Online Encyclopedia

SAINT BERNARD

Online Encyclopedia
Originally appearing in Volume V20, Page 704 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
Spread the word: del.icio.us del.icio.us it!
SAINT BERNARD.) At the very moment when the papacy thus attained omnipotence, symptoms of discontent and opposition arose. The Resistance bishops resisted centralization. Archbishop Hildebert to thePapal of Tours protested to Honorius IL against the exactions appeals to Rome, while others complained of the and exactions of the legates, or, like John of Salisbury, encroach• animadverted upon the excessive powers of the meets. bureaucracy at the Lateran. In the councils strange speeches were heard from the mouths of laymen, who were beginning to carry to extreme lengths the spirit of independence with regard to Rome. When a question arose at Toulouse in 116o as to the best means of settling the papal schism, this audacious statement was made before the kings of France and England: " That the best course was to side with neither of the two popes; that the apostolic see had been ever a burden to the princes; that advantage must be taken of the schism to throw off the yoke; and that, while awaiting the death of one of the competitors, the authority of the bishops was sufficient in France and England alike for the government of the churches." The ecclesiastics themselves, however, were the first to denounce the abuses at Rome. The treatises of Gerhoh of Reichersberg (1093–1169) abound in trenchant attacks upon the greed and venality of the Curia, the arrogance and extortion of the legates, the abuse of exemptions and appeals, and the German policy of Adrian IV. and Alexander III. In his efforts to make the papal institution entirely worthy of its mission St Bernard himself did not shrink from presenting to the papacy " the mirror in which it could recognize its deformities." In common with all enlightened opinion, he complained bitterly of the excessive multiplication of exemptions, of the exaggerated extension of appeals to Rome, of the luxury of the Roman court, of the venality of the cardinals, and of the injury done to the traditional hierarchy by the very extent of the papal power, which was calculated to turn the strongest head. In St Bernard's treatise De consideration, addressed to Pope Eugenius III., the papacy receives as many reprimands and attacks as it does marks of affection and friendly counsel. To warn Eugenius against pride, Bernard reminds him in biblical terms that an insensate sovereign on a throne resembles " an ape upon a housetop," and that the dignity with which he is invested does not prevent him from being a man, that is, " a being, naked, poor, miserable, made for toil and not for honours." To his thinking, poison and the dagger were less to be feared by the pope than the lust of power. Ambition and cupidity were the source of the most deplorable abuses in the Roman Church. The cardinals, said Bernard, were satraps who put pomp before the truth. He was at a loss to justify the unheard-of luxury of the Roman court. " I do not find," he said, " that St Peter ever appeared in public loaded with gold and jewels, clad in silk, mounted on a white mule, surrounded by soldiers and followed by a brilliant retinue. In the glitter that environs thee, rather wouldst thou be taken for the successor of Constantine than for the successor of Peter." Rome, however, had greater dangers to cope with than the indignant reproofs of her friends the monks, and the opposition Growth of of the bishops, who were displeased at the spectacle Heretical of their authority waning day by day. It was at sects. this period that the Catholic edifice of the middle ages began to be shaken by the boldness of philosophical speculation as applied to theological studies and also by the growth of heresy. Hitherto more tolerant of heresy than the local authorities, the papacy now felt compelled to take defensive measures against it, and especially against Albigensianism, which had made great strides in the south of France since the middle of the 12th century. Innocent II., Eugenius III. and Alexander III. excommunicated the sectaries of Languedoc and their abettors, Alexander even sending armed missions tohunt them down and punish them. But the preaching of the papal legates, even when supported by military demonstrations, had no effect; and the Albigensian question, together with other questions vital for the future of the papacy, remained unsettled and more formidable than ever when Innocent III. was elected. 3. Period from Innocent III. to Alexander ,I V. (1198-1261).—Under the pontificates of Innocent III. and his five immediate successors the Roman monarchy seemed to have Innocent reached the pinnacle of its moral prestige, religious III•, II98• authority and temporal power, and this development 1216• was due in great measure to Innocent III. himself. Between the perhaps excessive admiration of Innocent's biographer, Friedrich von Hurter, and the cooler estimate of a later historian, Felix Rocquain, who, after taking into consideration Innocent's political mistakes, lack of foresight and numerous disappointments and failures, concludes that his reputation has been much exaggerated, it is possible to steer a middle course and form a judgment that is at once impartial and conformable to the historical facts. Innocent was an eminent jurist and canoeist, and never ceased to use his immense power in the service of the law. Indeed, a great part of his life was passed in hearing pleadings and pronouncing judgments, and few sovereigns have ever worked so industriously or shown such solicitude for the impartial exercise of their judicial functions. It is difficult to comprehend Innocent's extraordinary activity. Over and above the weight of political affairs, he bore resolutely for eighteen years the overwhelming burden of the presidency of a tribunal before which the whole of Europe came to plead. To him, also, in his capacity of theologian, the whole of Europe submitted every obscure, delicate or controverted question, whether legal problem or case of conscience. This, undoubtedly, was the part of his task that Innocent preferred, and it was to this, as well as to his much overrated moral and theological treatises, that he owed his enormous contemporary prestige. As a statesman, he certainly committed grave faults—through excess of diplomatic subtlety, lack of forethought, and sometimes even through ingenuousness; but it must with justice be admitted that, in spite of his reputation for pugnacity and obstinacy, he never failed, either by temperament or on principle, to exhaust every peaceful expedient in settling questions. He was averse from violence, and never resorted to bellicose acts or to the employment of force save in the last extremity. If his policy miscarried in several quarters it was eminently successful in others; and if we consider the sum of his efforts to achieve the programme of the medieval papacy, it cannot be denied that the extent of his rule and the profound influence he exerted on his times entitle him to be regarded as the most perfect type of medieval pope and one of the most powerful figures in history. A superficial glance at Innocent's correspondence is sufficient to convince us that he was pre-eminently concerned for the reformation and moral welfare of the Church, and The Fourth was animated by the best intentions for the re-estab- Lateran lishment in the ecclesiastical body of order, peace and council, respect for the hierarchy. This was one of the prin-1215. cipal objects of his activity, and this important side of his work received decisive sanction by the promulgation of the decrees of the fourth Lateran Council (1215). At this council almost all the questions at issue related to reform, and many give evidence of great breadth of mind, as well as of a very acute sense of contemporary necessities. Innocent's letters, however, not only reveal that superior wisdom which can take into account practical needs and relax severity of principle at the right moment, as well as that spirit of tolerance and equity which is opposed to the excess of zeal and intellectual narrowness of subordinates, but they also prove that, in the internal government of the Church, he was bent on gathering into his hands all the motive threads, and that he stretched the absolutist tradition to its furthest limits, intervening in the most trifling acts in the lives of the clergy, and regarding it as an obligation of his office to act and think for all. The heretic peril, which increased during his pontificate, forced him to take decisive measures against the Albigenses in the south of France, but before proscribing them he spent ten years (1198–1208) in endeavouring to convert the misbelievers, and history should not The forget the pacific character of these early efforts. It Albigensian was because they did not succeed that necessity and crusades the violence of human passions subsequently forced him into a course of action which he had not chosen and which led him further than he wished to go. When he was compelled to decree the Albigensian crusade he endeavoured more than once to discontinue the work, which had become perverted, and to curb the crusading ardour of Simon de Montfort. Failing in his attempt to maintain the religious character of the crusade, he wished to prevent it from ending secularly in its extreme consequence and logical outcome. On several occasions he defended the cause of moderation and justice against the fanatical crusaders, but he never had the energy to make it prevail. It is very doubtful whether this was possible, and an impartial historian must take into account the insuperable difficulties encountered by the medieval popes in their efforts to stem the flood of fanaticism. It was more particularly in the definitive constitution of the temporal and political power of the papacy, in the extension of Papal what may be called Roman imperialism, that chance Imperialism favoured his efforts and enabled him to pursue his under conquests farthest. This imperialism was undoubt-Innecentlll. edly of a special nature; it rested on moral authority and political and financial power rather than on material and military strength. But it is no less certain that Innocent attempted to subject the kings of Europe by making them his tributaries and vassals. He wished to acquire the mastery of souls by unifying the faith and centralizing the priesthood, but he also aspired to possess temporal supremacy, if not as direct owner, at least as suzerain, over all the national crowns, and thus to realize the idea with which he was penetrated and which he himself expressed clearly. He wished to be at once pope and emperor, leader of religion and universal sovereign. And, in fact, he exercised or claimed suzerain rights, together with the political and pecuniary advantages accruing, over the greater number of the lay sovereigns of his time. He was more or less effectively the supreme temporal chief of the kingdom of Sicily and Naples, Sardinia, the states of the Iberian peninsula (Castile, Leon, Navarre and Portugal), Aragon (which, under Peter II., was the type of vassal and tributary kingdom of the Roman power), the Scandinavian states, the kingdom of Hungary, the Slav states of Bohemia, Poland, Servia, Bosnia and Bulgaria, and the Christian states founded in Syria by the crusaders of the 12th century. The success of Roman imperialism was particularly remarkable in England, where Innocent was confronted by one of the principal potentates of the West, by the heir of the power that had been founded by two statesmen of the first rank, William the Conqueror and Henry II. In Richard I. and John he had exceptionally authoritative adversaries; but after one of the fiercest wars ever waged by the civil power against the Church, Innocent at length gained over John the most complete victory that has ever been won by a religious potentate over a temporal sovereign, and constrained him to Innocentm. make complete submission. In 1213 the pope and John of became not only the nominal suzerain but, de facto England. and de :lure, the veritable sovereign of England, and during the last years of John and the first years of Henry III. he governed England effectively by his legates. This was the most striking success of Innocent's diplomacy and the culminating point of his secular work. The papacy, however, encountered serious obstacles, at first at the very centre of the papal empire, at Rome, where the pope had to contend with the party of communal autonomy for ten years before being able to secure the mastery at Rome. His Innocent///., immense authority narrowly escaped destruction Rome and but a stone's-throw from the Lateran palace; but Italy the victory finally rested with him, since the Roman people could not dispense with the Roman Church, to which it owed its existence. Reared in the nurture of the pope, the populace of the Tiber renounced its stormy liberty in 1209,and accepted the peace and order that a beneficent master gave; but when Innocent attempted to extend to the whole of Italy the regime of paternal subjection that had been so successful at Rome, the difficulties of the enterprise surpassed the powers even of a leader of religion. He succeeded in imposing his will on the nobles and communes in the patrimony of St Peter, and, as guardian of Henry VI.'s son Frederick, was for some time able to conduct the government of the kingdom of the Two Sicilies, but in his claims on the rest of Italy the failure of the temporal power was manifest. He was unable, either by diplomacy or force of arms, to make Italian unity redound to the exclusive benefit of the Holy See. Nor was his failure due to lack of activity or energy, but rather to the insuperable obstacles in his path—the physical configuration of Italy, and, above all, the invincible repugnance of the Italian municipalities to submit to the mastery of a religious power. As far as the Empire was concerned, chance at first favoured Innocent. For ten years a Germany weakened and divided by the rivalry of Philip of Swabia and Otto of Brunswick Innocent III. left his hands free to act in Italy, and his pontificate and the marks a period of comparative quiet in the ardent Empire. conflict between pope and emperor which continued throughout the middle ages. Not until 1210, when Otto of Brunswick turned against the pope to whom he owed his crown, was Innocent compelled to open hostilities; and the struggle ended in a victory for the Curia. Frederick II., the new emperor created by Innocent, began by handing over his country to Rome and sacrificing the rights of the Empire to the union of the two great authorities of the' Christian world. In his dealings with Frederick, Innocent experienced grievous vicissitudes and disappointments, but finally became master of the situation. One nation only—the France of Philip Augustus—was able to remain outside the Roman vassalage. There is not a word, in the documents concerning the relations of Philip Augustus with Rome, from which we may conclude that the Capetian crown submitted, or that the papacy wished to impose upon it the effective suzerainty of the Holy See. Innocent III. had been able to encroach on France at one point only, when the Albigensian crusade had enabled him to exercise over the southern fiefs conquered by Simon de Montfort a political and secular supremacy in the form of collections of moneys. Finally, Innocent III. was more fortunate than his predecessors, and, if he did not succeed in carrying out his projected crusade and recovering the Holy Places, he at least benefited by the Franco-Venetian expedition of 1202. Europe refused to take any direct action against the Mussulman, but Latin feudalism, Latin con. assembled at Venice, diverted the crusade by an act quest actin-of formal disobedience, marched on Constantinople, stantinopte. seized thg Greek Empire and founded a Latin Empire in its place; and Innocent had to accept the fait accompli. Though condemning it on principle, he turned it to the interests of the Roman Church as well as of the universal Church. With joy and pride he welcomed the Byzantine East into the circle of vassal peoples and kingdoms of Rome bound politically to the see of St Peter, and with the same emotions beheld the patriarchate of Constantinople at last recognize Roman supremacy. But from this enormous increase of territory and influence arose a whole series of new and difficult problems. The court of Rome had to substitute for the old Greek hierarchy a hierarchy of Latin bishops; to force the remaining Greek clergy to practise the beliefs and rites of the Roman religion and bow to the supremacy of the pope; to maintain in the Greco-Latin Eastern Church the necessary order, morality and subordination; to defend it against the greed and violence of the nobles and barons who had founded the Latin Empire; and to compel the leaders of the new empire to submit to the apostolic power and execute its commands. In his endeavours to carry out the whole of this programme, Innocent III. met with insuperable obstacles and many disappointments. On the one hand, the Greeks were unwilling to abandon their religion and national cult, and scarcely recognized the ecclesiastical supremacy of the papacy. On the other hand, the upstart Latin emperors, far from proving 698 submissive and humble tools, assumed with the purple the habits and pretensions of the sovereigns they had dispossessed. Nevertheless, Innocent left his successors a much Vaster and more stable political dominion than that which he had received from his predecessors, since it comprised both East and West; and his five immediate successors were able to preserve this ascendancy. They even extended the limits of Roman impetial-1sm by converting the pagans of the Baltic to Christianity, and further reinforced the work of ecclesiastical centralization by enlisting in their service a force which had recently come into existence and was rapidly becoming popular—the mendicant orders, and notably the Dominicans and Franciscans. The The Friars Roman power was also increased by the formation and the of the universities—privileged corporations of Universities, masters and students, which escaped the local power of the bishop and his chancellor only to place themselves under the direction and supervision of the Holy See. Mistress of the entire Christian organism, Rome thus gained control of inter-national education, and the mendicant monks who formed her devoted militia lost no time in monopolizing the professorial chairs. Although the ecclesiastical monarchy continued to gain strength, the successors of Innocent III. made less use than he of their immense power. Under Gregory IX. (1227—1241) and Innocent IV. (1243–1254) the conflict between the priesthood and the Empire was revived by the enigmatic Frederick II., the polyglot and lettered emperor, the friend of Saracens, the despot who, in youth styled "king of priests," in later years personified ideas that were directly opposed to the medieval theocracy; and the struggle lasted nearly thirty years. The Hohenstaufen succumbed to it, and the papacy itself received a terrible shock, which shook its vast empire to the foundations. Nevertheless, the first half of the 13th century may be regarded as the grand epoch of medieval papal history. Supreme in culmination Europe, the papacy gathered into a body of doctrine of the Papal the decisions given in virtue of its enormous de facto Power. power, and promulgated its collected decrees and maxilla to form the immutable law of the Christian world. Innocent III., Honorius III. and Gregory IX. employed their jurists to collect the most important of their rulings, and Gregory's decrees became the definitive repository of the canon law. Besides making laws for the Christendom of the present and the future, these popes employed themselves in giving a more regular form to their principal administrative organ, the offices of the Curia. The development of the Roman chancery is also a characteristic sign of the evolution that was taking place. From the time of Innocent III. the usages of the apostolic scribes become transformed into precise rules, which for the most part remained in force until the 15th century. 4. Period. from Urban IV. to Benedict XI. (1261–1305).—This period comprises 13 pontificates, all of short duration (three or four years at the most, and some only a few months)., with the exception of that of Boniface VIII., who was pope for nine years. This accidental fact constitutes a prime difference in favour of the preceding period, in which there were only five pontiffs during the first sixty years of the 13th century. Towards the end of the 13th century the directors of the Christian world occupied the throne of St Peter for too short a time to be able to make their personal views prevail or to execute their political projects at leisure after ripe meditation. Whatever the merit of a Gregory X. or a Nicholas III., the brevity of their pontificates prevented any one of these ephemeral sovereigns from being a great pope. But other and far more important differences characterize this period. Although there was no theoretical restriction to Influence of the temporal supremacy and religious power of the the Power papacy, certain historical facts of great importance of France. contributed to the fatal diminution of their extent. The first of these was the preponderance of the French monarchy and nation in Europe. Founded by the conquests of Philip Augustus and Louis VIII. and legitimated and extended by the policy and moral influence of the crowned saint, Louis IX., [1087-1305 the French monarchy enjoyed undisputed supremacy at the end of the 13th century and the beginning of the 14th; and this hegemony of France was manifested, not only by the extension of the direct power exercised .by the French kings over all the neighbouring nationalities, but also by the establishment of Capetian dynasties in the kingdom of the Two Sicilies and in Hungary. From this time the sovereign of Rome, like other sovereigns, had to submit to French influence. But, whereas the pope was sometimes compelled to become the instrument of the policy of the kings of France or the adventurers of their race, he was often able to utilize this new and pervading force for the realization of his own designs, although he endeavoured from time to time, but without enduring success, to shake off the overwhelming yoke of the French. In short, it was in the sphere of French interests much more than in that of the general interests of Latin Christendom that the activities of these popes were exerted. The fact of many of the popes being of French birth and France the field of their diplomacy shows that the supreme pontificate was already becoming French in character. This change was a prelude to the more or less complete subjection of the papacy to French influence which took place in the following century at the period of the " Babylonish Captivity," the violent reaction personified by Boniface VIII. affording but a brief respite in this irresistible evolution. It was the French-man Urban IV. (1261–1264) who called Charles of Anjou into Italy to combat the last heirs of Frederick II. and thus paved the way for the establishment of the Angevin dynasty on the throne of Naples. Under Clement IV. (1265–1268) an agreement was concluded by which Sicily was handed over to the brother of St Louis, and the victories of Benevento (1266) and Taglia-COZZO (1267) assured the triumph of the Guelph party and enabled the Angevins to plant themselves definitely on Neapolitan soil. Conradin's tragic and inevitable end closed the last act of the secular struggle between the Holy See and the Empire. Haunted by the recollection of that formidable conflict and lulled in the security of the Great Interregnum, which was to render Germany long powerless, the papacy thought merely of the support that France could give, and paid no heed to the dangers threatened by the extension of Charles of Anjou's monarchy in central and northern Italy. The Visconti Gregory X. (1271–1276) made an attempt to bring about a reaction against the tendency which had influenced his two immediate predecessors. He placed himself outside the theatre of French influence, and occupied himself solely with the task of giving to the papal monarchy that character of universality and political superiority which had made the greatness of an Alexander III. or an Innocent III. He opposed the aggrandizing projects of the Angevins, intervened in Germany with a view to terminating the Great Interregnum, and sought a necessary counterpoise to Capetian predominance in an alliance with Rudolph of Habsburg, who had become an emperor without imperilling the papacy. The Orsini Nicholas III. pursued the same policy with regard to the independence and greatness of the Roman See, but died too soon for the cause he upheld, and, at his death in 1280, the inevitable current revived with overpowering force. His successor, Martin IV. (1281–1285), a prelate of Champagne, brother of several councillors of the king of France, prebendary at Rouen and Tours, and one of the most zealous in favour of the canonization of Louis IX., ascended the papal throne under the auspices of Charles of Anjou, and undertook the government of the Church with the sole intention of furthering in every way the interests of the country of his birth. A Frenchman before everything, he abased the papal power to such an extent as to excite the indignation of his contemporaries, often slavishly subordinating it to the exigencies of the domestic and foreign policy of the Angevins at Naples and the reigning house at Paris. But he was prevented from carrying out this policy by an unforeseen blow, the Sicilian Vespers (March 1282), an event important both in itself and in its results. By rejecting the Capetian sovereign that Rome wished to thrust upon it to deliver it from the dynasty of Aragon, the little island of Sicily arrested the progress of French imperialism, ruined the vast projects of Charles of Anjou, and liberated the papacy in its own despite from a subjection that perverted and shook its power. Honorius IV. (1285–1287) and Nicholas IV. (1288–1292) were able to act with greater dignity and independence than their predecessors. Though remaining leagued with the Angevins in southern Italy, they dared to look to Germany and Rudolph of Habsburg to help them in their efforts to add to the papal dominion a part of northern Italy and, in particular, Tuscany. But they still continued to desire the restoration of the Angevin dynasty in Sicily and to assist the designs of France on Aragon by preaching a crusade against the masters of Barcelona and Palermo. The hopes of the Curia were frustrated by the resistance of the Aragonese and Sicilians, and Charles of Valois, to whom the Curia eventually destined the crown of Aragon, had to resign it for that of Constantinople, which he also failed to secure. Boniface VIII. himself at the beginning of his pontificate yielded to the current, and, like his predecessors, adapted his external policy to the pretensions and interests of Eonitiace vm.the great Capetian house, which, like all his prede- 1294-1303. cessors, he at first countenanced. In spite of his instincts for dominion and the ardour of his temperament, he made no attempt to shake off the French yoke, and did not decide on hostilities with France until Philip the Fair and his legists attempted to change the character of the kingship, emphasized its lay tendencies, and exerted themselves to gratify the desire for political and financial independence which was shared by the French nation and many other European peoples. The war which ensued between the pope and the king of France ended in the complete defeat of the papacy, which was reduced to impotence (1303), and though the storm ceased during the subjection nine months' pontificate of Benedict XI., the See of o the St Peter recovered neither its normal equilibrium Papacy to nor its traditional character. The accession of the France. first Avignon pope, Clement V., marks the final subjection of the papal power to the Capetian government, the inevitable result of the European situation created in the preceding century. In other respects the papacy of this period found itself in a very inferior situation to that which it had occupied under Innocent III. and the popes of the first half of the 13th century. The fall of the Latin Empire and the retaking of Constantinople by the Palaeologi freed a great part of the Eastern world from the political and religious direction of Rome, and this fact necessarily engaged the diplomacy of Urban IV. and his successors in an entirely different direction. To them the Eastern problem presented a less complex aspect. There could no longer be any serious question of a collective expedition of Europe for the recovery of the Holy Places. The ingenuous faith of a Louis IX. was alone capable of giving rise to two crusades organized privately and without the influence or even the approval of the pope. Although all these popes, and Gregory X. especially, never ceased theoretically to urge the Christian world to the crusade, they were actuated by the desire of remaining faithful to tradition, and more particularly by the political and financial advantages accruing to the Holy See from the preaching and the crusading expeditions. The European state of mind no longer lent itself to such enterprises, and, moreover, under such brief pontificates, the attenuated Roman power could not expect to succeed where Innocent III. himself had failed. The main preoccupation of all these popes was how best to repair the injury done to orthodox Europe and to Rome by the destruction of the Latin Empire. Several of them thought of restoring the lost empire by force, and thus giving a pendant Council of to the fourth crusade; but the Curia finally realized Lyons, 1274. the enormous difficulties of such a project, and con-Relations vinced themselves that the only practical solution of with the the difficulty was to come to an understanding with Eastern the Palaeologi and realize pacifically the long-dreamed Church. union of the Greek and Latin Churches. The negotiations begun by Urban IV. and continued more or less actively by his successors were at last concluded in 1274 by Gregory X. The Council of Lyons proclaimed the union, which was destined to be effective for a few years at least and to be prolonged precariously in the midst of unfavourable circumstances. The Greek mind was opposed to the union; the acquiescence of the Byzantine emperors was but an ephemeral expedient of their foreign policy; and the peace between the Latins and Greeks settled on Byzantine soil could not endure for long. The principal obstacle, however, was the incompatibility of the popes' Byzantine and Italian policies. The popes were in favour of Charles of Anjou and his dynasty, but Charles was hostile to the union of the two Churches, since it was his intention to seize the Byzantine Empire and substitute himself for the Palaeologi. Almost all the successors of Urban IV. were compelled to exert their diplomacy against the aggrandizing aims of the man they had themselves installed in southern Italy, and to protect the Greek emperor, with whom they were negotiating the religious question. On several occasions between the years 1271 and 1273 the Angevins of Naples, who had great influence in Achaea and Albania and were solidly supported by their allies in the Balkan Peninsula, nearly carried out their project; and in 1274 the opposition of Charles of Anjou came near to compromising the operations of the council of Lyons and ruining the work of Gregory X. The papacy, however, held its ground, and Nicholas III., the worthy continuer of Gregory, succeeded in preserving the union and triumphing over the Angevin power. The Angevins took their revenge under Martin IV., who was a stanch supporter of the French. Three weeks after his coronation Martin excommunicated the Greek emperor and all his subjects, and allied himself with Charles of Anjou and the Venetians to compass his downfall. In this case, too, the Sicilian Vespers was the rock on which the hopes and pretensions of the sovereign of Naples suffered shipwreck. After Martin's death the last popes of the 13th century, and notably Boniface VIII., in vain thought to find in another Capetian, Charles of Valois, the man who was to re-establish the Latin dominion at Byzantium. But the East was lost; the union of 1274 was quickly dissolved; and the reconciliation of the two Churches again entered into the category of chimeras. During this period the papal institution, considered in its internal development, already showed symptoms of decadence. The diminution of religious faith and sacerdotal Decay of the prestige shook it to its very foundations. The papacy. growth of the lay spirit continued to manifest itself among the burgesses of the towns as well as among the feudal princes and sovereigns. The social factors of communism and nationalism, against which Innocent III. and his successors had struggled, became more powerful and more hostile to theocratic domination. That a sovereign like St Louis should be able to associate himself officially with the feudalism of his realm to repress abuses of church jurisdiction; that a contemporary of Philip the Fair, the lawyer Pierre Dubois, should dare to suggest the secularization of ecclesiastical property and the conversion of the clergy into a class of functionaries paid out of the royal treasury; and that Philip the Fair, the adversary of Boniface VIII., should be able to rely in his conflict with the leader of the Church on the popular consent obtained at a meeting of the Three Estates of France—all point to a singular demoralization of the sentiments and principles on which were based the whole power of the pontiff of Rome and the entire organization of medieval Catholicism. Both by its attitude and by its governmental acts, the papacy of the later 13th century itself contributed to increase the discredit and disaffection from which it suffered. Under Urban IV. and his successors the great moral and religious sovereignty of former times became a purely bureaucratic monarchy, in which the main preoccupation of the governors appeared to be the financial exploitation of Christendom. In the registers of these popes, which are now being actively investigated and published, dispensations (licences to violate the laws of the Church); indulgences; imposts levied with increasing regularity on universal Christendom and, in particular, on the clerks; the settlement of questions relating to church debts; the granting of lucrative benefices to Roman functionaries; the divers processes by which the Curia acquired the immediate disposal of monastic, capitulary and episcopal revenues—in short, all financial matters are of the first importance. It was in the 14th century more especially that the Apostolic Chamber spread the net of its fiscal administration wider and wider over Christian Europe; but at the close of the 13th century all the preliminary measures had been taken to procure for the papal treasury its enormous and permanent resources. The continued efforts of the popes to drain Christian gold to Rome were limited only by the fiscal pretensions of the lay sovereigns, and it was this financial rivalry that gave rise to the inevitable conflict between Boniface VIII. and Philip the Fair. By thus devoting itself to material interests, the papacy contemporary with the last Capetians lost its moral greatness Abuse of and fell in the opinion of the peoples; and it did the Papal itself no less injury by the abnormal extension of Power. the bounds of its absolutism. By its exaggerated methods of centralization the papal monarchy had absorbed within itself all the living forces of the religious world and suppressed all the liberties in which the Church of old had lived. The subjection of the secular clergy was complete, while the episcopate retained no shadow of its independence. The decree of Clement IV. (1266), empowering the papacy to dispose of all vacant bishoprics at the court of Rome, merely sanctioned a usage that had long been established. But the control exercised by the Roman Curia over the episcopate had been realized by many other means. It was seldom that an episcopal election took place without a division in the chapter, in which resided the electoral right. In such an event, the competitors appealed to the Holy See and abdicated their right, either voluntarily or under coercion, in minibus patine, while the pope took possession of the vacant see. Nominations directly made by the court of Rome, especially in the case of dioceses long vacant, became increasingly numerous. The principle of election by canons was repeatedly violated, and threatened to disappear; and at the end of the 13th century the spectacle was common of prelates, whether nominated or confirmed by the pope, entitling themselves " bishops by the grace of the Holy See." The custom in force required bishops established by papal authority to take an oath of fidelity to the pope and the Roman Church, and this oath bound them in a particular fashion to the Curia. Those bishops, however, who had been elected under normal conditions, conformably to the old law, were deprived of the essential parts of their legitimate authority. They lost, for example, their jurisdiction, which they were seldom able to exercise in their own names, but in almost every case as commissaries delegated by the apostolic authority. The regular clergy, who were almost wholly sheltered from the power of the diocesan bishops, found themselves, even more than the secular priesthood, in a state of complete dependence on the Curia. The papacy of this period continually intervened in the internal affairs of the monasteries. Not only did the monks continue to seek from the papacy the confirmation of their privileges and property, but they also referred almost all their disputes to the arbitration of the pope. Their elections gave rise to innumerable lawsuits, which all terminated at the court of Rome, and in most cases it was the pope himself who designated the monks to fill vacant posts in the abbeys. Thus the pope became the great ecclesiastical elector as well as the universal judge and supreme legislator. On this extreme concentration of the Christian power was employed throughout Europe an army of official agents or officious adherents of the Holy See, who were animated by an irrepressible zeal for the aggrandizement of the papacy. These officials originally consisted of an obedient and devoted militia of mendicant friars, both Franciscans and Dominicans, who took their orders from Rome alone, and whose efforts the papacy stimulated by lavishing exemptions, privileges, and full sacerdotal powers. Subsequently they were represented by theapostolic notaries, who were charged to exercise throughout Christendom the gracious jurisdiction of the leaders of the Church and to preside over the most: important acts in the private lives of the faithful. These tools of Rome, both clerks and laymen, continued to increase in every diocese. They were not invested with their office until they had been examined by a papal chaplain, or sometimes even by the vice-chancellor of the Curia. The sovereign direction of this enormous monarchy belonged to the pope alone, who was assisted in important affairs by the advice and collaboration of the College of Cardinals, who had become the sole electors to the papacy. Towards the close of the 13th century the necessity arose for an express ruling on the question of the exercise of this electoral right. In 1274 Gregory X., completing the measures taken by Alexander III. in the 12th century, promulgated the celebrated constitution by which the cardinal-electors were shut up-in conclave and, in the event of their not having designated the new pope within three days, were constrained to perform their duty by a progressive reduction of their food-allowance (see CONCLAVE). But at the head of this vast body there existed a constant tendency which was opposed to the absorption of all the power by a single and unbridled wills In the last years of this period fresh signs appeared of a reaction that emanated from the Sacred College itself. The cardinal-electors endeavoured to derive from their electoral power a right of control over the acts of the pope elect. In 1294, and again in 1303, they laid themselves under an obligation, previously to the election, to subscribe to the political engagements which each promised rigorously to observe in the event of his becoming pope. In general, these engagements bore upon the limitation of the number of cardinals, the prohibition to nominate new ones without previous notification to the Sacred College, the sharing between the cardinals and the pope of certain revenues specified by a bull of Nicholas IV., and the obligatory consultation of the consistories for the principal acts of the temporal and spiritual government. It is conceivable that a pope of Boniface VIII.'s temperament would not submit kindly to any restriction of the discretionary power with which he was invested by tradition, and he endeavoured to make the cardinals dependent on him and even to dispense with their services as far as possible, only assembling them in consistory in cases of extreme necessity. This tendency of the Sacred College to convert the Roman Church into a constitutional monarchy, in which it should itself play the part of parliament, was a sufficiently grave symptom of the progress of the new spirit. But throughout the ecclesiastical society traditional bonds were loosened and anarchy was rife, and this at the very moment when the enemies of the priesthood and its leaders redoubled their attack. In fine, the decadence of the papal institution manifested itself in an irremediable manner when it had accomplished no more than the half of its task. The growth of national kingdoms, the anti-clerical tendencies of the emancipated middle classes, the competition of lay imperialisms, and all the other elements of resistance which had been encountered by the papacy in its progress and had at first' tended only to shackle it, now presented an insurmountable barrier. The papacy was weakened by its contest with these adverse elements, and it was through its failure to triumph over them that its dream of European dominion, both temporal and spiritual, entered but very incompletely into the field of realities., (A. Lu.) The accession of the Gascon Clement V. in 1305 marks the beginning of a new era in the history of the papacy; for this pope, formerly archbishop of Bordeaux, remained clement v. in France, without once crossing the threshold of 1303^-1314. the Eternal City. Clement's motive for this reso- Settlement lution was his fear that the independence of the atAvignoa. ecclesiastical government might be endangered among the frightful dissensions and party conflicts by which Italy was then convulsed; while at the same time he yielded to the pressure exercised on him by the French king Philip the Fair. In March 1309, Clement V. transferred his residence to Avignon, a town which at that time belonged to the king of Naples, but was surrounded by the countship of Venaissin, which as early as 1228 had passed into the possession of the Roman See. Clement V. remained at Avignon till the day of his death, so that with him begins the so-called Babylonian Exile of the popes. Through this, and his excessive subservience to Philip the Fair, his reign proved the reverse of salutary to the Church. The pope's subservience was above all conspicuous in his attitude towards the proceedings brought against the order of the Temple, which was dissolved by the council of Vienne (see TEMPLARS). His possession of Ferrara involved Clement in a violent struggle with the republic of Venice, in which he was ultimately victorious. His successor John XXII. a native of Cahors, was elected as the result of very stormy negotiations, after a two years' John XXIl. vacancy of the see (1316). Like his predecessor 1316-1334. he fixed his permanent residence at Avignon, where he had formerly been bishop. But while Clement V. had contented himself with the hospitality of the Dominican monastery at Avignon, John XXII. installed himself with great state in the episcopal palace, hard by the cathedral. Characterof The essential features of this new epoch in the the Avignon history of the papacy, beginning with the two popes Papacy mentioned, are intimately connected with this lasting separation from the traditional seat of the papacy, and from Italian soil in general: a separation which reduced the head of the Church to a fatal dependence on the French kings. Themselves Frenchmen, and surrounded by a College of Cardinals in which the French element predominated, the popes gave to their ecclesiastical administration a certain French character, till they stood in mqre and more danger of serving purely national interests, in cases where the obligations of their office demanded complete impartiality. And thus the prestige of the papacy was sensibly diminished by the view, to which the jealousy of the nations soon gave currency, that the supreme dignity of the Church was simply a convenient tool for French statecraft. The accusation might not always be supported by facts, but it tended to shake popular confidence in the head of the universal Church, and to inspire other countries with the feeling of a national opposition to an ecclesiastical regime now entirely Gallicized. The consequent loosening of the ties between the individual provinces of the Church and the Apostolic See, combined with the capricious policy of the court at Avignon, which often regarded nothing but personal and family interests, accelerated the decay of the ecclesiastical organism, and justified the most dismal forebodings for the future. To crown all, the feud between Church and Empire broke out again with unprecedented violence. The most prominent leaders of the opposition to the papacy, whether ecclesiastical or political, joined forces with the German king, Louis of Bavaria, and offered him their aid against John XXII. The clerical opposition was led by the very popular opposition to thePapacy. and influential Minorites who were at that time engaged in a remarkably bitter controversy with the pope as to the practical interpretation of the idea of evangelical poverty. Their influence can be clearly traced in the appeal to a general council, issued by Louis in 1324 at Sachsenhausen near Frankfort-on-the-Main. This document, which confused the political problem with the theological, was bound to envenom the quarrel between emperor and pope beyond all remedy. Side by side with the Minorites, the spokesmen of the specifically political opposition to the papacy were the Parisian professors, Marsilius of Padua and John of Jandun, the composers of the " Defender of the Peace " (defensor pacis). In conjunction with the Minorites and the Ghibellines of Italy, Marsilius succeeded in enticing Louis to the fateful expedition to Rome and the revolutionary actions of 1328. The conferring of the imperial crown by the Roman populace, the deposition of the pope by the same body, and the election of an anti-pope in the person of the Minorite Pietro da Corvara, translated into acts the doctrines of the defensor pacis. The struggle, which still further aggravated the dependence of the pope on France, was waged on both sides with the utmost bitterness, and the end was not in sight when John XXII. died, full of years, on the 4th of December 1334. Even the following pope, Benedict XII., a man of the strictest morality, failed, in spite of his mild and pacific disposition, to adjust the conflict with Louis of Bavaria and the Be xH eccentric Fraticelli. King Philip 1334-1 VI. and the car- 13314ct342. . dinals of the French party worked energetically against the projected peace with Louis; and Benedict was not endowed with sufficient strength of will to carry through his designs in the teeth of their opposition. He failed, equally, to stifle the first beginnings of the war between France and England; but it is at least to his honour that he exerted his whole influence in the cause of peace. His efforts in the direction of reform, moreover, deserve recognition. In Avignon he began to erect himself a suitable residence, which, with considerable additions by later popes, developed into the celebrated papal castle of Avignon. This enormous edifice, founded on the cathedral rock, is an extra-ordinary mixture of castle and convent, palace and fortress. It was Benedict XII. also who elevated the doctrine of the beatific vision of the saints into a dogma. Benedict XII. was again succeeded, in 1342, by a Frenchman from the south, Pierre Roger de Beaufort, who was born in the castle of Maumont, in the diocese of Limoges. He assumed the title of Clement VI. In contrast with his peace-loving predecessor, and in accordance with his own more energetic character, he pursued with decision and success the traditions of John XXII. in his dealings with Louis of Bavaria. With great dexterity he turned the feud between the houses of Luxemburg and Wittelsbach to the destruction of Louis; and the death-struggle between the two seemed about to break out, when Louis met his untimely end. To all appearances the victory of the papacy was decisive: but it was a Pyrrhic victory, as events were quickly to prove. In Rome there ensued, during the pontificate of Clement, the revolutions of the visionary Cola di Rienzo (q.v.) who restored the old republic, though not for long. By his purchase of Avignon, and the creation of numerous French cardinals, the pope consolidated the close connexion of the Roman Church with France: but the interests of that Church suffered severely through the riches and patronage which Clement lavished on his relatives, and through the princely luxury of his court. His generosity—which degenerated into prodigality—compelled him to open fresh sources of revenue; and in this he succeeded, though not without serious detriment to the interests of the Church. It was fortunate for the Church that Clement VI. was followed by a man of an entirely different temperament—Innocent VI. This strict and upright pope appears to have taken /nnocent vr. Benedict XII. for his example. He undertook, 1352-1362. though not with complete success, a reformation of ecclesiastical abuses; and it was he who assisted in restoring the Empire at last to some measure of stability. But the culminating glory of his reign was the restoration of the almost ruined papal dominion in Italy, by means of the highly-gifted Cardinal Albornoz. The restoration of the Apostolic See to its original and proper seat was now possible; and the need for such a step was the more pressing, since residence in the castle at Avignon had become extremely precarious, owing to the ever-increasing confusion of French affairs. Innocent VI., in fact, entertained the thought of visiting Rome; but age and illness prevented his doing so. The intention of Innocent was put into execution by his successor—the learned and pious Urban V. Two events of the first magnitude make his reign one of the most memorable in the century. The first of these was 1362: v f362-d370. the return to Rome. This was an object which the emperor Charles IV. had prosecuted with all his energies; which alone could revive the languishing reputation of the papacy, Clement VI. 1342-1352. 702 by withdrawing it from the turmoils of the Anglo-French War, and bring within the bounds of possibility the much-needed Temporary reformation in ecclesiastical affairs. In 1367 it Return to became an accomplished fact. Turning a deaf ear Rome. to the remonstrances of the French king and the French cardinals, the pope quitted Avignon on the 13th of April 1367; and on the 16th of October he entered Rome, now completely fallen to ruin. The ensuing year, after his return to the Eternal City, witnessed the second great landmark in the reign of Urban V.—the Roman expedition of Charles IV., and the renewal of amicable relations between the Empire and the Church. Unfortunately, the pope failed to deal satisfactorily with the highly complicated situation in Italy; and the result was that, on the 27th of September 1370, he returned to Avignon, where he died on the following 19th of December. It was the opinion of Petrarch that, had Urban remained in Rome, he would have been entitled to rank with the most distinguished men of his era; and, if we discount this single act of weakness, he must be classed as one of the noblest and best of popes. Especial credit is due to his struggles against the moral corruptions of the day, though they proved inadequate to eliminate all traces of the prevalent disorders. Gregory XI., though equally distinguished for his erudition and pure morals, his piety, modesty and wisdom, was fated to Gregory X/.,pay dearly for the weakness of his predecessor in 13704378. abandoning Rome so early. He lived to see the national spirit of Italy thoroughly aroused against a papacy turned French. The disastrous error of almost exclusively appointing Provencals, foreigners ignorant of both the country and the people, to the government of the Papal States, now found a terrible Nemesis: and there came a national upheaval, such as Italy had not yet witnessed. The feud between Italian and Frenchman broke out in a violent form; and it was in vain that St Catherine of Siena proffered her mediation in the bloody strife betwixt the pope and the Florentine republic. The letters that she addressed to the pontiff, on this and other occasions, are documents, which are, perhaps, unique in their kind, and of great literary beauty. It was also St Catherine who prevailed on Gregory XI. to return to Definite Rome. On the 13th of September 1376 he left Return to Avignon; on the 17th of January 1377 he made his Rome. entry into the city of St Peter. Thus ended the exile in France; but it left an evil legacy in the schism under Gregory's successor. Gregory, the last pope whom France has given to the Church, died on the 27th of March 1378, after taking measures to ensure a speedy and unanimous election for his successor. The conclave, which took place in Rome, for the first time for 75 years, resulted iii the election of Bartolomeo Prignano Urban VI., (April 8, 1378), who took the name of Pope Urban VI. 1378-1389. Canonically the election was perfectly valid;l so that the only popes, to be regarded as legitimate, are the successors of Urban. It is true that his election was immediately impugned by the cardinals on frivolous grounds; but the responsibility for this rests, partially at least, with the pope himself, whose reckless and inconsiderate zeal for reform was bound to excite a revolution among the worldly cardinals still yearning for the fleshpots of Avignon. This revolution could already be foreseen with tolerable certainty, when Urban embroiled himself even with his political friends—the queen of Naples and her husband, Duke Otto of Brunswick. Similarly, he quarrelled with Count Onorato Gaetano of Fondi. The cardinals, excited to the highest pitch of irritation, now knew where they could look for support. Thirteen of them assembled at Anagni, and thence, on the 9th of August, issued a passionate manifesto, announcing the invalidity of Urban's election, on Election of the ground that it had been forced upon the conclave Anti-pope by the Roman populace. As soon as the rebellious clement v// cardinals were further assured of the protection of the French king, Charles V., they elected, with the tacit consent of the three Italian cardinals, Robert of Geneva as anti-pope I See Pastor, Geschichte der Pdpste, i., 121. [1305=1590 (Fondi, Sept. 20). Robert assumed the style of Clement VII.; and thus Christendom was brought face to face with the worst misfortune conceivable—the Great 'Schism (1378-1417). The chief responsibility for this rests with the worldly College of Cardinals, who were longing to return to France, and thence drew their inspiration. This college The Great was a creation of the Avignon period; which must Schism. therefore, in the last resort, be considered respon- sible for this appalling calamity. Severe censure, moreover, attaches to Charles V., of France. There may be room for dispute, as to the extent to which the king's share in the schism was due to the instigation of the revolted cardinals; there can be not the slightest doubt that his attitude was the decisive factor in perpetuating and widening the breach. The anti-pope was recognized not only by Charles of France, but by the princes of the Empire dependent on him, by Scotland and Savoy, and finally by the Spanish dominions and Portugal. On the other hand, the emperor Charles IV. and his son Wenceslaus, the greater part of the Empire, England, Hungary, Poland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden, together with the majority of the Italian states—Naples excepted—remained loyal to the pope. Urban, in fact—who meanwhile had created a new College of Cardinals with members of different nationalities—enjoyed one great advantage; his rival failed to hold his own in Italy, with which country the actual decision virtually lay. Unfortunately, in the time that followed, Urban was guilty of the grossest errors, pursuing his personal interests, and sacrificing, all too soon, that universal point of view which ought to have governed his policy. The struggle against his powerful neighbour on the frontier, Queen Joanna of Naples, rapidly became his one guiding motive; and thus he was led into a perfect labyrinth of blunders. He excommunicated the queen as a stiff-necked adherent of the French anti-pope, and in 1381 conferred Naples on the ambitious Charles of Durazzo, with whom he was soon inextricably embroiled; while, a little later, he fell out with his new College of Cardinals. On the 15th of October 1389, he died, with few to lament him. After the death of Urban VI., fourteen cardinals of his obedience assembled, and after long negotiations elected . the scion of a noble Neapolitan family, Cardinal PietroBoniface/x., Tomacelli (Nov. 2, 1389). The title which .he tooki389-i404. was that of Boniface IX. The new pope—a man• of high moral character, great sagacity, eloquence, and of a kindly disposition—at once instituted an entirely different policy from that pursued by his predecessor. This was especially the case in his treatment of Naples. In May 1390 Ladislaus, the son of Charles of Durazzo, who had been assassinated in the February of 1386, received the royal crown at the hands of a papal legate. To his cause Boniface IX. closely attached himself; and his support of the king against the Angevins cost him enormous sums, without which Ladislaus could not have secured his victory over the French claimant. By these means, the schism was averted from Italy, and Naples won for the Roman obedience. The situation in the papal state, which Boniface found in the greatest confusion, was at the outset far more difficult to deal with. But here also he attained in time a considerable measure of success, although the methods employed were scarcely above criticism. His greatest success, however, was gained in the Eternal City itself; for he contrived, after many vicissitudes, to induce the Romans to annul their republican constitution and acknowledge the papal supremacy, even in municipal matters. To give this supremacy a firmer basis, Boniface fortified the Vatican and the Capitol, and restored the castle of St Angelo—which had previously been used as a quarry—providing it with walls and battlements, and erecting a tower in the centre. This castle, indeed, yielded a safe shelter to the pope in January 1400, when the Colonnas made their attempt to surprise Rome. However, the adventure failed; and by the aid of Ladislaus, the castles of the Colonnas in the vicinity of Rome were destroyed. In 1401 this powerful family made its submission, accepting the favourable terms which the pope had had the good sense to offer. Henceforward quiet prevailed, and Boniface ruled as a stern master in Rome. But he was soon confronted with an extremely dangerous enemy, in the person of Duke Gian Galeazzo Visconti of Milan, who was aiming at the sovereignty of all Italy. In July 1402 he made himself master of Bologna; and his death in September of the same year was a stroke of good fortune for the pope. Bologna was now recovered for the Church (Sept. 2, 1403), and soon afterwards Perugia also surrendered. Thus Boniface IX., as a secular prince, occupies an important position; but as pope his activity must be unfavourably judged. Even if Dietrich of Niem frequently painted him too black, there is no question that the means which Boniface employed to fill the papal treasury seriously impaired the prestige of the highest spiritual office and the reverence due to it. His nepotism, again, casts a dark shadow over his memory: but most regret-table of all was his indifference towards the ending of the schism. Yet it should be borne in mind, that, when Clement VII. died suddenly on the 16th of September 1394, and the Avignon cardinals immediately elected the Spaniard Pedro de Luna as anti-pope (under the title of Benedict XIII.), Boniface IX. was left face to face with an extraordinarily skilful, adroit, and unscrupulous antagonist. On the death of Boniface (Oct. 1, 1404), the Roman cardinals once more elected a Neapolitan, Cosimo dei Migliorati, who, at Innocent the age of 65, assumed the name of Innocent VII. 1404- Innocent, who was animated by a great love for the 1406. sciences and all the arts of peace, enjoyed only a brief pontificate, but his reign is not without importance, if only as an example of the generous patronage which the papacy—even in its darkest days—has lavished on literature and science. Significant also is the foothold gained at this time in the Curia itself by the humanists—Poggio, Bruni and others. The appointment of these skilled humanist writers to the Chancery was a consequence of the difficult conditions of the time. The crisis which the Catholic Church underwent, during this terrible epoch, was the greatest in all her history: for while everything was thrown into the utmost confusion by the life and death struggles of the rival popes, while the ecclesiastical revenues and emoluments were used almost exclusively for the reward of partisan service, while everywhere the worldliness of the clergy had reached its highest pitch, heretical movements, by which the whole order of the Church was threatened with overthrow, were gaining strength in England, France, Italy. Germany and especially in Bohemia. The crisis came to a head in the pontificate of Gregory XII. This pope, so distinguished in many respects, owed his election Gregory mainly to the circumstance that he was considered XII.,1406.. a zealous champion of the restoration of unity within 1415. the Church: and he displayed, in fact, during the earlier portion of his reign, an exalted enthusiasm for this great task. Later his attitude changed; and the protracted negotiations for a conference with Benedict XIII. remained fruitless. The result of this change in the attitude of Gregory was the formation of a strong malcontent party in the College of Cardinals; to counteract whose influence, the pope—faithless to the conditions attached to his election—resorted to the plan of creating new members. Stormy discussions at Lucca followed; but they failed to prevent Gregory from nominating four fresh cardinals (May 9, 1408). The sequel was that seven of the cardinals attached to Gregory's Roman Curia withdrew to Pisa. At the same period, the relations of Benedict XIII. with France suffered a significant modification. In that country, Benedict it became more and more manifest that Benedict mu. and had no genuine desire to heal the schism in the France. Church, in spite of the ardent zeal for union which he had displayed immediately before and after his election. In May 1408 France withdrew from his obedience; and it was not long before French policy succeeded in,effecting a reconciliation and understanding between the cardinals of Benedict XIII. i and those who had seceded from Gregory XII. Precisely as Iif the Holy See were vacant, the cardinals began to act as the actual rulers of the Church, and issued formal invitations to a council to be opened at Pisa on the Feast of the Annunciation (March 25) 1409. Both popes attempted to foil the disaffected cardinals by convening councils of their own; but their efforts were doomed to failure. On the other hand, the council of the cardinals—though, by the strict rules of canonical law, its convocation was absolutely illegal—attained the utmost importance. But these rules, and, in fact, the whole Catholic doctrine of the primacy were almost entirely obscured by the schism. Scholars like Langenstein, Gerson and Zabarella, evolved a new theory as to ecumenical councils, which from the point of view of Roman Catholic principles must be described as revolutionary. At the synod of the dissident cardinals, assembled at Pisa, views of this type were in the ascendant; and, although protests were not lacking, the necessities of the time served as a pretext for ignoring all objections. That the council was merely a tool in the hands of the ambitious and adroit Baldassare Cossa, was a fact unsuspected by its members who were animated by a fiery enthusiasm for the re-establishment of ecclesiastical unity; nor did they pause to reflect' that an action against both popes could not possibly be lawful. Since whole universities and numerous scholars had pronounced in favour of the new theories, the Pisan synod dismissed all canonical scruples, and unhesitatingly laid claim to authority over both popes, one of whom was necessarily the legitimate pope. It was in vain that Carlo di Malatesta, a stanch adherent of Gregory, sought at the eleventh hour to negotiate a compromise between Gregory and the synod. It was in vain that this cultured prince, imbued with the principles of humanism, represented to the cardinals that this new path would lead quickly to the goal, but that this goal could not be unity but a triple schism. The council declared that it was canonically convened, ecumenical, and representative of the whole Catholic Church; then proceeded immediately to the trial and deposition of Benedict XIII. and Gregory XII. The synod grounded its procedure against the rival popes on a fact, ostensibly patent to all, but actually believed by none—that they were both supporters of the schism, and not merely this, but heretics in the truest and fullest sense of the word, since their attitude had impugned and subverted the article of faith concerning the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. On the ground of this extremely dubious declaration, designed to compensate for the absence of any authentic and firm foundation in ecclesiastical law, the Pisan assembly on the 5th of June announced the deposition of Gregory XII. and Benedict XIII., as manifest heretics and partisans of the schism. Alexander The next step was to elect a new pope; and on the v., 1409- 26th of June 1409 the choice fell on the venerable /'"6'• cardinal-archbishop of Milan, the Greek Petros Filargis, who assumed the title of Alexander V. The premature and futile character of these drastic and violent proceedings at Pisa was only too speedily evident. The powerful following which Gregory enjoyed in Italy and Germany, and Benedict in Spain and Scotland, ought to have shown from the very first that a simple decree of deposition could never suffice to overthrow the two popes. Thus, as the sentence of Pisa found recognition in France and England, as well as in many parts of Germany and Italy, the synod, which was to secure the restoration of unity, proved only the cause for worse confusion—instead of two, there were now three popes. Alexander V., the pope of the council, died on the 3rd of May 1410. The cardinals at once elected his successor—Baldassare Cossa, who took the name of John XXIII. Of all the consequences of the disastrous Pisan council, 14b John XXl/l., =1415. the election of this man was the most unfortunate. True, it cannot be demonstrated that all the fearful accusations afterwards levelled at John XXIII. were based on fact: but it is certain that this cunning politician was so far infected with Council of Pisa. the corruption of his age that he was not in the least degree fitted to fulfil the requirements of the supreme ecclesiastical dignity. From him the welfare of the Church had nothing to hope. All eyes were consequently turned to the energetic German king, Sigismund, who was inspired by the best motives, Council of and who succeeded in surmounting the formidable Constance. obstacles which barred the way to an ecumenical council. It was mainly due to Sigismund's indefatigable and magnificent activity, that the council of Constance met and was so numerously attended. It is remarkable how fortune seemed to assist his efforts. The capture of Rome by King Ladislaus of Naples had compelled John XXIII. to take refuge in Florence (June 1413), where that dangerous guest received a not very friendly welcome. Since John's most immediate need was now protection and assistance against his terrible opponent Ladislaus, he sent, towards the close of August 1413, Cardinals Chalant and Francesco Zabarella, together with the celebrated Greek Manuel Chrysoloras, to King Sigismund, and commissioned them to determine the time and place of the forthcoming council. The agreement was soon concluded. On the 9th of December John XXIII. signed the bull convening the council at Constance, and pledged his word to appear there in person. He might have hoped that his share in convening the synod would give him a certain right to regulate its proceedings, and that, by the aid of his numerous Italian prelates, he would be able to influence it more or less according to his views. But in this he was greatly deceived. So soon as he realized the true position of affairs he attempted to break up the council by his flight to Schaffhausen (March 20-21, 1415)—a project in which he would doubtless have succeeded but for the sagacity and energy of Sigismund. In spite of everything, the excitement in Constance was unbounded. In the midst of the confusion, which reigned supreme in the council, the upper hand was gained by that party which held that the only method by which the schism could be ended and a reformation of ecclesiastical discipline ensured was a drastic limitation of the papal privileges. The limitation was to be effected by the general council: consequently, the pope must be brought under the jurisdiction of that council, and—in the opinion of many—remain under its jurisdiction for all time. Thus, in the third, fourth and fifth general sessions it was enacted, with characteristic precipitation, that an ecumenical council could not be dissolved or set aside by the pope, without its consent: the corollary to which was, that the present council, notwithstanding the flight of John XXIII., continued to exist in the full possession of its powers, and that, in matters pertaining to belief and the eradication of schism, all men—even the pope—were bound to obey the general council, whose authority extended over all Christians, including the pope himself. By these decrees—which created as the supreme authority within the Church a power which had not been appointed as such by Christ 1—the members of the council of Constance sought to give.their position a theoretical basis before proceeding to independent action against the pope. But these declarations as to the superiority of an ecumenical council never attained legal validity, in spite of their defence by Pierre d'Ailly and Gerson. Emanating from an assembly without a head, which could not possibly be an ecumenical council without the assent of one of the popes (of whom one was necessarily the legitimate pope)—enacted, in opposition to the cardinals, by a majority of persons for the most part unqualified, and in a fashion which Deposition was thus distinctly different from that of the old of John councils—they can only be regarded as a coup de XX//L main, a last resort in the universal confusion. On the 29th of May the council deposed John XXIII. The legitimate pope, Gregory XII., now consented to resign, but under strict reservation of the legality of his pontificate. Here of course the author speaks of the papal supremacy and not of papal infallibility in matters of faith and morals—a doctrine which was formally declared a dogma of the Church only at the Vatican council in 187o.[ED.] By consenting to this, the synod indirectly acknowledged that its previous sessions had not possessed an ecumenical character, and also that Gregory's predecessors, up to Resignation Urban VI., had been legitimate popes. In presence of Gregory of the council, reconstituted by Gregory, Malatesta XII announced the resignation of the latter; and the grateful assembly appointed Gregory legatus a latere to the marches of Ancona—a dignity which he was not destined to enjoy for long, as he died on the 18th of October 1417. (See CONSTANCE,
End of Article: SAINT BERNARD
[back]
MOUNTAGUE BERNARD (1S2o—1882)
[next]
SAINT BERNARD (Iogo-1153)

Additional information and Comments

There are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click and select "copy." Paste it into a website, email, or other HTML document.