READING GUIDE 8: Rise of the Papacy
A. Gelasian Doctrine
This important text must be treated carefully. First, remember that
it was written in 494, when there still was a Roman Emperor and every expectation
that the Roman Empire, if currently a bit troubled, would recover its past
glory. Because the author, Pope Gelasius I, was bishop of Rome, he felt
it only right to offer political, moral and spiritual advice to the Emperor.
Second, it is important to note that this text really only became important
in the 1050s and afterwards, when the impending crisis between 11th-century
popes and 11th-century German emperors made it necessary for the popes
to look to their distant past for rhetorical and theoretical ammunition
to support what they felt to be the correct view of the arrangement of
human society. Gelasius’ letter, therefore, was used out of context to
support ideas that were much more a product of the 11th century than the
5th.
1. Gelasius identifies two ‘powers’ in the world. What are they? Which
is ‘more weighty’? Why?
2. How ought the emperor act towards ‘priests’ (here meant to mean
priests and bishops)? Why?
3. How could these ideas be seen as radical?
4. How might a German emperor of the 11th century dismiss Gelasius
as irrelevant?
5. Notice that Gelasius also makes a plug for the primacy of the bishopric
of Rome. Why is this significant?
B. General Concepts: the Investiture Contest
[These questions cannot be answered by any one specific document, but
they are important to consider:]
1. What is investiture?
2. What were the main practical points of disagreement between the
kings and pope? (Ie., over what specific practices did they disagree?)
3. What were the larger, unstated, theoretical points of disagreement?
In other words, they may have been fighting over specific practices, but
those practices carried larger, more significant implications about the
shape and order of power in Europe.
4. What is simony? How is it a part of the debate over investiture?
5. What was the traditional role of the German king in the election
of bishops? Why did he feel that this was an important part of his own
royal power? Why did the pope disagree?
6. Was this debate a petty dispute over power-politics?. What were
the motives of both parties? Why did they each think they were acting on
the side of good? This shows us that there are two separate conceptions
of the structure of the ideal Christian commonwealth - what were they?
How did king and pope fit into each conception?
7. Finally, who won the debate? Why? Be sure that you can support your
opinion with evidence from the documents. Remember, too, the old
adage about he who wins all the battles may not win the war ....
A. Dictatus Papae (“Sayings of the Pope”), c.1075
This is one of the most significant documents to emerge out of the
papal reform movement of the 11th century. It is also one of the
hardest for modern audiences to interpret. Remember to think historically
about the text. In other words, don’t assume that the pope was greedy,
power-crazed, or deluded; indeed, he was none of those things. Put
yourself in his shoes - and consider the issues faced the pope; the goals,
duties and responsibilities of the pope; and the means of achieving these
goals that were open to the pope. Remember, too, that this is a list
of “talking points”, not a formal published document: it lists the points
that Gregory VII and his fellow reformers wanted to emphasize in their
reform program.
1. What sort of document is this? Who would have seen it? How would
it have been used?
2. What is the overall goal, or point, of the document? It is
a blueprint, of sorts - but of what?
3. Why did the pope feel it was necessary to articulate these goals?
4. Some of these proposals may seem outlandish to you. Locate
the one that gives you the most trouble, and then try to rationalize it
- what might it mean for an 11th century audience?
5. Which of these statements were truly radical in the 1070s? Why?
6. Keep in mind that although we are looking at this document in the
context of the struggle between pope and emperor, the text is equally devoted
to promoting the authority of the Roman Church (ie., the papacy) over all
other Christian authorities. Some of the clauses are thus meant to articulate
the supremacy of the pope within the church.
B. Investiture Contest: Letters of Gregory VII and Henry IV
Much of what we know of the investiture contest comes from the letters
sent by the principal actors in the drama (Gregory and Henry); these letters
at times ridiculed their opponent’s positions, and at times explained their
own position in an effort to gain support from other churchmen and laymen
in Europe. Remember that as letters, there was always an audience
- try to figure out the audience, and the purpose for which each letter
was written.
1. Gregory condemns ‘lay investiture’ rather severely. What is lay
investiture? What is the penalty for indulging in it? Gregory used stronger
language in 1080 than he had in 1078. What new things did he emphasize?
2. The second document is the famous letter of Henry IV sent from the
Diet of Worms in which Henry renounces Gregory’s authority and refuses
to accept him as pope. What is significant about the salutation (greeting
clause)? [hint: ‘Hildebrand’ was Gregory’s name before he became pope]
3. Of what crimes does Henry accuse Gregory? Henry stands as
the defender of the church - from his letter, what can we learn about the
way he thinks that church and state ought to be related?
4. What virtues does Henry assign to himself? How ought a good king
behave, according to Henry?
5. What does Henry’s last sentence mean? What, in effect, is Henry
doing?
6. Why does Gregory invoke St Peter at the start of his letter to Henry?
7. Gregory begins from defending himself from one of Henry’s accusations
- what does Gregory say?
8. Why does Gregory claim the power to depose Henry? Where does it
come from? [he calls it the power of ‘binding and loosing’ - what does
this mean?]
9. Gregory hits Henry with both a personal punishment and a broader,
social one - try to find them.
10. What ‘crimes’ of Henry’s does Gregory use to justify his deposition
of the king?
C. Pope Innocent III: the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215
The Fourth Lateran Council was called in 1215 by Pope Innocent III.
A general council, concerning the entire Catholic Church (and not just
one or two dioceses), the decisions made by this council were extremely
important in shaping the religious and social life of medieval Europe.
1. What is the overall purpose of the 4th Lateran Council? What
tone does it take? Is it arrogant? Concerned? Helpful? Worried? Some
or all of these? Try to think, in other words, as if you were an
attendee at the Council - what were you worried about? How did your
concerns shape the subjects of the Council?
2. Canon 1: Why did they open with a creed? Wouldn’t this have been
obvious? Why was a creed necessary?
3. Canon 3: This is the general description and prohibition of heresy.
How is heresy defined? Why is it dangerous? What role should
the laity take with regard to heresy? How was heresy to be combated?
Why were the bishops so concerned with preaching? Who could preach? Why
were there limitations on preaching?
4. Canon 11: What is the purpose of this canon? How is it to
be attained?
6. Canons 15-16: These pertain to the lifestyle of the clergy.
With what sorts of behavior are the members of the council concerned? How
is a good life to be enforced? Why do they care so much about priestly
behavior?
7. Canon 18: What does this canon tell us about the “church vs. state”
issue? About jurisdiction?
8. Canon 21: This is an extremely important canon. What does
it suggest was happening before 1215? Why did the clergy think confession
was important?
10. Canon 27: What does this canon tell us about the overall goals
of the Council?
11. Canon 29: this deals with a problem known as pluralism. Why
would pluralism be seen as a bad thing? What efforts does the council
take to rectify this situation?
13. Canon 68: The council was very much concerned with identifying
and defining Christian behavior. Part of this process meant knowing what
Christianity was not, or, perhaps who was not Christian. What does
this canon require? What implications does it carry?