Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,517
Reply with quote  #1 
I took a Medieval Latin course this Fall and we translated documents that pertained to "Investiture Contest" chiefly between the Holy Roman Emperors and the Papacy.   My focus was mainly to translate the stuff properly, but it also helped me to understand better an area of history about which I knew little.  Although I seem late in the game to take a side in this issue, I side with the monarchy as a sacred office that should have kept its power to appoint people to ecclesiastical offices in his realm.   This kept the clergy more responsive to the conditions of the state and unified the realm. 

The Papacy won this issue with the Concordat of Worms in 1122, but I think this victory accelerated the causes for the Reformation leading to the 1500s.   Some monarchs found it in their interest to break the power of the Church and either allowed competing churches (or sects) or they changed the church altogether.   The English Reformation basically restored the power of investiture to the King, which he was formerly able to do several centuries previously. 

So the Papacy, in my view, reached too far to have more complete control over the church and denied the sacred role of the monarchs over the clergy in their realm.   This seemed to have planted the seeds for the Reformation.

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #2 
All the stuff that lead to the 'reformation' seems to have 'come out' after the consultation and consideration of the East stopped.

Even I could have been in communion with Rome, being no formal or material heretic (though considerably odd in my theological thinking on many points) through the whole of the first thousand years.


__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,517
Reply with quote  #3 
Yes, it's hard to point to one thing that caused the Church's break up.  In regard to the Investiture issue, it seems that in some places where the Reformation was less successful, like in France (although they endured a century of inter-religious wars) the King was granted tacitly the power of Investiture.   The Papacy would often rubber-stamp his choices.  

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #4 
I feel that the Church's victory in the Investiture Controversy was profoundly damaging to both it and the Empire, and history might have taken a much happier course had the result been the reverse. On another thread I briefly outlined an AH scenario in which this happened (#s 3 and 4); I was being sarcastic about the habit of Catholic bloggers of looking back on a medieval scene of peace and serenity that never was, but was nevertheless sincere in what I said. Also about the Donation of Pepin, a ghastly error in my view.
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,517
Reply with quote  #5 
One of the tenets of Christianity that I hold dear is the belief in "one holy catholic and apostolic church."   And sadly this church has been fragmented to a large degree and I think the Papacy actually caused more divisiveness than necessary.   Is there such thing as an anti-Papist Roman Catholic?  Yes.  It seems Dante and the Ghibillines would have been in that category, not because they were anti-Catholic, but that they opposed the Papacy's attempt to remove the power of investiture from the monarchs and even to claim political authority over those monarchs. 

One thing to remember is that many of the bishoprics were feudal entities with land, wealth, and authority over vassals.   This should have been a way for the monarch to use patronage and keep the territory and lords in his realm loyal to him.    During the Reformation and later, the Church was stripped of this property and political power and it was given to temporal lords who would be loyal to the monarch.   This wouldn't have happened if the monarch retained the power of investiture.  

And so the Papacy would have less control over these bishops, but he would have retained some influence and "soft power."   At least, the church would have remained one holy catholic and apostolic, but bishops and the clergy would have loyalty to their respective monarchs and patrons, who also hold a sacred office independent of the papacy.  The clergy perhaps would be more worldly, but there also would be less need for the idea of "separation of church and state." The church and state would be more overlapping and integrated.  

Well, I'm just rambling, but I find this whole issue fascinating.   I'll also look more into this Donation of Pepin. 

[Edit] Dante identified with the Guelphs, but was against the papacy's claims over the investiture issue and he wanted a strong Holy Roman Empire.  So the dispute between the Guelphs and the Ghibillines was often a bit more over local issues than grand principles.

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
MMonarchist1991

Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #6 
Hmm quite a subject, as a roman catholic I have to agree the papacy was one very arrogant institution, I like to say that most popes have suffered from "The Roman Emperor Disease", I also am of the opinion that the reformation was a direct cause of the papacy's centralization, quite frankly if the western roman empire would've been reestablished and made to stand on a strong foundation like it's sister empire, the Byzantine Empire, with their being some sort of symphony between the Emperor and the papacy then western europe would've turn out alot more different.

 Actually I believe that that is what eastern frankish kings were trying to create(Especially Saxon,Swabian Emperors) some sort of continuation with the Roman Empire, well atleast the western part, the Byzantine Empire already claimed the eastern legacy of Rome, but alas it was not to be the papacy had grown to arrogant and insolent, and I really do believe that this whole strategy of playing france against germany originated with the papacy, In the end the papacy lost, to france, french kings eventually dominated the church in france, and england, where henry would become head of the anglican church, so much for the papal version of separation of church and state, and also to libertarians that think that the papacy is sort of bulwark against the state, well yes but only to medieval german and italian states.

 The Byzantine and subsequently the Russian system of a Symphony between church and state was far better than the dog eat dog system of western europe, which is not to disparage the west, but I believe it would've avoided alot ills if a strong Saxon or Swabian Emperor would've created, or recreated a Western Roman Empire.
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,581
Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMonarchist1991

 The Byzantine and subsequently the Russian system of a Symphony between church and state was far better than the dog eat dog system of western europe, which is not to disparage the west, but I believe it would've avoided alot ills if a strong Saxon or Swabian Emperor would've created, or recreated a Western Roman Empire.


As a Byzantine Rite Catholic and former Orthodox, I must respectfully disagree. While I do agree that the situation in the West was far from ideal, what you refer to as a Symphony in the East was actually the absolute subjugation of the Church to the State. As early as the reign of the Emperor Leo III, the Isaurian, 717-741, only the intransigence of the laity and the monastic Clergy prevented the entire East from being dragged into the heresy of iconoclasm.

The system might be said to have culminated in Tsar Peter's abolition of the Moscow Patriarchate in 1721 and it's replacement by the Most Holy Governing Synod, a hybrid body, unknown to the Church East or West, made up in part of laymen.

Symphony? I don't think so. More like the Church being the servant of the Emperor.

__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #8 
And of course he also got the 'centralization of the papacy' and the 'reformation' in reverse order.  The reformation was, in part, a reaction against 'Imperial Overreach' on the part of the Bishop of Rome.  From the French Captivity onwards the Church Court became more and more 'the Imperial Court'.....

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
TheDisplacedPoet

Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponocrates


The Papacy won this issue with the Concordat of Worms in 1122, but I think this victory accelerated the causes for the Reformation leading to the 1500s.   Some monarchs found it in their interest to break the power of the Church and either allowed competing churches (or sects) or they changed the church altogether.   The English Reformation basically restored the power of investiture to the King, which he was formerly able to do several centuries previously. 



From my point of view as a Catholic, this is actually an argument for a strong papacy, independent of temporal rule, that can protect the deposit of faith and doctrines of the Church from those who would change it for political reasons.  Yes, there have been schisms and that is not desirable, but the important thing is that the truths of the faith have been guarded and maintained in the face of worldly change.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #10 
Yeah, well, such power wasn't need for the first thousand years Displaced, the Holy Ghost being quite capable of protecting the deposit of the faith, even during the years of persecution.  What Rome proceeded to do, after having placed itself in schism from the church was to 'add' to the deposit, making dogma of theological opinions, and forgetting that bishops will give an account for souls.

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
TheDisplacedPoet

Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
Yeah, well, such power wasn't need for the first thousand years Displaced, the Holy Ghost being quite capable of protecting the deposit of the faith, even during the years of persecution.


Another way of looking at it is that a strengthening of the papacy at a certain point in time was the action of the Holy Ghost and did not become necessary until then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
  What Rome proceeded to do, after having placed itself in schism from the church was to 'add' to the deposit, making dogma of theological opinions, and forgetting that bishops will give an account for souls.


Nothing was added, only developed.  But if I start defending development of doctrine, I am going to get very far from the topic of this thread.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #12 
The strengthening of the papacy and its entrance into secular matters are distinctly different, in fact opposite things.  The bishop's strength isn't in his temporal sword.

Rome has 'clarified' many saints into heresy Displaced.  That isn't 'clarification' that is 'addition'.

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.