Richard Abels
I. GENERAL THESIS: The investiture controversy was a sort of
'Frankenstein' story. The 'monster' was Church reform; its creator was Henry
III; and the outcome was the destruction of imperial power and authority in
Henry III, the epitome of the eleventh-century theocratic king, saw the purification of the Church as his duty as a Christian king, and saw his episcopacy (which he appointed from his chapel), including the pope, as the means by which the clergy would be cleansed. The war against simony and nicolaitism joined emperor and pope (Leo IX) together as friends and allies; Leo IX looked to Henry III for support, and recognized his patrocinium over the Church (as he had done as bishop of Toul). For Leo IX there was no contradiction between papal supremacy over the Church, ecclesiastical reform, and theocratic kingship.
But the death of Henry III in 1056, coupled with the hostility of the Roman aristocracy toward the reformers, led the papacy to fend for itself. The reform movement that began as an attempt to purify the morals of the clergy and to extend papal supremacy over the episcopacy became directed toward freeing the Church from lay control. The war against simony, which could be and was supported by German theocratic kings, now became a war against lay investiture, which ideologically was a challenge to the very foundations of German royal/imperial power. The papacy repudiated the Carolingian/Byzantine conception of Christomimetic kingship and substituted in its place a new vision of the spiritual/temporal hierarchy in which the pope rather than the emperor was God's true vicar on earth, a papal theocracy that was first enunciated by Gregory VII in the Dictatus Papae of 1075 and which was achieve its fullest form in the pontificate of Pope Innocent III.
Ironically, the dynamics of the reform movement was also to lead to attacks
upon the papacy. Along with the papal reform movement came outburst of lay religious enthusiasm and demands from
both the pious laity and the reform clergy for a purer, more spiritual
conception of the Church. The Patarini of
II. THE "CHURCH" AND THE LAY ARISTOCRACY, CA.
1050
In the ecclesiastical writings of the High Middle Ages,
the 'Church' (Ecclesia) was the community of all baptized Christians, consisting
of clergy (those who have dedicated themselves to the profession of religion)
and laity (ordinary believers). The clergy included both the secular clergy, whose role was to live in the world and
minister to the sacramental and spiritual needs of the laity, and the regular
clergy or monks, who lived apart from the world and worshiped God in
communities under a rule.
By the year 1050, the institutional
Church (consisting of all the various churches and monasteries) possessed
perhaps as much as a fifth of all the landed wealth in Western Europe. This was
the result of gifts to 'saints' donated by pious laymen, who saw such donations
as a way to remedy their condition with God. Such gifts are best understood as
part of a 'gift-giving' society shaped by the ethos of reciprocity, in which
each gifts and benefit expected a gift/benefit in return (conversely, injuries
had to be paid back with injuries). As expressed in early medieval charters,
pious donations of land were given out of thanks to God for having blessed the
donor with his wealth and out of hope that by giving God and his saints land, God might reciprocate with an eternal gift of
salvation. In the language of the tenth and eleventh centuries, these nobles
sought the 'friendship' and 'love' of the monks. Their association with a
monastery gave them access to the monks' sanctity; among the returns that the
monks gave their noble benefactors were a place for burial and even a place to
spend their final months or years. The general theme is that the goods of
this transitory life ought to be used wisely to obtain a heavenly reward: Do
ut des ('I give so that you will give').
Land meant wealth and power.
Reluctant to alienate property from their lineage, noble donors often founded
proprietary churches, religious foundations that were to be
controlled by the donor's family. The donor's family would retain the right of
appointing the monastery's abbot, thus retaining effective control over the land
(and securing not only the spiritual benefits of the prayers of the monks and
Christian burial in land associated with a saint, but a place for younger sons).
Manorial lords, similarly, regarded churches on their lands as belonging to
them. Thus in 1050 many monasteries and parish churches were effectively in
private hands, and laymen often had the hereditary right of bestowing a church
with its tithes, burial rights, and revenues to whomever they wishes, often
pocketing much of the money themselves. This privatization of religion
meant a fragmentation of the 'Church,' much like happened with the 'state' with
the passage of royal prerogatives and rights into private hands. The idea of a
universal Christian community, the Church, was all but lost. In early
11th-century charters the term ecclesia invariably came to be associated with
the actual buildings, the churches. The result was a clergy not only dependent
upon the patronage of powerful laymen but also often sharing their secular
outlook. Priests usually married or had concubines. Bishops were great nobles in
their own right, the lords of episcopal cities, of
vast holdings belonging to their sees, of delegated royal rights of justice and
revenues (including minting, markets, and tolls), and the masters of magnificent
households. Such prince-bishops not only supplied knights to fight for their
lords, but often led these warriors into battle. Some were holy men; many were
more comfortable on horseback on the hunt or campaign than they were saying the
Even the
princes of the church, the bishops, were appointed by laymen. Early medieval
kings depended upon the support of a literate clergy for the administration of
their realms. They also depended upon bishops and the greater abbots to support
them with knights owed from their vast landed holdings. A bishop's role as
defender of his city meant that he had to concern himself with military matters.
Between 886 and 908 TEN German bishops fell in battle. In the year 1000 Bishop
Bernard commanded forces of Emperor Otto III and fought with lance that
contained nail of the true Cross. The admittedly unworthy Pope John XII in 960s
fought as armed soldier to defend
The theory behind this lay control
over clerical appointment derived from a theocratic conception of
kingship. Kings were consecrated and anointed to rule (by bishops). They reigned
by grace of God and, according to the Bible (Romans 13.1-4), they were God's
swords of justice on earth ruling with the power of God. In the Eastern Roman
Empire (Constantinople/Byzantium) this conception of kingship developed into the
idea that the emperor was the living icon of Christ, possessed with the majesty
of God. A similar view was taken by the Frankish king (and emperor) Charlemagne
(768-814) and his successors. Though crowned emperor by the pope in 800 A.D.,
Charlemagne saw himself as entrusted by God with the welfare of his Church and,
hence, responsible for its well being.
The idea that kings stood directly
below God in a divine hierarchy of authority gave rise to the practice of LAY
INVESTITURE. This was the practice of powerful laymen furnishing newly
elected bishops and abbots with the symbols of their spiritual offices. (In
the case of bishops this included the bishop's crozier, i.e. shepherd's staff, and his ring.)
Kings would also bestow upon the newly created prelates the symbols of the
temporal authority that they would now possess along with their episcopal and abbatial offices. These symbols of delegated
royal authority (e.g. sceptres) were called regalia.
Kings did NOT consider Lay Investiture an 'abuse' but a privilege emanating from
the divine nature of kingship.
The wealth of episcopal (i.e., bishop's) sees and abbacies was so great
that they became a sort of commodity. Kings would sometimes sell the
ecclesiastical offices to clerical followers, who would then recoup their money
from the peasants who worked the Church's lands. The sale of spiritual offices
was known as simony (see below for further discussion). What
complicated matters was the ethos of reciprocity and the confusion
between the bishop's role as a spiritual leader and as a feudal noble. As a
landed lord, a bishop, like any other vassal, was expected to pay his lord a
relief for the right to take up the fief. And by the ethical
demands of reciprocity, a new bishop was morally obliged to thank his patron and
lord with a suitable gift to show his gratitude. Thus what one man might
consider the sin of simony, another might justify as being a proper gift of
thanks. With the fragmentation of church authority and the springing up of
multitudes of local churches and abbeys, this sort of transaction became
ubiquitous. What exacerbated it was the rise of a cash economy, which made the
exchange of spiritual office for gift virtually indistinguishable from a market
transaction--and in some cases they undoubtedly were sales.
In the tenth and early eleventh centuries, bishops were great nobles, whose
landed wealth made them among the most powerful secular lords in their
dioceses. It was possible for a cleric without wealthy and powerful
kinsmen to rise to the office of bishop during this period--indeed two of the
most renowned intellectuals of the early middle ages, Bishop Fulbert of Chartres (ca. 1020) and Gerbert of Aurillac, who became
Pope Sylvester II in 999, had humble origins--, but such men were the exception.
Most bishops came from the highest nobility, unsurprising given both the
class assumptions of the time and the need in this gift-giving society to make
presents to the right people. A bishop's nobility meant that he could enrich his
church and monasteries with his familial wealth; a poor bishop, it was
thought, as more likely to use his position to help his kinsmen by
transferring to them the church's lands, either as gifts or benefices. It was
taken for granted that the secular aristocracy would support and foster their
clerical kinsmen's rise in the church, and that bishops would use his position
to benefit his blood relations. The career of Ulrich (or Udalrich), bishop of
During the civil war that plagued
the early years of Otto I's reign, Ulrich supported
Otto by holding for him the
Ulrich's late tenth-century biographer describes his ecclesiastical activities,
emphasizing his visitations to the churches and monasteries in his diocese,
during which he would give sermons in Latin (presumably with someone translating
them into German for the uneducated), preside over episcopal courts, supervise the morals of the clergy under
his care, and perform sacraments and liturgies. The bishop's spiritual duty was
to ward off evil spirits, and liturgies, prayers calling upon God to bestow
blessings, were conceived to be, in Fichtenau's
phrase, 'a presentation of the divinely ordained order, with the bishop in the
center and his clergy serving him.' A typical liturgy for the dedication of a
new church had the bishop rapping on the church door with his crozier three times before the clergy within opened it for
him, then drawing the alphabet with his crozier
diagonally across the floor of the church. This would be followed by the bishop
blessing the church with water mixed with ashes and salt, symbolizing the
Christian people (the water), Christian teachings (the salt), and the passion of
Christ (the ash). Such liturgical and ritual duties were in the tenth century
more deemed to be more important spiritually for the faithful than pastoral
care. Ulrich instructed the clergy under him mainly through his own example. A
bishop was also expected to care for the poor, and the traditional formula for
episcopal finances reserved one-quarter of revenues
for the feeding and clothing of the poor.
Ulrich
had other, less spiritual, duties as bishop. Another tenth-century bishop,
Rather of Liege, explained his obligations as a newly consecrated bishop: "I was
enthroned, I presided over an assembly of clerics, I led my military host
against the enemies of the Emperor Otto (I), I returned, I received him who had
consecrated me bishop (Bruno of Cologne) and served him, gave him gifts,
accompanied him on his journey home as a most devoted servant. Then I turned
around, traveled through the diocese, conferred with the most important clerics
and laity about what was to be done in order to do justice with everyone" (from
Fichtenau, p. 200).
In the tenth and the eleventh centuries kings relied upon bishops to be
administrators and justices. They also relied on them for military service.
Though canon law had long forbidden priests to shed blood, bishops nonetheless
led troops into battle. The most holy of them, like Udalrich, did so unarmed, relying only on prayer to defend
them. Many winked at the restrictions and emulated the model of Turpin in
Song of Roland. In the year 1010 the bishops of Vich,
Ulrich’s activities in defense of Augsburg against the Hungarians highlights the blurry boundaries between the secular and the spiritual in the tenth and eleventh centuries and the responsibility of bishops both for the material and spiritual welfare of the inhabitants of their sees. Ulrich acted recognizably as a secular commander in directing the repair of the town’s walls. But undoubtedly he regarded his prayers, sermons, and liturgical duties as his most critical contribution to the successful defense of the city. Unlike the fictional Archbishop Turpin of the Song of Roland, Ulrich refused to dress in armor even in the presence of the enemy. He relied upon his ecclesiastical vestments to protect him from God’s enemies. Whether or not God heard the saint’s prayers, Ulrich’s calm demeanor and quiet confidence certainly contributed immeasurably to the morale of his troops and encouraged them to withstand the Hungarian assault until King Otto I arrived with a relief army.
Ulrich’s participation in combat was not extraordinary for a bishop of his
day. What was more unusual was Ulrich’s careful attention to his
liturgical and spiritual duties. In fact, many tenth and early eleventh
century bishops differed little in their lifestyles from their comital kinsmen. The concern of monastic reformers about the
falconing, hunting and dicing that went on in bishops'
households is evidence of this blurring of distinction between the secular and
spiritual aristocracies of the tenth and eleventh centuries.
III. KING HENRY III OF
King Henry III of
Benedict IX (132-1044, 10 Mar-1 May 1045, 8 Nov 1047-16 July 1048; d.
1056). Member of ruling Roman family (
Sylvester III, 1045 (who was promptly excommunicated. by Benedict, and
who returned to his diocese when Benedict recaptured
Gregory VI (1045-6, d. 1047). Gregory had the
reputation of a reformer, and included among his associates and supporters two
men who would later be important reform cardinals, Peter Damian and Hildebrand
(Gregory VII).
Henry III summoned all three popes to attend a synod at SUTRI (20 Dec.).
Gregory VI was the only one to appear; he and Sylvester III were formally
deposed. (Greg was cited for simony.) Three days later Benedict was also deposed
at a synod in
The new German pope was Damasus II (Poppo, bishop of Brixen, and a
member of Henry III's entourage), who promptly died
upon arriving in
LEO IX (1049-1054). Leo's papacy witnessed the beginnings of what was
to be called the Gregorian Reform. It was also a pivotal pontificate in the
growth of papal authority and power, and in the development of the papal
bureaucracy and the cardinalate. What perhaps most
distinguished Leo from his predecessors was his
frequent travels. He spent much of his pontificate traveling through
Bruno, Bishop of Toul in
As Bishop Bruno was a moving force in the ecclesiastical reform movement then
spreading through
In 1048 Emperor Henry III named Bruno pope (the third German pope since the
Council of Sutri in 1046, and Henry III's deposition of Gregory VI and Benedict IX). Bruno only
accepted on condition of being ratified by the Roman clergy and people. He
traveled to
STORY ILLUSTRATING LEO IX'S AIMS AND ATTITUDES--THE COUNCIL OF REIMS, 1049 (from Southern, Making of the Middle Ages, based on report given by Anselm, a monk of Reims)
After his consecration as pope Leo IX left
After the formal procession, Leo placed the bonds of the saint on the altar
rather than inter them in the tomb. The saint himself was to preside over the
council. Leo's chancellor, the cardinal deacon Peter, announced that the synod
was to begin, and asked who among the bishops and abbots present had purchased
their offices. A tumult ensued, with the Archbishop..
of Reims receiving permission to delay his answer. (He
was granted a private audience in
The council ended with Pope Leo IX carrying the body of the saint to the
crypt.
Leo faced three main problems as pope.
1. realization of church reform
2. protection of papal
states from
3. resolution of
disputes with
A. the papacy and the Normans: southern
The rising power of these Norman bandits in the south was regarded with
hostility by Pope Leo IX, who saw them as a threat to the papal states. In 1053 Leo IX led a small papal army against
the
The solution to the Norman problem was not to be force but cooptation, and
this was to be used by Nicholas II in 1059, when he recognized Robert Guiscard's
de facto control over the south. At the council of Melfi in Aug 1059 Nicholas II invested Guiscard and Richard
of Capua with the territories they already held and received them as vassal of
the Roman church. Robert G was also enfeoffed with all
future possessions he could take from the Saracens in
The oath of fealty taken by Robert (preserved in a collection of canons of
Cardinal Deusdedit) promised that R as duke of Apulia
and Calabria and future duke of Sicily by the grace and aid of St Peter and God
would be a faithful vassal of the Roman Church and the pope. He promised to
protect the pope and to aid him in regaining and preserving regalia and lands of
St Peter and in maintaining him in the papal office. He was to support and aid
the better cardinals and Roman clergy in the election of a new pope. Robert
Guiscard also promised to restrain his subjects from raiding papal territories
(except by request of the pope), and to pay an annual recognition fee. The fruit
of this policy was to be seen in 1084, when Robert rescued Gregory VII from the
Germans in
B. the problem of Byzantium. Here Leo IX's
policies proved disastrous. Leo's attempt to deal with the
While a captive, Leo IX sent Humbert to deal with the Byzantines. Humbert carried a conciliatory letter to the emperor (which played down Henry III's imperial claims) and an inflammatory reproach against the Patriarch. This letter described Rome as a suffering, patient, persecuted Mother and the eastern Church as lost 'in pleasure and lasciviousness, in the dissipation of a long leisure, refusing to take part in the fight waged on her behalf by the pious Mother, repaying her efforts by mocking her Mother's old age and her body worn out by long labors,' etc.). The letter was received with anger. Humbert lost his temper and on 16 July 1054 (3 months after the death of Leo, of which Humbert was ignorant) he placed upon the altar of Hagia Sophia in full view of the congregation a bull excommunicating the patriarch and his followers. The patriarch responded in kind, and the result was a formal SCHISM.
C. Church reform.
ATTACKS ON SIMONY AND CLERICAL UNCHASTITY. Here Leo was most successful. Leo's reform movement was an attempt to renew the secular church by applying to it the standards and ideals of the reformed monasticism of the period. The abuses that Leo (with the enthusiastic support of Emp Henry III) targeted were 1) simony (purchase or sale of church offices and sacraments for cash, services, or by intercession, from Simon Magus who offered St Peter money for the Holy Spirit. Acts of Apostles 8:9-24), which increasingly became viewed as a problem with the growth of a cash economy and a market society in Italy in the eleventh century, and 2) nicolaitism (clerical marriage). The latter touched most directly on the lives of parish priests (as can be seen in Guibert's memoirs).
Leo immediately attacked nicolaitism as one of his first acts. He not only condemned fornicating clerics, but he declared their wives, concubines, and children to be serfs of the church. (This eliminated the problem of a hereditary clergy, since serfs could not be ordained as priests.)
Simony was a very difficult problem, in part because of the vagueness
of the definition of the abuse. German emperors before Henry III demanded the
payment of money from newly elected bishops in recognition of the king's
lordship and as payment for the bishop's regalia. The payment of money and goods
was also conceived as a proper gift to the king, showing the friendship of the
new prelate. Under Henry III this practice was abandoned as simoniacal, but it underscores the practical reason why
simony was so prevalent: episcopal and abbatial
offices carried with them landed wealth and political power as well as spiritual
authority. Leo IX's first synod, held in the Lateran
in April 1049, deposed all bishops guilty of simony, and declared consecrations
by simoniacs to be invalid (position of Humbert of Silva Candida). At
The extreme position, held by Humbert but attacked by Peter Damian, that all simoniacal consecrations were invalid, would have created
extreme havoc in the Church. Leo's eventual position was to adopt a penance of
40 days for those who knowingly allowed themselves to be consecrated by a simonist.
V. Leo IX and the reform of the papal curia: the creation of a college of cardinals
Leo created around him a circle of assistants and helpers, who served him as advisors. This transformed the papal curia. Leo IX's reliance on his cardinals as an advisory senate was the embryo of the future college of cardinals. Leo's helpers served him mainly as legates, representatives and ambassadors. These served the pope as sort of missi dominici. (Not until Greg VII was the policy of using permanent, standing legates adopted.)
From Leo's pontificate on we see the growth of the CARDINALS--the clergy of
CARDINALS. The cardinals in 1073 numbered 7
bishops, 28 priests, 18 deacons and possibly 21 subdeacons. They were the clergy of the cathedral of
Cardinal-priests and cardinal deacons were the personnel of papal government. These served the popes as legates (ambassadors) and as administrators (e.g., chancellor, chamberlain, etc.). Below the cardinals were the lesser papal officials--notaries--and the papal soldiers.
Leo IX's circle had two separate sources: a) the reformers from Lorraine whom he brought with him to Rome (notably, Frederick of Lorraine, brother of a duke, who was to become Pope Stephen IX, 1057-8; and Humbert, from 1050 cardinal bishop of Silva Candida), and b) the Italian reformers (notably St Peter Damian and Hildebrand.
Papal reform went hand in hand with an intellectual revival. Reform papacy's most potent weapons in promoting papal supremacy proved to be the revival of law (notably canon law--study of mid-9th century Pseudo-Isidore decretals) and the transformation of the Roman curia from an organ of local government into the central offices of the world-wide church.
Leo IX's helpers included
A. Humbert of Silva Candida, a monk
from
Humbert served Leo in the secretariat of the
papacy, and acted as Leo's legate to
B. St Peter Damian (1007-72), monk, bishop, and cardinal (from 1057).
A monk of
Peter Damian also supported PAPAL SUPREMACY, and saw the papacy as being the font that would wash clean the entire Church. PD's view of man and the clergy is best seen in his Book of Gomorrah. Here the clergy is assigned the superhuman task, possible only because of God's providence of redeeming man from the depravity into which he had fallen because of sin.
Peter Damian was not as extreme as Humbert. He
accepted the practice of lay investiture, and saw pious laymen as allies in the
war against sin, believing that the natural condition between church and state
was cooperation. He took the position that ordinations were valid even if simoniacal (anti-Donatist).
C. Hildebrand (later Pope Gregory VII 1073-1085). Born c. 1020 of
humble parentage in
He became archdeacon under Nicholas II in 1059 and served Nicholas as one of
his chief shapers of policy.
VI. Nicholas II (1058-1061) and the Papal Election Decree of 1059.
The death of Henry III in 1056 created enormous problems for the papacy. The
Roman aristocracy, led by the
NICHOLAS II AS POPE DID THREE SIGNIFICANT ACTS: 1) HE ISSUED AN ELECTION
DECREE THAT PLACED THE ELECTION OF POPES IN THE HANDS OF THE COLLEGE OF
CARDINALS; 2) HE CONDEMNED LAY INVESTITURE; 3) HE LEGITIMIZED THE
ELECTION DECREE OF 1059. Promulgated at the Lateran
synod in 1059 the decree ordered that to exclude simony popes were to be elected
by CARDINAL BISHOPS, and then acclaimed by cardinal clerks, the remaining
clergy, and the people. If necessary, the election could be held outside of
In 1179 this decree was modified to require a two-thirds majority of the votes of the cardinals.
The decree was revolutionary. Canon law demanded episcopal and abbatial elections 'by clergy and people' to
be free, but this had normally meant that the clergy was to acclaim 'freely' a
candidate appointed by the local prince in control of the diocese. The papacy
had thus been alternately in the hands of the Roman nobles (
Nicholas II's decrees were directed not against the
emperor but against the Roman aristocracy. The pope's willingness to work with
lay authorities is underscored by his alliance with both the
VI. King Henry IV vs Pope Gregory VII: The Investiture Controversy
Interregnum
When Henry III died in 1056 he left as his heir a 6
year old son, and the regent, the widowed Empress Agnes, followed an erratic
policy that weakened the crown, appointing as dukes individuals with independent
power. In 1062 Archbishop Anno of
From 1069 on Henry followed a consistent, coherent policy of recovering royal
rights lost during his minority to the bishops and princes. In
Italy this struggle centered on the bishopric of
The Papacy of Gregory VII
(1073-1085)
Hilderbrand's election was stage managed in 1073 by Hugh Candidus, a cardinal priest who was one of Leo IX's companions from Lorraine (Southern, Making, 144). During the burial of the deceased Alex II, Hugh rose in the pulpit and addressed the throng of clergy and laity: 'Brethren, you know that from the days of Pope Leo it is Hildebrand who has exalted the Holy Roman Church and freed this city. Wherefore, since we cannot have anyone better fitted to be elected as Roman Pontiff, we elect him now--a man ordained in our church, a man known to you all, and approved by all." (Hugh was soon to transfer his loyalty to Henry IV.) Hildebrand was acclaimed pope without deliberation and discussion by the other cardinals and took the name Gregory VII in honor of his mentor the disgraced Pope Gregory VI. Gregory VII’s election was irregular. It failed to follow the procedures established in 1059; in particular there had been no consultation of the emperor or the imperial court. The irregularity of the election was later to be cited by Henry IV as evidence of Gregory VII’s legitimacy as pope.
Hildebrand was a controversial figure, even in his own day. St Hugh of
Hildebrand had grown up as a monk in
The key to Gregory VII's policies was the extension of the reform movement to include the independence of the Church from secular authority. His agenda included:
1. The prohibition of lay investiture
2. Attacks on simony and nicolaitism (again purification of church upon the monastic model)
3. PAPAL MONARCHY
The last is most dramatically revealed in the
DICTATUS PAPAE, a list of 27 title headings entered into the papal register in March 1075. The most important of the articles were those that claimed:
a. the supremacy of the Roman pontiff over the entire Church, including the eastern branch ('That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal/That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches') and rule over the episcopate, which entailed the right of deposing and reinstating bishops (a right that could be exercised even by a legate), the power of organizing diocese, the right to be the ultimate judge in ecclesiastical cases, and a claim to be exempt from human judgment.
b. The power to issue canon law
c. the sanctity of the pope qua pope (through the merits of St Peter)
d. Supremacy over the princes of the earth ('That he alone may use the imperial insignia/That of the pope all princes shall kiss the feet'), with the practical and revolutionary claim 'that he may absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men.' [There is an indication here of Gregory's view of the pope as the final judge over the entire feudal system; in his treatment of Henry at Canossa there is some indication that he conceived of himself as being the ultimate feudal overlord. The feudal claims of the papacy is a topic that deserves to be explored in more depth.]
The claim to be the head of the universal church (over all bishops and over
the Patriarch) was supplemented by the claims to be beyond judgment, to be
imputed with saintliness, to be above all rulers, and to be the ultimate judge
of the fitness of kings to rule. This exalted view of the papacy is also
revealed in Gregory's preaching of a holy war to recover
Gregory's claim of papal supremacy inevitably brought him into conflict with
Henry IV, whose view of the Church harkened back to that of his father. It
also brought him into conflict with the German episcopate and many Italian
bishops, whose independence was being threatened by this new definition of
primacy. This is most clearly seen in Gregory's treatment of Otto, bishop of
Constance, whom Gregory summoned to
THE PROBLEM OF LAY INVESTITURE. Gregory's first decree against the practice of lay investiture was issued in 1075, but it was not until 1078 that he was to make this a defining issue in his pontificate. In 1073-4 Gregory had allowed Henry IV to invest German bishops with ring and crozier, ignoring the decree of 1059. But it is clear that Gregory shared Humbert's views on the matter, and that he viewed lay investiture as a serious affront to the dignity and independence of the church. The issue defined what the Church was and what the source of its authority was. The sacrality of kings was defined in a more limited fashion; their consecration did not confer upon them the sacramental powers of the apostles. Spiritual authority was conferred upon God's clergy through the bride of Christ, the Church. In some ways this is a clarification of Gelasius's doctrine of the two swords (496), one that stressed the monopoly that the clergy had over spiritual power.
THE PROBLEM OF
In 1072 two rival archbishops were elected, one supported by the Patarini and the papacy, and the other by the German
court. Pope Alexander II in connection with this dispute excommunicated five
advisors to Henry IV. Gregory VII immediately lifted the excommunications, but
conflict broke out once more in 1075 when the Patarini burnt down the cathedral of Milan and the
anti-Patarine faction responded by killing the leader
of the Patarini. The opponents of reform came
to power in
Gregory VII responded with a renewed excommunication of the five, and a
letter reproaching Henry IV for disobedience and for maintaining contact with
men excommunicated by the pope (8 Dec 1075). The German response was a diet held
at
HENRY IV’S LETTER CONDEMNING GREGORY VII.
The decree of
Henry, king not through usurpation but through the
holy ordination of God, to Hildebrand, at present not pope but false monk....By
wiles .... you have achieved
money; by money, favor; by the sword, the throne of peace. And from the throne
of peace you have disturbed peace [referring to Gregory’s support of the Patarenes of Milan against their bishop], inasmuch as you
have armed subjects against those in authority over them; inasmuch as you have
taught that our bishops called of God are to be despised; inasmuch as you have
usurped for laymen the ministry over their priests, allowing them to depose or
condemn those whom they themselves had received as teachers from the hand of God
through the laying on of hands of the bishops. You have attacked me, who,
unworthy as I am, have yet been appointed to rule among the anointed of God, and
who, according to the teaching of the fathers, can be judged by no one save God
alone ... St. Peter himself said: 'Fear God, honor the king1 [1 Peter 2:17]. But
you, who fear not God, have dishonored me, whom He hath established. ... You,
therefore, damned by this curse and by the judgment of all our bishops, and by
our own, descend and relinquish the throne of St Peter which you have usurped.
Let another ascend the apostolic chair who shall not
practice violence under the cloak of religion. ... Henry, king by the grace of
God, say unto thee, together with all of our bishops: Descend, descend, to be damned throughout the ages.'
GREGORY VII'S RESPONSE. Gregory responded to the letter by declaring Henry IV and the bishops who followed him excommunicated an deposed (22 Feb 1076). Interestingly, the instrument that Gregory used for this was a prayer to St Peter:
O St Peter, chief of the apostles, incline to us,
I beg, thy holy ears, and hear me they servant whom thou has nourished from
infancy. ...And especially to me, as thy representative and by thy favor, has
the power been granted by God of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth. On
the strength of this believe therefore, for the honor and security of thy
church, in the name of Almighty God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, I WITHDRAW,
THROUGH THY POWER AND AUTHORITY, FROM HENRY THE KING, SON OF HENRY THE EMPEROR,
WHO HAS RISEN AGAINST THEY CHURCH WITH UNHEARD OF INSOLENCE, THE RULE OVER THE
WHO KINGDOM OF THE GERMANS AND OVER ITALY. AND I ABSOLVE ALL CHRISTIANS FROM THE
BONDS OF THE OATH WHICH THEY HAVE MADE OR SHALL MAKE TO HIM; AND I FORBID ANY
ONE TO SERVE HIM AS KING. ... AND SINCE HE HAS SCORNED TO OBEY AS A
CHRISTIAN....I BIND HIM IN THY STEAD WITH THE CHAIN OF ANATHEMA.
Kings and emperors had deposed popes before; this was the first time a pope
had returned the favor. Even St Ambrose--whom Gregory claimed as a precedent in
his letter to Hermann, bishop of
The German princes planned an assembly in
Gregory was to describe in a letter to the German princes what then
transpired: "There, on three successive days, standing before the castle gate,
laying aside all royal insignia, barefooted and in coarse attire, he ceased not
with may tears to beseech the apostolic help and comfort until all who were
present or who had heard the story were so moved by pity and compassion that
they pleader his cause with prayers and tears....even crying out that we were
showing, not the seriousness of apostolic authority, but rather the cruelty of a
savage tyrant. At last overcome by his persistent show of penitence and the
urgency of all present, we released him from the bonds of anathema and received
him into the grace of the
Gregory also demanded an oath from Henry to accept the papal judgment in his
dispute with the rebels and to permit Gregory to travel safely to
The German princes, in defiance of both Henry and his reconciliation with Gregory, proceeded to elect Rudolf of Rheinfelden as their new king. Two papal legates were present who gave their approval, but Gregory refused to recognize Rudolf. The decision was to take place not in the papal court, but on the battlefield, where Henry's troops defeated the rebels. Rudolf died in battle in 1080, and was succeeded by a new anti-king Hermann of Goslar, who wielded no real power outside of his patrimony in Lotharingia.
Gregory VII finally decided in favor of Rudolf in 1080, and deposed Henry for
a second time. But this excommunication and deposition was without force.
Gregory's dithering had allowed Henry to win militarily and politically. Even
some of the reformers had deserted him. The cardinal priest Hugh Candidus, the man who stage-managed Gregory's election, now
stage-managed his deposition, drafting a condemnation that accused Gregory of
poisoning his predecessors and of subverting the ecclesiastical order (prob a reference to G's deposition of a number of bishops
and appointments of their replacements). A synod held at Brixen named WIBERT Archbishop. of
The high point of Gregory VII's pontificate was his
deposition of Henry IV and Henry's humiliation at
Gregory's rescue by the
BUT GREGORY DID NOT FAIL. THE REFORM MOVEMENT CONTINUED, AS THE REFORM
CARDINALS GATHERED TOGETHER AND ELECTED A SUCCESSOR IN 1087. THE FINAL VICTOR IN
THE
VII. The Resolution of the Investiture Controversy.
URBAN II (1088-99). Urban (born Odo), an
aristocratic Frenchman, had been archdeacon of Reims and prior of
Henry IV's fortunes took a turn for the worse, with
a militarily defeat in
When Urban II presided over the COUNCIL OF CLERMONT in 1095 he was the apex of his authority as pope. Wibert had been discredited along with his patron Henry IV. At this council Urban II renewed Gregory VII's pronouncement against lay investiture, proclaimed a peace of God, prohibited, still again, simony, defined fasting practices, prohibited the laity from possessing tithes or churches, forbade clergy to do homage to kings or other laymen, and, of course, CALLED THE FIRST CRUSADE.
Urban's call for an armed pilgrimage to aid the
Byzantines and to liberate the Holy Sepulcher from the Turks recalled Gregory
VII's dreams of Holy War. Urban's call represented the papacy as directing the
activities of the laity. The response was overwhelming, though it is interesting
to observe that no kings went on Crusade, since William Rufus of England was
generally hostile to the papacy, Philip I of France was excommunicated because
of his adulterous union with Bertrada de Montfort, and
Henry IV was not only excommunicated but was holed up in northern Italy,
surrounded by his enemies.
PASCHAL II (1099-1118) AND TWO UNSUCCESSFUL SOLUTIONS.
Neither Henry IV nor Conrad was to emerge as victor; rather in 1104-5 Henry's second son, Henry V, crowned king by his father in 1099, forged an alliance of German nobles against his father. Paschal II took a hand in the matter by absolving Henry V of an oath of fealty he had taken to his father in 1099.
Henry V presented himself as a friend to the reformed papacy—that is until
the death of his father in 1106. The new king refused to concede the right to
investiture with ring and crozier, and Paschal II
refused to relax the papal prohibition. In 1110 negotiations failed, and Henry
set out for
THE PROPOSED ABANDONMENT OF REGALIA. Henry would abandon the right of investiture and would confirm the non-regalian property of the church as belonging to her as allods, in return for the church returning to the king the regalia. In other words, bishops would abandon all rights, jurisdiction powers, and properties they held from the king and would live on the lands given to them freely by the pious and from tithes. They would abandon all political power and jurisdiction and became purely spiritual pastors.
The response from the gathered bishops and clergy was immediate and violent. The cardinals denounced it, and the German bishops refused to be bound by it. Paschal ended up refusing to crown Henry, and Henry responded by taking the pope captive. Two months later the captive pope agreed to the PRIVILEGE OF MAMMOLO--the pope granted to Henry the right of investiture before consecration, promised to anoint him emperor, and swore never to excommunicate Henry.
Again the response was unanimous rejection, and there was even talk of
deposing Paschal. Paschal, freed from captivity, quashed the privilege in 1112.
CALIXTUS II (1119-24). Son of Count William of
CONCORDAT OF WORMS, 23 SEPT 1122: Under this the emperor renounced the right to invest with ring and crozier, guaranteed canonical, free elections, and free consecration by bishops. Henry was to receive, in return, the right to invest the bishop elect with the symbol of his temporal office, a scepter. Henry was also accorded the right to be present during elections and the right to decide disputed elections (in 'favor of the sounder party').
In Dec 1095 Anselm and Henry hammered out a compromise, that was to be accepted by Pope Paschal II (1099-1121): Henry would accept the ban on lay investiture, Paschal would lift excommunication of bishops who had been so invested, and Henry would continue to receive homage from newly elected bishops (in return for the temporalities they received from the king), the last reversing Urban II's decree of 1095).
IN ESSENCE THE ENGLISH SOLUTION OF 1105/7 RECOGNIZED THE EPISCOPACY'S 'TWO BODIES': AS PASTORS OF THE CHURCH THEY RECEIVED THEIR AUTHORITY AND POWER FROM GOD VIA THE CHURCH; BUT AS MAGNATES OF THE REALM THEY RECEIVED THEIR TEMPORAL POWERS FROM THE KING.
VIII. Consequences: The Development of a Papal Monarchy
One practical result of the papal reform was the growth of papal government
and business. The primary function of medieval rulers was organizing justice and
pronouncing judgment; this was also to be true of the papacy. The age of Gregory
initiates an age of intense ecclesiastical litigation, with papal courts
(whether presided over by legates or in
Papal bulls/letters. Papal letters were the most important instrument for the
conduct of business. They were the mechanism for conveying orders, resolving
disputes, issuing decisions on doctrine, etc. Here we see a steady increase in
the issuance of letters over the period. Annual average of papal letters in
first half of eleventh century was 1-10. Under Leo IX it rose to 35 and stayed
at this level until 1130. Innocent II (1130-43) issued annually 72; 130 under
Hadrian IV (1154-9), 179 under Alexander III (1159-81), 280 under Innocent III
(1198-1215), 730 under Innocent IV (1243-54), and 3646 under John XXII
(1316-24).
Papal justice. The 12th century was a period of
litigation, both secular and ecclesiastical. Between 1140 and 1150 papal
jurisdiction began to penetrate even the lowest levels of the church as a matter
of routine; by 1150 the papal courts were overwhelmed with business. Popes
complained about the press of business. Calixtus II
(1119-24) commented that as Archbishop. of Vienne,
everyone of note in his see was either a kinsmen, a neighbor or a vassal. Now as
pope he found the glory of the papacy "a misery and tribulation. ... When I am
in
The papacy became the final arbiter for all disputes between ecclesiastical
bodies or persons, or between clerics and laity over property, rights, and
penalties. To deal with the influx of business the popes began to create ad hoc
committees of three local churchmen to hear and decide with the authority of the
papacy. Still cases flowed to
In terms of episcopal and abbatial elections, the
Investiture Controversy did not result in the removal of lay influence from the
selection of bishops and abbots. Kings continued to have a decisive say in the
matter, as the case of Thomas Becket shows. Henry II of England, citing
ancient custom, insisted that free election of abbots was a privilege to be
granted by the king, and even a 'free' election was subject to royal scrutiny,
as evidenced by Jocelin of Brakelond's description of the election of Abbot Samson to
the abbacy of Bury St Edmunds. Unworthy men who were more adept at secular
administration than in pastoral care still rose to the office of bishop. But
there were significant changes. By the end of the twelfth century the episcopacy
had come firmly under the jurisdiction of the papacy. Abbots now tended to rise
up from within the ranks of their monastery, as monks exercised their freedom of
election to prevent their monasteries from being given under the rule of
outsiders. The election of bishops by canons, similarly, led to men of lesser
nobility and wealth rising up through the ranks of the church to its highest
offices. What was not settled--and was not to be settled in the Middle Ages--was
the extent to which kings were subject to papal supervision, or, for that
matter, popes and bishops to the authority of kings.
Sources:
Bachrach, David. Religion and the Conduct of War in the West c. 300-1215. Woodbrige: Boydell Press, 2003.
Blumenthal, Uta-Renate. The Investiture
Controversy.
Fichtenau, Heinrich.
Living in the Tenth Century: Mentalities and Social
Order.
Kelly, J.N.D. The
Little, Lester. Religious Poverty and the Profit Motive.
Morris, Colin. The Papal
Monarchy.
Prinz, Heinrich. Klerus und Krieg im
frűheren Mittlelalter.
Southern, Richard W..
The Making of the Middle Ages.
----- Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1970
Tierney, Brian, ed. The Crisis of
Church & State 1050-1300.
“St. Ulrich.” [Old] Catholic
Encyclopedia. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15123a.htm