A General History for Colleges and High Schools (Myers)/Chapter 39
CHAPTER XXXIX.
RISE OF THE PAPAL POWER.
Introduction.—In an early chapter of our book we told how Christianity as a system of beliefs and precepts took possession of the different nations and tribes of Europe. We purpose in the present chapter to tell how the Christian Church grew into a great spiritual monarchy, with the bishop of Rome as its head.
It must be borne in mind that the bishops of Rome put forth a double claim, namely, that they were the supreme head of the Church, and also the rightful, divinely appointed suzerain of all temporal princes, the "earthly king of kings." Their claim to supremacy in all spiritual matters was very generally acknowledged throughout at least the West as early as the sixth century, and continued to be respected by almost every one until the great Reformation of the sixteenth century, when the nations of Northern Europe revolted, denied the spiritual authority of the Pope, and separated themselves from the ancient ecclesiastical empire.
The papal claim to supremacy in temporal affairs was never fully and willingly allowed by the secular rulers of Europe; yet during a considerable part of the Middle Ages, particularly throughout the thirteenth century, the Pope was very generally acknowledged by kings and princes as their superior and suzerain in temporal as well as in spiritual matters.
Early Organization of the Church.—The Christian Church very early in its history became an organized body, with a regular gradation of officers, such as presbyters, bishops, metropolitans or archbishops, and patriarchs. There were at first four regular patriarchates, that is, districts superintended by patriarchs. These centred in the great cities of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch. Jerusalem was also made an honorary patriarchate.
Primacy of the Bishop of Rome.—It is maintained by some that the patriarchs at first had equal and coordinate powers; that is, that no one of the patriarchs had preeminence or authority over the others. But others assert that the bishop of Rome from the very first was regarded as above the others in dignity and authority, and as the divinely appointed head of the visible Church on earth.
However this may be, the pontiffs of Rome began very early to claim supremacy over all other bishops and patriarchs. This claim of the Roman pontiffs was based on several alleged grounds, the chief of which was that the Church at Rome had been founded by St. Peter himself, the first bishop of that capital, to whom Christ had given the keys of heaven and hell, and had further invested with superlative authority as a teacher and interpreter of the Word by the commission, " Feed my Sheep; . . . feed my Lambs," thus giving into his charge the entire flock of the Church. This authority and preeminence conferred by the great Head of the Church upon Peter was held to be transmitted to his successor in the holy office.
Advantage to the Roman Bishops of the Misfortunes of the Empire.—The claims of the Roman bishops were greatly favored from the very first by the spell in which the world was held by the name and prestige of imperial Rome. Thence it had been accustomed to receive its commands in all temporal matters; how very natural, then, that thither it should turn for command and guidance in spiritual affairs. The Roman bishops in thus occupying the geographical and political centre of the world enjoyed a great advantage over all other bishops and patriarchs.
Nor was this advantage lost when misfortune befell the imperial city. Thus the removal by Constantine the Great of the seat of government to the Bosporus (see p. 332), instead of diminishing the power and dignity of the Roman bishops, tended powerfully to promote their claims and authority. In the phrase of Dante, it "gave the Shepherd room." It left the pontiff the foremost personage of Rome.
Again, when the barbarians came, there came another occasion for the Roman bishops to increase their influence, and to raise themselves to a position of absolute supremacy throughout the West. Rome's extremity was their opportunity. Thus it will be recalled how, mainly through the intercession of Leo the Great, the fierce Attila was persuaded to turn back and leave Rome unpillaged; and how, through the intercession of the same pious bishop, the savage Genseric was prevailed upon to spare the lives of the inhabitants of the city at the time of its sack by the Vandals (see pp. 346, 347). So when the emperors, the natural defenders of the capital, were unable to protect it, the unarmed pastor was able, through the awe and reverence inspired by his holy office, to render services that could not but result in bringing increased honor and dignity to the Roman See.
But if the misfortunes of Rome tended to the enhancement of the reputation and influence of the Roman bishops, much more did the final downfall of the capital tend to the same end. Upon the surrender of the sovereignty of the West into the hands of the emperor of the East, the bishops of Rome became the most important persons in Western Europe, and being so far removed from the court at Constantinople, gradually assumed almost imperial powers. They became the arbiters between the barbarian chiefs and the Italians, and to them were referred for decision the disputes arising between cities, states, and kings. It is easy to understand how directly and powerfully these things tended to strengthen the authority and increase the influence of the Roman See.
The Missions of Rome.—Again, the early missionary zeal of the church at Rome made her the mother of many churches, all of whom looked up to her with affectionate and grateful loyalty. Thus the Angles and Saxons, won to the faith by the missionaries of Rome, conceived a deep veneration for the Holy See and became her most devoted children. To Rome it was that they made their most frequent pilgrimages, and thither they sent their offering of "St. Peter's penny." And when the Saxons became missionaries to their pagan kinsmen of the continent, they transplanted into the heart of Germany these same feelings of filial attachment and love. Thus was Rome exalted in the eyes of the children of the churches of the West, until Gregory II. (715–731), writing the Eastern emperor, could say that to these peoples the very statue of the founder of the Roman church seemed "a god on earth."
The Iconoclasts.—The dispute about the worship of images, known in church history as the Iconoclastic controversy, which broke out in the eighth century between the Greek churches of the East and the Latin churches of the West, drew after it far-reaching consequences as respects the growing power of the Roman pontiffs.
Even long before the seventh century, the churches both in the East and in the West had become crowded with images or pictures of the apostles, saints, and martyrs, which to the ignorant classes at least were objects of adoration and worship. A strong party opposed to the use of images [1] at last arose in the East. These reformers were given the name of Iconoclasts (image-breakers).
Leo the Isaurian, who came to the throne of Constantinople in 717, was a most zealous Iconoclast. The Greek churches of the East having been cleared of images, the emperor resolved to clear also the Latin churches of the West of these symbols. To this end he issued a decree that they should not be used.
The bishop of Rome not only opposed the execution of the edict, but by the ban of excommunication cut off the emperor and all the iconoclastic churches of the East from communion with the true Catholic Church. Though images were permanently restored in the Eastern churches in 842, still by this time other causes of alienation had arisen, and the breach between the two sections of Christendom could not now be closed. The final outcome was the permanent separation, about the middle of the eleventh century, of the churches of the East from those of the West. The former became known as the Greek, Byzantine, or Eastern Church; the latter as the Latin, Roman, or Catholic Church.
The East was thus lost to the Roman See. But the loss was more than made good by fresh accessions of power in the West. In this quarrel with the Eastern emperors the Roman bishops cast about for an alliance with some powerful Western prince. We have already told the story of the friendship of the Carolingian kings and the Roman pontiffs, and of the favors they exchanged (see ch. xxxvi). Never did friends render themselves more serviceable to each other. The Popes made the descendants of Charles Martel kings and emperors; the grateful Frankish princes defended the Popes against all their enemies, imperial and barbarian, and dowering them with cities and provinces, laid the basis of their temporal sovereignty, which continued for more than a thousand years (until 1870).
Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction: Appeals to Rome.—Charlemagne had recognized the principle, held from early times by the Church, that ecclesiastics should be amenable only to the ecclesiastical tribunals, by freeing the whole body of the clergy from the jurisdiction of the temporal courts, in criminal as well as civil cases. Gradually the bishops acquired the right to try all cases relating to marriage, trusts, perjury, simony, or concerning widows, orphans, or crusaders, on the ground that such cases had to do with religion. Even the right to try all criminal cases was claimed on the ground that all crime is sin, and hence can properly be dealt with only by the Church. Persons convicted by the ecclesiastical tribunals were subjected to penance, imprisoned in the monasteries, or handed over to the civil authorities for punishment.
Thus by the end of the twelfth century the Church had absorbed, not only the whole criminal administration of the clergy, but in part that of the laity also.[2] Now the particular feature of this enormous extension of the jurisdiction of the Church tribunals which at present it especially concerns us to notice, is the establishment of the principle that all cases might be appealed or cited from the courts of the bishops and archbishops of the different European countries to the Papal See, which thus became the court of last resort in all cases affecting ecclesiastics or concerning religion. The Pope thus came to be regarded as the fountain of justice, and, in theory at least, the supreme judge of Christendom, while emperors and kings and all civil magistrates bore the sword simply as his ministers to carry into effect his sentences and decrees.
The Papacy and the Empire.—We must now speak of the relation of the Popes to the Emperors. About the middle of the tenth century Otto the Great of Germany, like a second Charlemagne, restored once more the fallen Imperial power, which now became known as the Holy Roman Empire, the heads of which from this on were the German kings (see p. 502). Here now were two world-powers, the Empire and the Papacy, whose claims and ambitions were practically antagonistic and irreconcilable.
There were three different theories of the divinely constituted relation of the "World-King" and the "World- Priest." The first was that Pope and Emperor were each independently commissioned by God, the first to rule the spirits of men, the second to rule their bodies. Each reigning thus by original divine right, neither is set above the other, but both are to cooperate and to help each other. The special duty of the temporal power is to maintain order in the world and to be the protector of the Church.
The second theory, the one held by the Imperial party, was that the Emperor was superior to the Pope. Arguments from Scripture and from the transactions of history were not wanting to support this view of the relation of the two world-powers. Thus Christ's payment of tribute money was cited as proof that he regarded the temporal power as superior to the spiritual; and again, his submission to the jurisdiction of the Roman tribunal was held to be a recognition on his part of the supremacy of the civil authority. Further, the gifts of Pepin and Charlemagne to the Roman See made the Popes, it was maintained, the vassals of the Emperors.
The third theory, the one held by the Papal party, maintained that the ordained relation of the two powers was the subordination of the temporal to the spiritual authority. This view was maintained by such texts of Scripture as these: " But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man; "[3] " See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out and to pull down, and to destroy and to throw down, to build and to plant."[4] The conception was further illustrated by such comparisons as the following. As God has set in the heavens two lights, the sun and the moon, so has he established on earth two powers, the spiritual and the temporal; but as the moon is inferior to the sun and receives its light from it, so is the Emperor inferior to the Pope and receives all power from him. Again, the two authorities were likened to the soul and body; as the former rules over the latter, so is it ordered that the spiritual power shall rule over and subject the temporal.
The first theory was the impracticable dream of lofty souls who forgot that men are human. Christendom was virtually divided into two hostile camps, the members of which were respectively supporters of the Imperial and the Papal theory. The most interesting and instructive chapters of mediæval history after the tenth century are those that record the struggles between Pope and Emperor, springing from their efforts to reduce to practice these irreconcilable theories.[5]
- ↑ The so-called images of the Greek Church were not statues, but mosaics, or paintings. The Eastern Church has at no period sanctioned the use of sculptures in worship.
- ↑ Hallam, Middle Ages, ch. vii.
- ↑ 1 Cor. ii.
- ↑ 2 Jer. i. 10.
- ↑ For a most admirable presentation of this whole subject, consult Bryce's The Holy Roman Empire.