didn't exist at all until the 18th century and the Age of Enlightenment (establishment of the United States, Revolutionary and Napoleonic-era France, etc.). However, the Investiture Controversy laid the groundwork by divorcing the connection between church and state, forbidding monarchs to interfere in church affairs. However, this was a double-edged sword that also allowed for the decline of the church in secular, temporal matters dealing with the nation.

Also, where did you get this idea about Europe being secular starting in the 10th century? Your whole post is one gigantic enigma that is hard to understand given that you're not really rebutting anything that has been presented so far. You seem to be arguing against an invisible opponent that no one else but you can apparently see or hear. Reminds me of a James Stewart film:

[ArmoredCore]

Not sure how my post was misunderstood. But I don't see that there really was a separation of church and state even after the divestiture controversy.
My point was that that all civilizations use religion as the basis for secular rule and secular law as a sign of 'higher authority'. And most kings viewed themselves as having divine right to rule. And the Americas(North and South) were founded under the banner of Christianity and Christianity is the predominant religion and that could not have happened if there was not a strong correlation between Church and state, at least in the early years. I would argue that the separation of church and state in the United States is more of a side affect of the Mercantile system created by the British. Under this system, colonies were in fact companies given charters by the King (under the divine authority of god of course) and wide authority to function almost as a government into themselves. From this came the House of Burgesses, where the laws of the plantation company/colony were enacted and governed by a upper and lower house, which was the foundation of the American democratic system. John Locke was the primary thinker influencing this group as he was the one who championed the cause of the corporate colony and his writings are the foundation of many of the principles of the founding fathers and plantation owners. He was a fundamental part of the rise of the British mercanitlist corporate colonialist system and views had a lot more weight on the matter as he was a materialist, concerned with the management and affairs of landowners and commerce. And therefore, that concern with concerning land, contracts, the free will of the individual (expressed through contracts, ownership and commerce) are more of a reason for the separation of church and state than the investiture controversy which took place 700 years prior and did not create such a separation of Church and State in Europe. The concerns and views of Locke and others like Francis Bacon were of those preoccupied with secular affairs of trade, commerce and industry and the organization of human labor and capital and therefore religion was not something that needed priority within the corporate colonial state. But even though this as a distinction in terms of how to manage and organize the state, the Church was still obviously a major factor in the colony even if it wasn't given 'official' powers under the law. And both Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were members of the House of Burgesses along with many other leaders at the state level of the continental congress. Their whole governing system was based on the organization and structure of the House of Burgesses, which primarily was concerned with expanding the colonies, along the affairs of the plantations and slaves.

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents...son/jefl74.php

[Roma_Victrix]

Yes, but John Locke and Francis Bacon weren't a couple of Maori tribesmen who just woke up one day and suddenly propounded the principles of the empirical scientific method, common law, and universal liberties. These two brilliant men were products of their environment, their societies, and the historical social contexts in which they lived day to day. Imagine 16th-century Europe without something as significant as the Investiture Controversy happening prior to it, or the suitability of late medieval Germany, the heart of the Holy Roman Empire, as the breeding ground for the Reformation with its political fragmentation and proud independent Free Imperial Cities like Nuremberg.

Perhaps I didn't give the full context of Nederman and Forhan's passage by cutting out bits and pieces, and not presenting their argument in full in the extract I chose to excise for the OP. Let me include their remarks in full about the birth of literature on the subject of temporal power and how it differed from the religious establishment:

The emergence of this conflict was significant for the development of medieval political thought in several ways. First, the Investiture Controversy stimulated a vast polemical literature dedicated to the examination of the medieval West. These pamphlets, which incorporated arguments on behalf of both the papal and imperial causes, were composed by some of the finest minds of the late eleventh century and articulated a number of themes which were to continue to be important in Western political thought. Some authors, like Hugh of Fleury, extended the thesis of the secular ruler's divine mission, while others (like Honorius Augustodunesis) propounded the view that since God conferred royal power by means of the priesthood, secular princes were beholden to the clergy for their offices. Other participants in the war of propaganda appealed to rudimentary versions of social contract theory to support their positions. On the one side, Manegold of Lautenbach argued that Christian subjects had a duty to withdraw their allegiance from any ruler who refused to submit to the Church and its doctrines, since 'he who disdains Christian obedience should be judged unworthy of ruling Christians'. On the other side, the anonymous tract On The Conservation of the Unity of the Church (c. 1090) asserted that only the common consent of the great men of the realm was adequate to create or depose kings. In sum, the Investiture Controversy provided an early opportunity for thinkers to begin to speculate about the nature and origins of government and rulership, and thus created an intellectual climate within which secular political thought might emerge.

[ArmoredCore]

Yes. They were brilliant men of their time. But their times were based around European colonial expansion outside Europe into the Western hemisphere and Asia. Without that structure of the colonies and the opportunity they provided for the promise of 'private property'(liberated from others of course), and the 'freedom' to conduct commerce and trade, at first to the elite of European society and later to the masses, there would have been no such corporatist structure which is more secular than religious. The primary distinction is between old Europe, where all land and property is primarily under the dominion of Kings, and the colony, which represents new land for growth and opportunity under secular corporatist rule(which itself was enabled by Kings extending their dominions via charter). And that is what provided the fertile soil and environment for the rise of a governing structure more concerned with the affairs of mercantile trade and commerce than the fabric of feudal society and the controversies related to religious dogma and royal rule. Locke and Bacon are simply the most prominent of the thinkers of this age who developed the philosophical framework that justified the objectification and use of land and labor as a commodity for building wealth via their concepts of individual 'freedom' concerning land, commerce and trade (for the conqueror/landowner/colonist). All of which were only enabled by having new lands to conquer and explore. Within this framework is also the inherent contradiction of conquest as a pretext for these 'freedoms' that are upheld as the pinnacle of so-called enlightenment thinking. Such a thing could not have existed in the boundaries of old Europe with the ancient feudal system of land ownership and class.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon

[Cyclops]

Please re-read the post.......

Sorry just noticed we shouldn't discuss this here.

I find nothing useful in anything you've attributed to Francis.

Not sure how my post was misunderstood. But I don't see that there really was a separation of church and state even after the divestiture controversy....

I agree, and the problem arises from Fukyama-like simplification of terms.

"The religious" (defined as feelings of reverent awe toward unseen powers) penetrates the lives of pre-modern to early modern societies. The Freemasons bizarre rituals suggest even medieval trade associations couldn't help getting weird and religious in their thinking.

The Papacy as an institution flipped its position as servant of the state through the brilliant ploys of statesmen/pontiffs like Leo III as well as the misdeeds of unscrupulous forgers. During the investiture crisis the Ottonian settlement was shaken but not overborn. Given the Pope had a big win (at least vs the Empire) I can't see how its the beginning of secularism or the seperation of church and state.

I draw a distiction between these terms: secularism in its broadest sense of the exclusion of religious thought from decision making is a fruit of the Enlightenment (although it occuirs in Greek, Islamic and Hindu thought occasionally IIRC).

The seperation of Church and state in the Western tradition is the fruit of the French Revolution. Secularism sets the stage for the seperation of Church and State, but nothing like either surfaces in the investiture crisis. The Emperor wants to appoint bishops in part because he needs loyal men in positions that support his rule. There was no move to disestablish the church, merely a tussle over who made the appointments.

The Empire was not the only place where investiture was an issue. IIRC in England one of the Henrys had a clash over investiture, and there was a fuzzy compromise settlement: in the event English kings still practically appointed their bishops.

[Roma_Victrix]

@Cyclops: but Nederman and Forhan didn't argue that secularism began with the Investiture Controversy; they're merely arguing that it set the stage for it. They argue that this event produced basically the first medieval literature on the subject of what the proper role should be for monarchs holding temporal power.

[ArmoredCore]

Sorry just noticed we shouldn't discuss this here.

I find nothing useful in anything you've attributed to Francis.



I agree, and the problem arises from Fukyama-like simplification of terms.

"The religious" (defined as feelings of reverent awe toward unseen powers) penetrates the lives of pre-modern to early modern societies. The Freemasons bizarre rituals suggest even medieval trade associations couldn't help getting weird and religious in their thinking.

The Papacy as an institution flipped its position as servant of the state through the brilliant ploys of statesmen/pontiffs like Leo III as well as the misdeeds of unscrupulous forgers. During the investiture crisis the Ottonian settlement was shaken but not overborn. Given the Pope had a big win (at least vs the Empire) I can't see how its the beginning of secularism or the seperation of church and state.

I draw a distiction between these terms: secularism in its broadest sense of the exclusion of religious thought from decision making is a fruit of the Enlightenment (although it occuirs in Greek, Islamic and Hindu thought occasionally IIRC).

The seperation of Church and state in the Western tradition is the fruit of the French Revolution. Secularism sets the stage for the seperation of Church and State, but nothing like either surfaces in the investiture crisis. The Emperor wants to appoint bishops in part because he needs loyal men in positions that support his rule. There was no move to disestablish the church, merely a tussle over who made the appointments.

The Empire was not the only place where investiture was an issue. IIRC in England one of the Henrys had a clash over investiture, and there was a fuzzy compromise settlement: in the event English kings still practically appointed their bishops.

LOL! If you really want to dumb it down, the controversy was basically this:
1) In the ancient world, the King was both the high priest AND head of state as the divine incarnation of whatever deity suited them.
2) In Rome this was also true, as the Caesar was also the high priest of the religious realm, the divine leader of the secular realm and the god of war
3) Constantine maintained all of this in his person upon adopting Christianity as the official religion, he was both Pope AND Caesar in one person
4) The remnants of the Church in Rome felt that there was too much power in one person and that person was not seated in Rome.
5) So began all these heresies and controversies, namely starting with the idea of 'God' being a flesh and blood creature..... which spurred all the councils and so forth from the 3rd century onwards.
6) The movement to put the seat of the Holy See back in Rome was a big part of the schism between east and west.
7) Those most responsible for this were the early Mercantile traders and traders of the Venetian republics in Italy (followed later by the Black nobility), from which the idea of conquest for land and power and the corporatist state ultimately originated from their desire to control trade between the Levant, Byzantine Empire, Asia and Europe. Venice was also an important part of the Italian renaissance as well.
8) From this confluence came the rise of the Holy Roman Empire, a Germanic empire that would be established on the remains of the Western Christian church.
9) Within this new 'Roman' empire, the Holy Roman Emperor was basically the knighted champion of the Church and therefore crowned by the Pope.
10) A big part of the power of the Holy See was the ability to nominate bishops and Popes, which often was done by the Roman Emperor and the Church of Rome did not like having that power in Constantinople.
11) Therefore, with the rise of the Holy Roman empire came the authority to nominate Bishops of Rome (Popes).
10) And from this structure began the lineages of most royal houses as part of the various 'knights of Christ' of the Western Christian church.
11) Charlemagne was the first holy roman emperor primarily because of his victories over the Muslims, which the Christians used to cement their power in the west.
12) And from this comes the traditions by which most royalty in Europe is strongly tied to the church for their authority (See The Golden Bull).
13) So in the West, instead of the King being both high priest and secular ruler, you had somewhat of a division of roles.
14) The Kings and Princes were the defenders of the realm (of Christ) nominally under the head of the Pope in Rome. And as such, could be called to war by the Pope, as in the Crusades.
15) This relationship lasts right up to the present day. In theory, the Pope provides the divine authority to the King, through coronation, who then acts as agent and principle of the Pope, the living representative of Christ's church on earth. And from that comes the secular authority of the King. Which is not much different than the God Kings of old.
16) The investiture controversy was simply one of a long series of power struggles between the Papacy and the Royalty over administrative and bureaucratic control over the key institutions within the church and state. But they were not a divorce, because one needed the other for its legitimacy.

Interesting note from the news about the Pope and the Ecumenical Church of the East:

During the sixth century, Byzantine armies conquered the Italian peninsula, returning the city of Rome to the imperial Roman government, now centered in Constantinople. In this context, which lasted from the mid-sixth century until the loss of Byzantine influence in Italy in the eighth century, the election of a new Roman bishop required the approval of the Byzantine emperor (the same, of course, was true of the election of a new Ecumenical Patriarch). Under such an arrangement, papal elections took longer but there still would be no reason for an Eastern Patriarch to travel to Rome for the installation.
There are a few examples from this Byzantine period, such as the election of Pope Pelagius I in 556, where the man elected to be the Roman bishop was actually in Constantinople at the time of his election. While it is possible that the sacramental ceremony to install the new pope could have occured in Constantinople--whereby the Patriarch of Constantinople would have been present--it is far more likely that the official ceremony would have occurred in Rome and, therefore, would have been conducted without the Patriarch's presence.
At the conclusion of Byzantine influence in papal elections in the eighth century, the election of Roman bishops returned, again, to local considerations. And, as geo-political factors continued to push Italy and the Eastern empire in separate directions, relations between individual popes and patriarchs became more sterile and distant--indeed, between the ninth and fifteenth century there are only one or two occasions where a Roman bishop and an Ecumenical Patriarch ever met in person.
With all of this in mind, His All-Holiness' decision to travel to Rome for Pope Francis' installation as Roman bishop is an extraordinary event in the history of Christianity. And it is significant for reasons far beyond its novelty. First and foremost it is a powerful symbolic gesture for the cause of Christian unity. It demonstrates in unprecedented fashion the extent to which the Ecumenical Patriarch considers the relationship with the Roman Catholic Church to be a priority. For their part, members of the Vatican staff have responded to this grand gesture and have arranged for the reading of the Gospel at the installation to be sung in Greek (rather than Latin) in recognition of the fact that the Ecumenical Patriarch has taken this unprecedented step.

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/patri...s-installation