Online Encyclopedia


Online Encyclopedia
Originally appearing in Volume V20, Page 696 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
Spread the word: it!
COUNCILS.)—[ED.J Cassino (Victor III., 1086-1087), whom he nominated as his successor, was well known for his moderation. It was no longer a question of continuing the policy of Gregory VII., but of saving the work of Hildebrand. (L. D.*) II.—Period from 1087 to 1305. Gregory VII. had clearly revealed to the world the broad lines of the religious and political programme of the medieval papacy, and had begun to put it into execution. The Work To reform the Church in every grade and purge of Gregory the priesthood in order to shield it from feudal V/G influences and from the domination of lay sovereignties; to convert the Church thus regenerated, spiritualized, and detached from the world, into an organism which would be submissive, to the absolute authority of the papal see, and to concentrate, at Rome all its energies and jurisdictions; to establish the supremacy of the Roman see over all the Christian Churches, and win over to the Roman Church the Churches of the Byzantine Empire, Africa and Asia; to establish the temporal domain of St Peter, not only by taking possession of Rome and Italy, but also by placing all the crowns of Europe under the supreme sovereignty of the popes, or even in direct vassalage to them; and, finally, to maintain unity of faith in Christendom and defend it against the attacks of unbelievers, Mussulmans, heretics and pagans—these were the main features of his scheme. The task, however, was so gigantic that after r5o years of strenuous effort, at the period which may be considered as the apogee of its power, that is, in the first half of the 13th century, the papacy had attained only incomplete results. At several points the work remained unfinished, for decadence followed close upon the moment of extreme greatness. It is more particularly in the part of this programme that relates to the internal policy of the papacy, to the subjection of the Church to the Curia, and to the intensive concentration of the ecclesiastical forces in the hands of the leader of Christendom, that Gregory went farthest in the execution of his plan and approached nearest the goal. For the rest, so formidable were the external obstacles that, without theoretically renouncing his claims, he was unable to realize them in practice in a manner satisfactory to himself. In order to give a clear idea of the vicissitudes through which the papal institution passed between the years 1087 and 1305 and to show the measure of its success or failure at different stages in its course, it is convenient to divide this section into four periods. 1. Period from Urban II. to Calixtus II. (1087-1124).-Gregory VII.'s immediate successors accomplished the most pressing work by liberating the Church from feudal subjection, either by force or by diplomacy. This 1088Urba-1n n099, . was, indeed, the indispensable condition of its internal and external progress. The great figure of this period is unquestionably the French Cluniac Urban II., who led the Hildebrandine reformation with more vehemence than Gregory himself and was the originator of the crusades. Never through-out the middle ages was pope more energetic, impetuous or uncompromising. His inflexible will informed the movement directed against the enemy within, against the simoniacal prelate and the princely usurper of the rights of the Church, and pre-scribed the movement against the enemy without, against the infidel who held the Holy Sepulchre. Urban set his hand to reforms from which his predecessor Gregory had recoiled. He simultaneously excommunicated several sovereigns and mercilessly persecuted the archbishops and bishops who were hostile to reform. He took no pains to temper the zeal of his legates, but incited them to the struggle, and, not content with prohibiting lay investiture and simony, expressly forbade prelates and even priests to pay homage to the civil power. Distrusting the secular clergy, who were wholly sunk in the form of world, he looked to the regular clergy for support, the church. and thus led the papacy into that course which it continued to pursue after his death. Henceforth the monk was to be the docile instrument of the wishes of Rome, to be opposed to the official priesthood according to Rome's needs. Urban was the first to proclaim with emphasis the necessity of a close association of the Curia with the religious orders, and this he made the essential basis of the theocratic government. As the originator of the first crusade, Urban is entitled to the honour of the idea and its execution. There is no doubt that he wished to satisfy the complaints that emanated The First from the Christians dwelling in Jerusalem and Crusade. from the pilgrims to the Holy Sepulchre, but it is no less certain that he was disturbed by the fears aroused throughout the Latin world by the recrudescence of Mussulman invasions, and particularly by the victory won by the Almoravides over the Christian army at Zalaca (ro86). The progress of these African Mussulmans. into Spain and their incessant piracies in Italy were perhaps the occasional cause that determined Urban II. to work upon the imagination of the infidels by an expedition into Syria. The papacy of that time believed in the political unity of Islam, in a solidarity —which did not exist—among the Mussulmans of Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt and the Barbary coasts; and if it waited until the year 1095 to carry out this project, it was because the conflict with the Germanic Empire prevented the earlier realization of its dream. The essential reason of Urban II.'s action, and consequently the true cause of the crusade, was the ambition of the pope to unite with Rome and the Roman Church the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and even Constantinople, which the Greek schism had rendered independent. This thought had already crossed the minds of Leo IX. and Gregory VII., but circumstances had never allowed them to put it into execution. Armed by the reformation with a moral authority which made it possible to concentrate the forces of the West under the supreme direction of the Church and its leaders, Urban II. addressed himself with his customary decision to the execution of this enormous enterprise. With him, as with all his successors, the idea of a collective expedition of Europe for the recovery of the Holy Places was always associated with the sanguine hope of extinguishing the schism at Constantinople, its very centre, by the substitution of a Latin for a Byzantine domination. Of these two objects, he was only to realize the former; but the crusade may well be said to have been his own work. He created it and preached it; he organized it, dominated it, and constantly supervised it. He was ever ready to act, either personally or through his delegates, and never ceased to be the effective leader of all the feudal soldiers he enrolled under the banner of the Holy See. He corresponded regularly with his legates and with the military leaders, who kept him accurately informed of the position of the troops and the progress of the operations. He acted as intermediary between the soldiers of Christ and their brothers who remained in Europe, announcing successes, organizing fresh expeditions, and spurring the laggards to take the road to Jerusalem. The vast conflict aroused by the Hildebrandine reformation, and particularly the investiture quarrel, continued under the settlement three successors of Urban IL; but with them it of the assumed a different character, and a tendency arose Investiture to terminate it by other means. The violence and Quarrel. disorders provoked by the struggle brought about a reaction, which was organized by certain prelates who advocated a policy of conciliation, such as the Frenchman Ivo, bishop of Chartres (c. ro4o-1116). These conciliatory prelates were sincere supporters of the reformation, and combated simony, the marriage or concubinage of priests, and the immorality of sovereigns with the same conviction as the most ardent followers of Gregory VII. and Urban II.; but they held that the intimate union of Church and State was indispensable to the social order, and that the rights of kings should be respected as well as the rights of priests. The text they preached was harmony between the priesthood and the state. Dividing what the irreconcilables of the Hildebrandine party considered as an indissoluble whole, they made a sharp distinction between the property of the Church and the Church itself, between the political and territorial power of the bishops and their religious authority,and between the feudal investiture which confers lands and jurisdiction and the spiritual investiture which confers ecclesiastical rights. This doctrine gradually rallied all moderate minds, and finally inspired the directors of Christendom in Rome itself. It explains the new attitude of Paschal II. and Calixtus II., who were both sincere reformers, but who sought in a policy of compromise the solution of the difficult problem of the relations of Church and State. History has not done sufficient justice to the Italian monk Paschal II., who was the equal of Urban in private virtues, personal disinterestedness, and religious conviction, but was surpassed by him in ardour and rigidity y /099-/t/8. of conduct. Altered circumstances and tendencies of opinion called for a policy of conciliation. In France, Paschal granted absolution to Philip I.—who had many times been anathematized by his predecessors—and reconciled him solemnly with the Church, on the sole condition that he should swear to renounce his adulterous marriage. The pope could be under no delusion as to the value of this oath, which indeed was not kept; he merely regularized formally a state of affairs which the intractable Urban II. himself had never been able to prevent, As for the French question of the investitures, it was settled apparently without any treaty being expressly drawn up between the parties. The kings of France contemporary with Paschal II. ceased to practice spiritual investiture, or even to receive feudal homage from the bishops. They did not, however, renounce all intervention or all profit in the nominations to prelacies, but their intervention was no longer exhibited under the forms which the Hildebrandine party held to be illegal. In England, Paschal II. put an end to the long quarrel between the royal government and Anselm of Canterbury by accepting the Concordat of London (1107). The crown in England also abandoned investiture by the pastoral staff and ring, but, more fortunate than in France, retained the right of receiving feudal homage from the episcopate. As for Germany, the Emperor Henry V. wrung from the pope, by a display of force at Rome, concessions which provoked the indignant clamours of the most ardent reformers in France ands Italy. It must not, however, be forgotten that, in the negotiations at Sutri, Paschal had pride and independence enough to propose to the emperor the only solution of the conflict that was entirely logical and essentially Christian, namely, the renunciation by the Church of its temporal power and the renunciation by the lay lords of all intervention in elections and investitures—in other words, the absolute separation of the priesthood and the state. The idea was contrary to the whole evolution of medieval Catholicism, and the German bishops were the first to repudiate it. At all events, it is certain that Paschal II. prepared the way for the Concordat of Worms. On the other hand, with more acuteness than his predecessors, he realized that the papacy could not sustain the struggle against Germany unless it could rely upon the support of another Christian kingdom of the West; and he concluded with Philip I. of France and Louis the Fat, at the Council of Troyes (1107), an alliance which was for more than a century the salvation of the court of Rome. It is from this time that we find the popes in moments of crisis transporting them-selves to Capetian territory, installing their governments and convening their councils there, and from that place of refuge fulminating with impunity against the internal and external foe. Without sacrificing the essential principles of the reformation, Paschal II. practised a policy of peace and reaction in every way contrary to that of the two preceding popes, and it was through him that the struggle was once more placed upon the religious basis. He refused to retain Hugo, bishop of Die (d. 1106), as legate; like Urban and Gregory, he gave or confirmed monastic privileges without the protection he granted to the monks assuming a character of hostility towards the episcopate; and, finally, he gave an impulse to the reformation of the chapters, and, unlike Urban II., maintained the rights of the canons against the claims of the abbots. Guy, the archbishop of Vienne, who had been one of the Alliance with France. keenest to disavow the policy of Paschal II., was obliged to continue it when he assumed the tiara under the name of Calixtus II. By the Concordat of Worms, which he Calla-Ns 71., signed with the Emperor Henry V. in 1122, the 1119-1124. investiture was divided between the ecclesiastical and the lay powers, the emperor investing with the sceptre, the pope with the pastoral staff and ring. The work did honour to the' perseverance and ability of Calixtus, but it was merely the application of the ideas of Paschal II. and No of Chartres. The understanding, however, between the two contracting parties was very far from being clear and complete, as each party still sought to attain its own aim by spreading in the Christian world divergent interpretations of the concordat and widely-differing plans for reducing it to its final form. And, again, if this transaction settled the investiture question, it did not solve the problem of the reconciliation of the universal power of the popes with the claims of the emperors to the government of Europe; and the conflict subsisted—slumbering, it is true, but ever ready to awake under other forms. Nevertheless, the two great Christian agitations directed by the papacy at the end of the 1th century and the beginning of the 12th—the reformation and the crusade—were of capital importance for the foundation of the immense religious monarchy that had its centre in Rome; and it is from this period that the papal monarchy actually dates. The entry of the Christians into Jerusalem produced an extraordinary effect upon the faithful of the West. In it they Effect of the saw the most manifest. :sign of the divine protection Latin and of the supernatural power of the pope, the conquest of supreme director of the expedition. At its inception Jerusalem. the Latin kingdom of the Holy Land was within a little of becoming an ecclesiastical principality, ruled by a patriarch under the authority of the pope. Daimbert, the first patriarch of Jerusalem, was convinced that the Roman Church alone could be sovereign of the new state, and attempted to compel Godfrey of Bouillon to hand over to him by a solemn agreement the town and citadel of Jerusalem, and also Jaffa. The clergy, indeed, received a large share; but the government of the Latin principality remained lay and military, the only form of government possible for a colony surrounded by perils and camped in a hostile country. Not only was the result of the crusade extremely favourable to the extension of the Roman power, but throughout the middle ages the papacy never ceased to derive almost incalculable political and financial advantages from the agitation produced by the preachers and the crusading expeditions. The mere fact of the crusaders being placed under the special protection of the Church and the pope, and loaded with privileges, freed them from the jurisdiction, and even, up to a certain point, from the lordship of their natural masters, to become the almost direct subjects of the papacy; and the common law was then practically suspended for the benefit of the Church and the leader who represented it. As for the reformation, which under Urban II. and his immediate successors was aimed not only at the episcopate suhordma. but also at the capitulary bodies and monastic tlon of the clergy, it, too, could but tend to a consider-Episcopate able extension of the authority of the successors of to the Papal St Peter, for it struck an irremediable blow at Monarchy. the ancient Christian hierarchy. The first manifest result of the change was the weakening of the metropolitans. The visible symptom of this decadence of the archiepiscopal power was the growing frequency during the Hildebrandine conflict of episcopal confirmations and consecrations made by the popes themselves or their legates. From an active instrument of the religious society, the archiepiscopate degenerated into a purely formal power; while the episcopate itself, which the sincere reformers wished to liberate and purge in order to strengthen it, emerged from the crisis sensibly weakened as well as ameliorated. The episcopate, while it gained in intelligence and morality, lost a part of its independence. It was raised above, feudalism only to be abased before the two directing forces of the reformation, the papacy and the religious orders. To place itself in a better posture for combating the simoniacal and concubinary prelates, the court of Rome had had to multiply exemptions and accelerate the movement which impelled the monks to make themselves independent of the bishops. Even in the cities, the seats of the episcopal power, the reformation encouraged the attempts at revolt or autonomy which tended everywhere to diminish that power. The cathedral chapters took advantage of this situation to oppose their jurisdiction to that of the bishops, and to encroach on their prerogatives. When war was declared on the schismatic prelates, the reforming popes supported the canons, and, unconsciously or not, helped them to form themselves into privileged bodies living their own lives and affecting to recognize the court of Rome as their only superior authority. Other adversaries of the episcopate, the burgesses and the petty nobles dwelling in the city, also profited by these frequent changes of bishops, and the disorders that ensued. It was the monarchy of the bishops of Rome that naturally benefited by these attacks on the aristocratic principle represented by the high prelacies in the Church. By drawing to their side all the forces of the ecclesiastical body to combat feudalism, Urban II. and his successors, with their monks and legates, changed the constitution of that body, and changed it to their own advantage. The new situation of these popes and the growth of their authority were also manifested in the material organization of their administration and chancery. Under Urban II. the formulary of the papal bulls began to crystallize, and the letters amassed in the papal offices were differentiated clearly into great and little bulls, according to their style, arrangement and signs of validation. Under Paschal II. the type of the leaden seal affixed to the bulls (representing the heads of the apostles Peter and Paul) was fixed, and the use of Roman minuscule finally substituted for that of the Lombard script. 2. Period from Honorius II. to Celestine III. (1124–1198).--After the reformation and the crusade the papal monarchy existed, and the next step was to consolidate and extend it. This task fell to the popes of the 12th century. Two of them in particular—the two who had the longest reigns—viz. Innocent II. and Alexander III., achieved the widest extension of the power entrusted to them, and in many respects their pontificates may be regarded as a preparation for and adumbration of the pontificate of Innocent III. This period, however, is characterized not only by the thoroughgoing development of the authority of the Holy See, but also by the severe struggle the popes had to sustain against the hostile forces that were opposed to their conquests or to the mere exercise of what they regarded as their right. In the secular contest, Germany and the imperialist pretensions of its leaders were invariably the principal The papacy obstacle. Until the accession of Adrian IV., how- and the ever, there had been considerable periods of tran- German quillity, years even of unbroken peace and alliance Emperors. with the Germanic power. Under Honorius II. the empire, represented by Lothair III. of Supplinburg, yielded to the papacy, and Lothair, who was elected by the clergy and protected by the legates, begged the pope to Ronoriu. 1/24-1130. confirm his election. Before his coronation he had renounced the right, so jealously guarded by Henry V., of assisting in the election of bishops and abbots, and he even undertook to refrain from exacting homage from the prelates and to content himself with fealty. This undertaking, however, did not prevent him from bringing all his influence to bear upon the ecclesiastical nominations. When the schism of 1130 broke out he endeavoured to procure the cancellation of the clauses of the Concordat of Worms and to recover lay investiture by way of compensation for the support he had given to Innocent II., one of the competing popes. This scheme, however, was frustrated by the firmness of Innocent and St Bernard, and Lothair had to resign himself to the zealous conservation of the privileges granted to the Empire by the terms of the concordat. The ardour he had displayed in securing the recognition of Innocent and defending him against his enemies, particularly the anti-pope Adrian Iv., lutely sustained the struggle, the latter for nearly 1154-1159. twenty years. Victims of the communal claims at Rome, they constituted themselves the champions of similar claims in northern Italy, and their alliance with the Lombard communes ultimately led to success. In his duel with Barba-Alexan- rossa, Alexander III., one of the greatest of medieval der III., popes, displayed extraordinary courage, address and 11594181. perseverance. Although it must be admitted that the tenacity of the Lombard republics contributed powerfully to the pope's victory, and that the triumph of the Milanese at Legnano (1176) was the determining cause of Frederick's submission at Venice, yet we must not exaggerate the importance of the solemn act by which Barbarossa, kneeling before his conqueror, recognized the spiritual supremacy of the Holy See, and swore fidelity and respect to it. In its final form, the truce of Venice was not only not unfavourable secularly to the Empire, but even granted it very extensive advantages. Nor must it be forgotten that,' in the eyes of contemporaries, the scene at Venice had none of that humiliating character which later historians have attributed to it. This was not the only success gained by Alexander III. over lay sovereigns. The conflict of the priesthood with the kingdoms Alexander and nations that were tending to aggrandize them-/11. and selves by transcending the religious limits of the Henry H. medieval theocracy took place on another theatre. of England. The affair of Thomas Becket (q.v.) involved the papacy in a quarrel with the powerful monarchy of the Angevins, whose representative, Henry II., was master of England. and of the half of France. Alexander's diplomatic skill and moral authority, reinforced by the Capetian alliance and the revulsion of feeling caused by the murder of Becket, enabled him to force the despotic Henry to yield, and even to do penance at the tomb of the martyr. The Plantagenet abjured the Constitutions of Clarendon, recognized the rights of the pope over the Church of England, and augmented the privileges and domains of the archbishopric of Canterbury. Although Becket was a man of narrow sympathies and by no means of liberal views, he had died for the liberties of his caste, and the aureolethat surrounded him enhanced the prestige and ascendancy of the papacy. Unfortunately for the papacy, the successors of Alexander III. lacked vigour, and their pontificates were too brief to allow them to pursue a strong policy against the Germanic The papacy imperialism. Never were the leaders of the Church and the in such jeopardy as during the reign of Barbarossa's Emperor son, Henry VI. This vigorous despot, whose ambi- Henry vf. tions were not all chimerical, had succeeded where his predecessors, including Frederick, had failed. His marriage with the heiress of the old Norman kings had made him master of Sicily and the duchy of Apulia and Calabria, and he succeeded in conquering and retaining almost all the remainder of the peninsula. Under Celestine III. the papal state was surrounded on every side by German soldiers, and but for the premature death of the emperor, whom Abbot Joachim of Floris called the " hammer of the world," the temporal power of the popes might perhaps have been annihilated. The Norman kingdom, which had conquered Sicily and southern Italy at the end of the•rrth century, was almost as grave a source of anxiety to the popes of this period. The Pap Not only was its very existence an obstacle to the snad the atcy d the spread of their temporal power in the peninsula, Norman but it frequently acted in concert with the pope's Kingdom enemies and thwarted the papal policy. The /nItaly. south attempts of Honorius II. (1128) and Innocent II. (1130) to wrest Apulia and Calabria from King Roger II., and Adrian IV.'s war with William I. (1156), were one and all unsuccessful; and the papacy had to content itself with the vassalage and tribute of the Normans, and allowed them to organize the ecclesiastical government of their domains in their own fashion, to limit the right of appeal to Rome, and to curtail the power of the Roman legates. At this period, moreover, the " Norman Question " was intimately connected with the " Eastern Question." The Norman adventurers in possession of Palermo and Naples perpetually tended to look for their aggrandizement to the Byzantine Empire. In the interests of their temporal dominion, the 12th-century popes could not suffer an Italian power to dominate on the other side of the Adriatic and instal itself at Constantinople. This contingency explains the vacillating and illogical character of the papal diplomacy with regard to the Byzantine problem, and, inter ¢li¢, the opposition of Eugenius III. in ' s o to Roger H.'s projected crusade, which was directed towards the conquest of the Greek state. The popes were under the constant sway of two contrary influences—on the one hand, the seducing prospect of subduing the Eastern Church and triumphing over the schism, and, on the other, the apprehension of seeing the Normans of Sicily, their competitors in Italy, increasing their already formidable power by successful expeditions into the Balkan Peninsula. Dread of the Normans, too, explains the singular attitude of the Curia towards the Comneni, of whom it was alternately the enemy and the protector or ally. But, as regards its temporal aims on Italy, the most inconvenient and tenacious, if not the most dangerous, adversary of the 12th-century papacy was the Roman commune. Since the middle of the 12th century the party of The Papacy municipal autonomy and, indeed, the whole of the and the c European middle classes, who wished to shake off of Rome. the feudal yoke and secure independence, had been ranged against the successor of St Peter. The first symptoms of resistance were exhibited under Innocent II. (1142), who was unable to stem the growing revolution or prevent the establishment of a Roman senate sitting in the Capitol. The strength of classical reminiscence and the instinct of liberty were rein-forced by the support given to communal aspirations by the popular agitator and dangerous tribune, Arnold of Arnold of Brescia (q.v.), whose theories arrived at an opportune Brescia. moment to encourage the revolted commons. He denied the power of clerks to possess fiefs, and allowed them only religious authority and tithes. The successors of Innocent II. were even less successful in maintaining their supremacy in Anacletus and the kingdom of the Two Sicilies, involved him in a course which was not precisely favourable to the imperial rights. Innocent II. was the virtual master of this //30Inao-nI14d43. monarch, whose championship of the papacy brought not the smallest advantage, not even that of being crowned emperor with the habitual ceremonial at the place consecrated by tradition. It may even be maintained that his elevation was due solely to his personal claims. This was a victory for Rome, and it was repeated in the case of the first Hohenstaufen, Conrad III., who owed his elevation (1138) mainly to the princes of the Church and the legate of Innocent II., by whom he was crowned. He also had to submit to the consequences of his origin on the occasion of a double election not foreseen by the Concordat of Worms, when he was forced to admit the necessity of appeal to Rome and to acknowledge the supremacy of the papal decision. The situation changed Eugenics in 1152, under Eugenius III., when Frederick 111., Barbarossa was elected German king. He notified u45-1153• his election to the pope, but did not seek the pope's approval. None the less, Eugenius III. felicitated the new sovereign on his election, and even signed the treaty of Constance with him (r153). The pope had need of Frederick to defend him against the revolted Romans and to help him to recover his temporal power, which had been gravely compromised. Anastasius IV. pursued the same policy, and Anasta- summoned the German to Rome (1154). Frederick, sins Iv., however, was determined to keep the seat of the 1153-1154• Empire for himself, to dispute Italy with the pope, and to oppose the divine right of kings to the divine right of priests. When he had taken Lombardy (1158) and had had the principles of the imperial supremacy pro-claimed by his jurists at the diet of Roncaglia, the court of Rome realized that war was inevitable, and two energetic popes, Adrian V. and Alexander III., reso- Rome. Lucius II., when called upon to renounce all his regalian rights, fell mortally wounded in an attempt to drive the autonomists by force from the Capitol (1145). Under Eugenius III. the Romans sacked and destroyed the houses of the clerks and cardinals, besieged St Peter's and the Lateran, and massacred the pilgrims. The pope was forced to fly with the Sacred College, to escape the necessity of recognizing the commune, and thus left the field free to Arnold of Brescia (1145). On his return to Rome," Eugenius had to treat with his rebel subjects and to acknowledge the senate they had elected, but he was unable to procure the expulsion of the agitator. The more energetic Adrian IV. refused to truckle to the municipality, placed it under an interdict (1155), and allied himself with Frederick Barbarossa to quell an insurrection which respected the rights of emperors no more than the rights of popes. From the moment that Arnold of Brescia, absorbed in his chimerical project of reviving the ancient Roman republic, disregarded the imperial power and neglected to shelter himself behind the German in his conflict with the priesthood, his failure was certain and his fate foredoomed. He was hanged and burned, probably in pursuance of the secret agreement between the pope and the emperor; and Adrian IV. was reconciled with the Romans (1156). The commune, however, subsisted, and was on several occasions strong enough to eject the masters who were distasteful to it. Unfortunately for Alexander III. the Roman question was complicated during his pontificate with the desperate struggle with the Empire. The populace of the Tiber welcomed and expelled him with equal enthusiasm, and when his body was brought back from exile, the mob went before the cortege and threw mud and stones upon the funeral litter. All obeyed the pontiff of Rome—save Rome itself. Lucius III., who was pope for four years (1181–1185), remained in Rome four months, while Urban III. and Gregory VIII. never entered the city. At length the two parties grew weary of this state of revolution, and a regime of conciliation, the fruit of mutual concessions, was established under Clement III. By the act of 1188, the fundamental charter of the Roman commune, the people recognized the supremacy of the pope over the senate and the town, while the pope on his part sanctioned the legal existence of the commune and of its government and assemblies. Inasmuch as Clement was compelled to make terms with this new power which had established itself against him in the very centre of his dominion, the victory may fairly be said to have rested with the commune. Although, among other obstacles, the popes of the 12th century had experienced some difficulty in subduing the inhabitants Develop- of the city, which was the seat and centre of the ment of the Christian world, their monarchy did not cease to Centralized gain in authority, solidity and prestige, and the work organiza- of centralization, which was gradually making them tlon. masters of the whole ecclesiastical organism, was accomplished steadily and without serious interruption. If Rome expelled them, they always found a sure refuge in France, where Alexander III. carried on his government for several years; and the whole of Europe acknowledged their immense power. Under Honorius II. the custom prevailed of substituting legates a latere, simple priests or deacons of the Curia, for the regionary delegates, who had grown too independent; and that excellent instrument of rule, the Roman legate, carried the papal will into the remotest courts of Europe. The episcopate and the great monastic prelacies continued to lose their independence, as was shown by Honorius II. deputing a cardinal to Monte Cassino to elect an abbot of his choosing. The progress of the Roman power was especially manifested under Innocent II., who had triumphed over the schism, and was supported by the Empire and by Bernard of Clairvaux, the first moral authority of his time. He suspended an archbishop of Sens (1136) who had neglected to take into consideration the appeal to Rome, summoned an archbishop of Milan to Rome to receive the pallium from the pope's hands, lavished exemptions, and extended the right of appeal to such abnormal lengths that a Byzantine ambassador is reported to have exclaimed to Lothair III.," Your Pope Innocent is not a bishop, but an emperor." When the universal Church assembled at the second Lateran Council (1139), this leader of religion declared to the bishops that he was the absolute master of Christendom. " Ye know," he said, "that Rome is the capital of the world, that ye hold your dignities of the Roman pontiff as a vassal holds his fiefs of his sovereign, and that ye cannot retain them without his assent." Under Eugenius III., a Cistercian monk who was scarcely equal to his task, the papal absolutism grew sensibly weaker, and if we may credit the testimony of the usually well-informed German chronicler, Otto of Freising, there arose in the college of cardinals a kind of • fermentation which was exceedingly disquieting for the personal power of the leader of the Church. In the case of a difference of opinion between Eugenius and the Sacred College, Otto relates that the cardinals addressed to the pope this astounding protest: " Thou must know that it is by us thou hast been raised to the supreme dignity. We are the hinges (cardines) upon which the universal Church rests and moves. It is through us that from a private person thou hast become the father of all Christians. It is, then, no longer to thyself but rather to us that thou belongest hence-forth. Thou must not sacrifice to private and recent friendships the traditional affections of the papacy. Perforce thou must consult before everything the general interest of Christendom, and must consider it an obligation of thine office to respect the opinions of the highest dignitaries of the court of Rome." If we admit that the cardinals of Eugenius III. succeeded in restricting the omnipotence of their master for their own ends, it must invariably have been the Curia that dictated its wishes to the Church and to Europe. The papacy, however, recovered its ascendancy during the pontificate of Alexander III., and seemed more powerful than ever. The recently created royalties sought from the papacy the conservation of their titles and the benediction of their crowns, and placed themselves voluntarily in its vassalage. The practice of the nomination of bishops by the Curia and of papal recommendation to prebends and benefices of every kind grew daily more general, and the number of appeals to Rome and exemptions granted to abbeys and even to simple churches increased continually. The third Lateran Council (1179) was a triumph for the leader of the Church. At that council wise and urgent measures were taken against the abuses that discredited the priesthood, but the principle of appeals and exemptions and the question of the increasing abuse of the power wielded by the Roman legates remained untouched. The treatise on canon law known as the Decrelum Gratiani, which was compiled towards the middle of the lath century and had an enduring and far-reaching effect (see CANON LAW), merely gave theoretical sanction to the existing situation in the Church. It propagated doctrines in favour of the power of the Holy See, established the superiority of the popes over the councils, and gave legal force to their decretals. According to its author, " they (the popes) are above all the laws of the Church, and can use them according to their wish; they alone judge and cannot be judged." It was by its constant reliance en monachism that the papacy of the lath century had attained this result, and the popes of that period were especially fortunate in having for their champion the monk St Bernard, whose fnflaenceof admirable qualities enabled him to dominate public Bernard of Clairvaux. opinion. St Bernard completed the reformation, combated heresy, and by his immense moral ascendancy gained victories by which Rome benefited. As instances of his more direct services, he put an end to the schism of 1130 and attached Italy and the world to the side of Innocent III. Although he had saved the papal institution from one of the gravest perils it had ever encountered, the cardinals, the court of Rome and Innocent himself could not easily pardon him for being what he had become—a private person more powerful in the Church than the pope and the bishops, and holding that power by his personal prestige. He incurred their special reproaches by his condemnation of the irresistible evolution which impelled Rome to desire exclusive dominion over Catholic Europe and to devote her attention to earthly things. He did not condemn the temporal power of the popes in plain terms, but both his writings and his conduct proved that that power was in his opinion difficult to reconcile with the spiritual mission of the papacy, and was, moreover, a menace to the future of the institution. (See
End of Article: COUNCILS

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.