Residing in the capital city of the Western Roman Empire would place anyone at an advantage in regards to having access to some of the most powerful men in the known world. To “be physically present at the centre stage of world affairs must have, by association, at least, if not in actuality, enhanced one's power and prestige among those who were not so well placed.”1 The bending of a powerful ear towards matters both political and religious would enhance the career of any individual, no matter what career field they had chosen. Because of this positioning, the Pope was consulted on many issues such as issues with Donatists, Albigensians, and more, which “strengthened the position of temporal and spiritual prominence of the popes, thus reinforcing papal authority and credibility, aiding in the institution's continuity and, hence, contributing immeasurably to the papacy's 'success'.”2
The Catholic Church traces the papal authority back to Peter, who went to Rome before his death in AD 64. The Church believes that Jesus Himself gave this authority to Peter, and reference Matthew 6:17-19: “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (ESV) This Petrine succession was recognized by Leo I (440-461), being “most famous for claiming that bishops of his city were the lawful heirs to St. Peter, the apostle of Jesus and first bishop of the Eternal City.”3 Because of Leo's efforts the church in Rome began to consolidate power based on the claim of Petrine succession, but those efforts were only just beginning.
Things would greatly change during and after Leo's position as Pope. When “the Arian controversy spread surprisingly quickly over the whole Greek speaking part of the Roman empire”4, the leadership of the church decided to hold a council in order to determine the future of what was being labeled a heresy, and already causing problems in cities like Alexandria. What was different about the Council at Nicea was that it this represented the first instance of Roman imperial involvement in theological issues. Constantine himself resided over the council and "was theologically responsible for the inclusion of the term 'homoousiosi' in the creed".5 This involvement would begin an era where matters of “politics, church politics and theology were inextricably entangled.”6 What would happen under Pope Gregory would firmly cement the political authority of the Pope in the eyes of the people.
Pope Gregory became the head of the Church in Rome in 590 after his predecessor had died of the plague.7 As the head of the church, Gregory was tasked with maintaining discipline for those that were in the employment of the church, and was the one responsible for handing out punishments for those that violated the rules. These punishments, such as monastic confinement, demonstrate “how Roman bishops in early Byzantine Italy engaged with Roman criminal law at a time when they increasingly assumed a role in civil judicial administration.”8 The intertwining of civil and religious duties were ultimately brought about by reforms that were enacted by Emperor Justinian, which saw again an increase in the authority of the Pope. These reforms had “enhanced bishops' roles in civil jurisdiction, including criminal matters over clergy and laity”.9 The Pope was now the ultimate authority in Rome, not just through the powers given by Constantinople, but the people began to recognize the value of having such papal authority. This is reflected by the “willingness of he individual claimants to approach the bishop of Rome, rather than a civil judge or their local bishop, for justice.”10
Gregory now had quite a bit of power, not only in terms of religious matters, but civil and judicial as well. What should be noted, however, was that Roman authority did not just come about by Imperial decree, but by the will of the people. The Popes were proving themselves capable leaders of their day, and with the lack of support from the East, the people of Rome felt as though the Popes were going to be the ones to look after their needs and stand up for them. By this time the “Church had become a public institution of the Empire and the Empire itself was deeply and thoroughly 'ecclesiasitied'”11, so much so that the concept of an “'imperial church' fails to convey the radical integration of church and secular society, the impossibility of thinking of them in dualistic terms”12.
Besides the newfound political authority the Pope was enjoying, it was also experiencing something else, an establishment of what would be called the Papal States. This was the concentration of wealth and monetary power by the bishop of Rome, coming to fruition when the “Edict of Milan emancipated the Church, and the Christian religion was accorded the privileges enjoyed by the old state religion.”13 Constantine started this level of generosity by being one of the first to impart these gifts upon the bishops of Rome, which lead to other wealthy families falling into the same pattern. Because of the example of Constantine's generosity and other wealthy Christian families, by the beginning of the early seventh century the “Pope had become one of the richest land-owners in Italy.”14 The end results of this would see the establishment of the Papal States in the year 754 and “free and independent sovereignty over twenty cities of Italy.”15
The power of the papacy continued to increase with "the exercise of many regal powers, under the authority of the emperors, accustomed the people to see in the Popes the best protectors of their temporal interests."16 It was a natural choice for these men to be selected for leadership, due to their unique qualifications. They were not merely religious servants of God, these were "the best educated men of their day; the most experienced, the most conservative and the most prudent."17 The expansion of their power even went so far that the combination of bishops and local governors "had a voice in the choosing of the city officials."18 When the Roman officials abandoned Rome, it was the Popes who held off the barbarians, such as the Goths, the Huns, and the Lombards, and Leo the Great twice staved off the efforts to destroy Rome.19 These efforts would eventually lead to a new relationship being formed in the West between the forces that existed to the North, and a final separation between the two halves of the Roman Empire.
The people of Rome had been saved by their bishops on several occasions, which was yet another layer cementing the power of the Pope over the people. The citizens now could not only turn to the Pope for their troubles, both civil and spiritual, but now relied on them for protection, something those who had been placed in charge before could not provide. The barbarian tribes continued their assaults on Rome, and with no help from the East, groups like the Lombards were marching closer and closer to the city. This situation the citizens and the bishops alike found themselves in would cause the Popes to turn to the Franks to help end hostilities with the Lombards. The feeling in Rome was that they had been "abandoned by their emperors"20 and they felt they had run out of options. After negotiations led by Gregory had failed, the task was then left to Stephen II after his death. Pippin of the Franks was finally the one to hear the pleas of the Romans and "heeded the prayer of Stephen and solemnly engaged himself to fulfill his wishes."21 It was after this meeting that Pippin set his army into motion against the enemies of Rome. By the end of 774 the Lombard kingdom in Italy had fallen, and Charlemagne was now the king of the Franks and Lombards.22 Despite the protests from Constantinople, the bishops of Rome had won their freedom and independence, and "the Romans accepted thereafter as their sovereigns…the Bishops of Rome"23, firmly establishing papal leadership in Italy.
This power that the papacy enjoyed would not last forever. For centuries they had enjoyed the power and estate that had been given to them, not only by rich families, but everyone between common citizens and Emperors. As the Renaissance closed in at the beginning of the 14th century, people began to look at the concept of a church-state in a new light. With “the reformation and the so called "modernizing" of thought of a supreme earthly authority in Rome became an old fashioned concept. The thinking was that the "Roman theocracy, an absolute king like the King of Rome, could no longer be maintained in the midst of educated Europe".24
The concentration of power by the Pope did bring about some positive changes, including those to civil and criminal matters, and it would be remiss to not mention that without strong leadership the citizens of Rome would have been powerless against invading forces that concentrated on the Italian capital time and time again. The Western half of the empire, arguably, would have been lost without this strong leadership and faithfulness to God. There are, however, negative aspects of such concentration of power. Whenever one person has too much authority without enough accountability, corruption is swift to follow. The Popes were no different, and in the end, they were only men. With a new “enlightened” way of thinking, and reforms that were long in coming, the Pope would find his power over men's lives waning, but even then that power was still significant.
Bibliography
Capio, Ralph J. “The Papacy: A Case Study in Organizational Longevity.” Journal of European Studies 26, no. 4 (1996): 437.
Castelar, Emilio “The Papacy and the Temporal Power”, Fortnightly Review 42, no. 251 (1887): 676-695
Hillner, Julia, “Gregory the Great's "Prisons": Monastic Confinement in Early Byzantine Italy”, Journal of Early Christian Studies 19 no. 3 (2011): 433-471
Uhalde, Kevin, “Pope Leo I on Power and Failure” The Catholic Historical Review, 95, no. 4 (2009): 671
Ulrich, Jörg. “Nicaea and the West.” Vigiliae Christianae 51, no. 1 (1997): 10-24.
Woods, Joseph M. “The Rise of the Papal States up to Charlemagne's Coronation.” The Catholic Historical Review 7, no. 1 (1921): 44-54.
1 Ralph J. Capio, “The Papacy: A Case Study in Organizational Longevity”, Journal of European Studies 26, no. 4 (1996): 437.
2 Ralph J. Capio, “The Papacy: A Case Study in Organizational Longevity”, Journal of European Studies 26, no. 4 (1996): 437.
3 Kevin Uhalde, “Pope Leo I On Power and Failure”, The Catholic Historical Review 94, no. 4 (2009): 671.
4 Jörg Ulrich “Nicaea and the West”, Vigiliae Christianae 51, no. 1 (1997) 10.
5 Jörg Ulrich “Nicaea and the West”, Vigiliae Christianae 51, no. 1 (1997) 15.
6 Jörg Ulrich “Nicaea and the West”, Vigiliae Christianae 51, no. 1 (1997) 17.
7 R.A Markus, “Gregory the Great's Europe”, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 31, no. 5 (1981) 21.
8 Julia Hillner. "Gregory the Great's "Prisons": Monastic Confinement in Early Byzantine Italy." Journal of Early Christian Studies 19 no. 3 (2011) 436.
9 Julia Hillner. "Gregory the Great's "Prisons": Monastic Confinement in Early Byzantine Italy." Journal of Early Christian Studies 19 no. 3 (2011) 436.
10 Julia Hillner. "Gregory the Great's "Prisons": Monastic Confinement in Early Byzantine Italy." Journal of Early Christian Studies 19 no. 3 (2011) 436.
11 R.A Markus, “Gregory the Great's Europe”, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 31, no. 5 (1981) 22.
12 R.A Markus, “Gregory the Great's Europe”, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 31, no. 5 (1981) 22.
13 Joseph M. Woods, “The Rise of the Papal States up to Charlemagne's Coronation”, The Catholic Historical Review 7, no. 1 (1921) 46.
14 Joseph M. Woods, “The Rise of the Papal States up to Charlemagne's Coronation”, The Catholic Historical Review 7, no. 1 (1921) 46.
15 Joseph M. Woods, “The Rise of the Papal States up to Charlemagne's Coronation”, The Catholic Historical Review 7, no. 1 (1921) 45.
16 Joseph M. Woods, “The Rise of the Papal States up to Charlemagne's Coronation”, The Catholic Historical Review 7, no. 1 (1921) 47.
17 Joseph M. Woods, “The Rise of the Papal States up to Charlemagne's Coronation”, The Catholic Historical Review 7, no. 1 (1921) 47.
18 Joseph M. Woods, “The Rise of the Papal States up to Charlemagne's Coronation”, The Catholic Historical Review 7, no. 1 (1921) 48.
19 Joseph M. Woods, “The Rise of the Papal States up to Charlemagne's Coronation”, The Catholic Historical Review 7, no. 1 (1921) 50.
20 Joseph M. Woods, “The Rise of the Papal States up to Charlemagne's Coronation”, The Catholic Historical Review 7, no. 1 (1921) 50.
21 Joseph M. Woods, “The Rise of the Papal States up to Charlemagne's Coronation”, The Catholic Historical Review 7, no. 1 (1921) 51.
22 Joseph M. Woods, “The Rise of the Papal States up to Charlemagne's Coronation”, The Catholic Historical Review 7, no. 1 (1921) 51.
23 Joseph M. Woods, “The Rise of the Papal States up to Charlemagne's Coronation”, The Catholic Historical Review 7, no. 1 (1921) 54.
24 Emilio Castelar, “The Papacy and the Temporal Power”, Fortnightly Review 42, no. 251 (1887) 678.
No comments:
Post a Comment