Conflict of Investitures
Help
support New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an
instant download or CD-ROM. Includes the
Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only
$19.99...
(German Investiturstreit.)
The terminus
technicus for the great struggle between the popes and the German
kings Henry IV and
Henry V, during the period 1075-1122. The prohibition of investiture was in truth only the occasion
of this conflict; the real issue, at least at the height of the contest, was
whether the imperial or the papal
power was to be supreme in Christendom.
The powerful and ardent pope,
Gregory VII, sought in
all earnestness to realize the Kingdom of God on earth
under the guidance of the papacy.
As successor of the Apostles of Christ, he claimed
supreme authority in both spiritual and secular affairs. It seemed to this
noble idealism that
the successor of Peter could never act otherwise than according to the dictates
of justice, goodness, and truth. In this spirit he
claimed for the papacy
supremacy over emperor, kings, and princes. But during the Middle Ages a rivalry had
always existed between the popes
and the emperors, twin representatives, so to speak, of authority. Henry III,
the father of the young king, had even reduced the papacy to complete
submission, a situation which Gregory now strove to
reverse by crushing the imperial power and setting in its place the papacy. A long and bitter
struggle was therefore unavoidable.
It first arose through the prohibition
of investitures, à propos of the ecclesiastical reforms
set afoot by Gregory.
In 1074 he had renewed under heavier penalties the prohibition of simony and marriage of
the clergy, but
encountered at once great opposition from the German bishops and priests. To secure the necessary influence in
the appointment of bishops,
to set aside lay pretensions to the administration of the property of the Church,
and thus to break down the opposition of the clergy, Gregory at the Lenten
(Roman) Synod of 1075 withdrew "from the king the right of disposing of bishoprics in future, and
relieved all lay persons
of the investiture of churches". As early as the Synod of Reims (1049)
anti-investiture legislation had been enacted, but had never been enforced.
Investiture at this period meant that on the death of a bishop or abbot, the king was
accustomed to select a successor and to bestow on him the ring and staff with
the words: Accipe ecclesiam (accept
this church). Henry III was wont to consider the ecclesiastical fitness of
the candidate; Henry IV,
on the other hand, declared in 1073: "We have sold the churches".
Since Otto the Great (936-72) the bishops had been princes
of the empire, had secured many privileges, and had become to a great extent feudal lords over great
districts of the imperial territory. The control of these great units of economic and military
power was for the king a question of primary importance, affecting as it did
the foundations and even the existence of the imperial authority; in those days
men had not yet learned to distinguish between the grant of the episcopal
office and the grant of its temporalities (regalia).
Thus minded, Henry IV
held that it was impossible for him to acknowledge the papal prohibition of
investiture. We must bear carefully in mind that in the given circumstances
there was a certain justification for both parties: the pope's object was to save
the Church from the
dangers that arose from the undue influence of the laity, and especially of
the king, in strictly ecclesiastical
affairs; the king, on the other hand, considered that he was contending for the
indispensable means of civil government, apart from which his supreme authority
was at that period inconceivable.
Ignoring the prohibition of Gregory, as also the
latter's effort at a mitigation of the same, Henry continued to appoint bishops in Germany and in Italy. Towards the end of
December, 1075, Gregory
delivered his ultimatum: the king was called upon to observe the papal decree, as based on the laws and teachings of the
Fathers; otherwise, at the following Lenten Synod, he would be not only
"excommunicated until he had given proper satisfaction, but also deprived
of his kingdom without hope of recovering it". Sharp reproval of his
libertinism was added. If the pope had given way
somewhat too freely to his feelings, the king gave still freer vent to his anger. At the Diet of
Worms (January, 1076), Gregory,
amid atrocious calumnies,
was deposed by twenty-six bishops
on the ground that his elevation was irregular, and that consequently he had
never been pope. Henry
therefore addressed a letter to "Hildebrand, no longer pope but a false monk" : — "I,
Henry, king by the grace
of God, with all my bishops
say to thee: 'Descend! Descend, thou ever accursed.'" If the king believed
that such a deposition, which he was unable to enforce, was of any effect, he
must have been very blind. At the next Lenten Synod in Rome (1076) Gregory sat in judgment
upon the king, and in a prayer
to Peter, Prince of the Apostles, declared: "I depose him from the
government of the whole Kingdom of Germany and Italy, release all Christians from their oath of allegiance,
forbid him to be obeyed as king . . . and as thy successor bind him with the fetters
of anathema". It
availed little that the king answered ban with ban. His domestic enemies, the
Saxons and the lay princes of the empire, espoused the cause of the pope, while his bishops were divided in
their allegiance, and the mass of his people deserted him. The age was yet too
deeply conscious that there could be no Christian Church without
communion with Rome.
The royal supporters grew ever fewer; in October a diet of the princes at
Tribur obliged Henry
to apologize humbly to the pope,
to promise for the future obedience and reparation, and to refrain from all
actual government, seeing that he was excommunicate. They
decreed also that if within a year and a day the excommunication was not
removed, Henry should forfeit his crown. Finally, they resolved that the pope should be invited to
visit Germany in the
following spring to settle the conflict between the king and the princes.
Elated at this victory Gregory
set out immediately for the north.
To the general astonishment, Henry now
proposed to present himself as a penitent before the pope, and thereby obtain
pardon. He crossed Mont Cenis in the depth of winter and was soon at the Castle
of Canossa, whither Gregory had withdrawn on
learning of the king's approach. Henry spent three days at the entrance to the
fortress, barefoot and in the garb of a penitent. That he actually stood the
whole time on ice and snow is of course a romantic exaggeration. He was finally
admitted to the papal
presence, and pledged himself to recognize the mediation and decision of the pope in the quarrel with
the princes, and was then freed from excommunication (January,
1077). This famous event has been countless times described, and from very
divergent points of view. Through Bismarck, Canossa became a proverbial term to
indicate the humiliation of the civil power before the
ambitious and masterful Church. Recently, on the other hand, not a few have
seen in it a glorious triumph for Henry. When the facts are carefully weighed,
it will appear that in his priestly
capacity the pope
yielded reluctantly and unwillingly, while, on the other hand, the political
success of his concession was null. Henry had now the advantage, since,
released from excommunication,
he was again free to act. Comparing, however, the power which thirty years
earlier Henry III had exercised over the papacy, we may yet agree
with those historians who see in Canossa the acme of the career of Gregory VII.
The German supporters of the pope ignored the reconciliation,
and proceeded in March, 1077, to elect a new king, Rudolf of Rheinfelden. This
was the signal for the civil war during which Gregory sought to act as
arbiter between the rival kings and as their overlord to award the crown. By
artful diplomacy Henry held off, until 1080, any decisive action. Considering
his position sufficiently secure, he then demanded that the pope should excommunicate his rival,
otherwise he would set up an antipope. Gregory answered by excommunicating and
deposing Henry for the second time at the Lenten Synod of 1080. It was declared
at the same time that clergy
and people should ignore all civil interference and all civil claims on ecclesiastical property,
and should canonically elect all the candidates for ecclesiastical office.
The effect of this second excommunication
was inconsiderable. During the preceding years the king had collected a strong
party; the bishops
preferred to depend on the king rather than on the pope; moreover, it was
believed that the second excommunication
was not justified. Gregory's
party was thus greatly weakened, At the Synod of Brixen (June, 1080) the
king's bishops
listened to ridiculous charges and exaggerations, and deposed the pope, excommunicated him, and
elected as antipope Guibert, Archbishop of
Ravenna, otherwise a learned and blameless man. Gregory had relied on the
support of the Normans in Southern Italy and of the German
enemies of the king, but the former sent him assistance. Thus when in October,
1080, his rival for the throne was slain in battle, Henry turned his thoughts
on the papal capital.
Four times, from 1081 to 1084, he assaulted Rome, in 1083 captured
the Leonine City, and in 1084, after an unsuccessful attempt at a compromise,
gained possession of the entire city.
The deposition of Gregory and the election
of Guibert, who now
called himself Clement III,
was confirmed by a synod, and in March, 1084, Henry was crowned emperor by his antipope. The Normans
arrived too late to prevent these events, and moreover proceeded to plunder the
town so mercilessly that Gregory
lost the allegiance of the Romans and was compelled to withdraw southward with
his Norman allies. He had suffered a complete defeat, and died at Salerno (25 May, 1085),
after another ineffectual renewal of excommunication against
his opponents. Though he died amid disappointment and failure, he had done
indispensable pioneer work and set in motion forces and principles that were to
dominate succeeding centuries.
There was now much confusion on all
sides. In 1081 a new rival for the crown, the insignificant Count Herman of
Salm, had been chosen, but he died in 1088. Most of the bishops held with the
king, and were thus excommunicate;
in Saxony only was the Gregorian party dominant. Many dioceses had two
occupants. Both parties called their rivals perjurers and traitors,
nor did either side discriminate nicely in the choice and use of weapons.
Negotiations met with no success, while the synod of the Gregorians at
Quedlinburg (April, 1085) showed no inclination to modify the principles which
they represented. The king, therefore, resolved to crush his rivals by force.
At the Council of Mainz
(April, 1085) fifteen Gregorian bishops were deposed, and
their sees entrusted to adherents of the royal party. A fresh rebellion of the
Saxons and Bavarians forced the king's bishops to fly, but the
death of the most eminent and a general inclination towards peace led to a
truce, so that about 1090 the empire entered on an interval of peace, far
different, however, from what Henry had contemplated. The Gregorian bishops recognized the
king, who consequently withdrew his support from his own nominees. But the
truce was a purely political one; in ecclesiastical matters the
opposition continued unabated, and recognition of the antipope was not to be
thought of. Indeed, the political tranquillity served only to bring out more
definitely the hopeless antithesis between the clergy who held with Gregory and those who
sided with the king.
There are yet extant numerous
contemporary polemical treatises that enable us to follow the warfare of opinions after
1080 (of the preceding period few such documents remain). These writings,
usually short and acrimonious, were widely scattered, were read privately or
publicly, and were distributed on court and market-days. They are now collected
as the "Libelli de lite imperatorum et pontificum", and are to be
found in the Monumenta Germaniæ historica". It is but natural that the
principles advocated in these writings should be diametrically opposed to one
another. The writers of Gregory's
party maintain that unconditional obedience to the pope is necessary, and that, even
when unjust, his excommunication is valid.
The king's writers, on the other hand, declare that their master is above
responsibility for his actions, being the representative of God on earth, and as such
overlord of the pope.
Prominent on the papal
side were the unbending Saxon Bernhard, who would hear of no compromise and
preferred death to violation of the canons, the Swabian Bernold of St. Blasien,
author of numerous but unimportant letters and memorials, and the rude,
fanatical Manegold of Lautenbach, for whom obedience to the pope was the supreme duty of all mankind, and who
maintained that the people could depose a bad ruler as rightfully as one would
dismiss a swineherd who had failed to protect the drove entrusted to his care.
On the side of the king stood Wenrich of Trier, calm in
diction, but resolute, Wido of Osnabrück, a solid
writer, afterwards bishop,
whose heart was set on peace between the emperor and the pope, but who opposed Gregory for having
unlawfully excommunicated
the king and for inducing the latter's feudatories to break their oath of allegiance.
On the royal side, also, was a monk of Hersfeld,
otherwise unknown, who reveals a clear grasp of the real issue in his pamphlet
"De unitate ecclesiæ", wherein he indicates the matter of supremacy
as the real source of the conflict. Monarchy, he said, comes directly from God; consequently, to Him
alone is the king responsible. The Church, on the other
hand, is the totality of the faithful, united in one society by the spirit of
peace and love. The Church, he goes on, is
not called to exercise temporal authority; she bears only the spiritual sword,
that is, the Word of God.
Here, however, the monk
went far beyond the age in which he lived. In Italy the adherents of Gregory outmatched their
rivals intellectually. Among their number was Bonizo of Sutri, the
historian of the papal
side, a valuable writer for the preceding decades of the conflict, naturally
from the standpoint of the pontiff and his adherents. Anselm, Bishop of Lucca, and Cardinal
Deusdedit, at Gregory's
request, compiled collections of canons, whence in later times the ideas of Gregory drew substantial
support. To the royal party belonged the vacillating Cardinal Beno, the
personal enemy of Gregory
and author of scandalous
pamphlets against the pope,
also the mendacious Benzo, Bishop
of Alba, for whom, as for most courtiers, the king was answerable only to God, while the pope was the king's
vassal. Guido of Ferrara
held more temperate opinions, and endeavoured to persuade the moderate
Gregorians to adopt a policy of compromise. Petrus Crassus, the only layman engaged in the
controversy, represented the youthful science of jurisprudence and
strongly advocated the autonomy of the State, maintaining that, as the
sovereign authority was from God, it was a crime to war upon the king. He
claimed for the king all the rights of the Roman
emperors, consequently the right
to sit in judgment on the pope.
In 1086 Gregory was succeeded by
a milder character, Victor
III, who had no desire to compete for the supreme authority, and drew back
to the position that the whole strife was purely a question of ecclesiastical
administration. He died in 1087, and the contest entered on a new period with Urban II (1088-99). He
shared fully all the ideas
of Gregory, but
endeavoured to conciliate the king and his party and to facilitate their return
to the views of the ecclesiastical
party. Henry might perhaps have come to some arrangement with Victor, had he
been willing to set aside the antipope, but he clung
closely to the man from whom he had received the imperial crown. In this way war soon broke out again,
during which the cause of the king suffered a decline. The antipope's bishops gradually
deserted him in answer to Urban's
advantageous offers of reconciliation; the royal authority in Italy disappeared, while
in the defection of his son Conrad and of his second wife Henry suffered an
additional humiliation. The new crusading movement, on the other hand, rallied
many to the assistance of the papacy. In 1094 and 1095 Urban renewed the excommunication of Henry,
Guibert, and their
supporters. When the pope
died (1099), followed by the antipope (1100), the papacy, so far as ecclesiastical matters
were concerned, had won a complete victory. The subsequent antipopes of the Guibertian party in Italy were of no
importance. Urban was
succeeded by a less able ruler, Paschal II (1099-1118), whom Henry at first
inclined to recognize. The political horizon meanwhile began to look more
favourable for the king, who was now universally acknowledged in Germany. He was anxious
to secure in addition ecclesiastical
peace, sought to procure the removal of his excommunication, and
publicly declared his intention of making a pilgrimage to the Holy
Sepulchre. This, however, did not satisfy the pope, who demanded the
renunciation of the right of investiture, still obstinately claimed by Henry.
In 1102 Paschal renewed the anathema
against the emperor. The revolt of his son (Henry V), and the latter's alliance
with the princes who were dissatisfied with the imperial policy, brought
matters to a crisis and occasioned the greatest suffering to the sorely tried
emperor, who was now ignominiously outwitted and overcome by his son. A
decisive struggle was rendered unnecessary by the death of Henry IV in 1106. He had
untiringly defended the inherited rights of the royal
office, and had never sacrificed any of them.
From the beginning Henry V had enjoyed
the support of the pope,
who had relieved him of excommunication
and had set aside his oath
of allegiance to his father.
At and after the Pentecost Synod of Nordhausen, in 1105, the king dispelled the
last remnants of the schism
by deposing the imperial occupants of the episcopal sees. The
questions, however, which lay at the root of the whole conflict were not yet
decided, and time soon showed that, in the matter of investitures, Henry was
the true heir of his father's policy. Cold,
calculating, and ambitious, the new monarch had no idea of withdrawing the
royal claims in this respect. Notwithstanding repeated prohibitions (at Guastalla in 1106, and at
Troyes in 1107), he
continued to invest with ostentation the bishops of his choice.
The German clergy
raised no protest, and made it evident in this way that their earlier refusal
of obedience to the emperor arose from the fact of his excommunication, not from
any resentment occasioned by his interference in the affairs of the Church. In 1108 excommunication was
pronounced upon the giver and receiver (dans
et accipiens) of investiture, and thus affected the king himself. As Henry
had now set his heart on being crowned emperor, this
decision precipitated the final struggle. In 1111 the king marched with a
strong army on Rome.
Eager to avoid another conflict, Paschal attempted a radical solution of the
question at issue; the German clergy, he decided, were
to restore to the king all their estates and privileges and to maintain
themselves on tithes
and donations; under these circumstances the monarchy, which was interested
only in the overlordship of these domains, might easily dispense with the
investiture of the clergy.
On this understanding peace was established at Sutri between pope and king. Paschal,
who had been a monk
before his elevation, undoubtedly executed in good faith this
renunciation of the secular
power of the Church.
It was but a short step to the idea that the Church was a spiritual
institution, and as such had no concern with earthly affairs.
The king, however, cannot have doubted for a moment that
the papal renunciation
would fall before the opposition of both ecclesiastical and
secular princes. Henry V was mean and deceitful, and sought to entrap the pope. The king having
renounced his claim to investiture, the pope promulgated in St.
Peter's on 12 February, 1112, the return of all temporalities to the Crown, but
thereby raised (as Henry had foreseen) such a storm of opposition from the
German princes that he was forced to recognize the futility of this attempt at
settlement. The king then demanded that the right of investiture be restored,
and that he should be crowned
emperor; on the pope's
refusal, he treacherously seized him and thirteen cardinals, and hurried
them away from the now infuriated city. To regain his freedom, Paschal was
forced, after two months imprisonment,
to accede to Henry's demands. He granted the king unconditional investiture as
an imperial privilege, crowned
him emperor, and promised on oath not to excommunicate him for
what had occurred.
Henry had thus secured by force a
notable success, but it could have no long duration. The more ardent members of
the Gregorian party rebuked the "heretical" pope, and compelled him
to retire step by step from the position into which he had been forced. The
Lateran Synod of 1112 renewed the decrees of Gregory and Urban against investiture.
Paschal did not wish to withdraw his promise directly, but the Council of Vienna, having declared
the imperial privilegium (privilege,
derivatively, a private law) a pravilegium
(a vicious law), and as such null and void, it also excommunicated the
emperor. The pope did
not, however, break off all intercourse with Henry, for whom the struggle began
to assume a threatening aspect, since now, as previously under his father, the difficulties
raised by ecclesiastical
opposition were aggravated by rebellion of the princes. The inconsiderate
selfishness of the emperor, his mean and odious personality, made enemies
on every side. Even his bishops
now opposed him, seeing themselves threatened by him and believing him set on sole
mastery. In 1114 at Beauvais,
and in 1116 at Reims, Cologne, Goslar, and a
second time at Cologne,
excommunication of the
emperor was repeated by papal
legates. Imperial and irresolute bishops, who refused to
join the papal party,
were removed from their sees.
The emperor's forces were defeated simultaneously on the Rhine and in Saxony. In 1116 Henry
attempted to enter into negotiations with the pope in Italy, but no agreement
was arrived at, as on this occasion Paschal refused to enter into a conference
with the emperor.
After Paschal's death (1118) even his
tolerant successor, Gelasius II (1118-19), could not prevent the situation from
becoming daily more entangled. Having demanded recognition of the privilege of
1111 and been referred by Gelasius to a general council, Henry
made a hopeless attempt to revive the universally detested schism by appointing as antipope, under the name
of Gregory VIII,
Burdinus, Archbishop
of Braga (Portugal),
and was accordingly excommunicated
by the pope. In 1119
Gelasius was succeeded by Guido of Vienna as Callistus II (1119-24);
he had already excommunicated
the emperor in 1112. Reconciliation seemed, therefore, more remote than ever.
Callistus, however, regarded the peace of the Church as of prime
importance, and as the emperor, already on better terms with the German
princes, was likewise eager for peace, negotiations were opened. A basis for
compromise lay in the distinction between the ecclesiastical and the
secular elements in the appointment of bishops. This mode of
settlement had already been discussed in various forms in Italy and in France, e.g. by Ivo of Chartres, as early
as 1099. The bestowal of the ecclesiastical office was
sharply distinguished from the investiture with imperial domains. As symbols of
ecclesiastical
installation, the ring and staff were suggested; the sceptre served as the
symbol of investiture with the temporalities of the see. The chronological
order of the formalities raised a new difficulty; on the imperial side it was
demanded that investiture with the temporalities should precede consecration, while the papal representatives
naturally claimed that consecration
should precede investiture. If the investiture were to precede, the emperor by
refusing the temporalities could prevent consecration; in the
other case, investiture was merely a confirmation of the appointment. By 1119
the articles of peace were agreed upon at Mouzon and were to be ratified by the
Synod of Reims. At the
last moment, however, negotiations were broken off, and the pope renewed the excommunication of the
emperor. But the German princes succeeded in reopening the proceedings, and
peace was finally arranged between the legates of the pope, the emperor and the
princes on 23 September, 1122. This peace is usually known as the Concordat of
Worms, or the "Pactum Calixtinum".
In the document of peace, Henry yields
up "to God and
his Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and to the Holy Catholic Church all investitures
with ring and staff, and allows in all Churches of his kingdom and empire ecclesiastical election
and free consecration".
On the other hand, the pope
grants to "his beloved son Henry, by the Grace of God Roman
Emperor, that the election of bishops and abbots in the German Empire in so far
as they belong to the Kingdom of Germany, shall take place
in his presence, without simony
or the employment of any constraint. Should any discord arise between the
parties, the emperor shall, after hearing the advice and verdict of the metropolitans and other bishops of the province
lend his approval and support to the better side. The elected candidate shall
receive from him the temporalities (regalia)
with the sceptre, and shall discharge all obligations entailed by
such reception. In other portions of the empire, the consecrated candidate
shall within six months receive the regalia
by means of the sceptre, and shall fulfil towards him the obligations implied by
this ceremony. From
these arrangements is excepted all that belongs to the Roman Church" (i.e.
the Papal States). The
different parts of the empire were therefore differently treated; in Germany the investiture
was to precede the consecration,
while in Italy and Burgundy it followed the consecration and within
the succeeding six months. The king was deprived of his unrestricted power in
the appointment of bishops,
but the Church also
failed to secure the full exclusion of every alien influence from canonical
elections. The Concordat of Worms was a compromise, in which each party made
concessions. Important for the king were the toleration of his presence at the
election (prœsentia regis), which
lent him a possible influence over the electors, and of investiture before consecration, whereby the
elevation of an obnoxious candidate was rendered difficult or even impossible.
The extreme ecclesiastical
party, who condemned investitures and secular influence in elections under any
form, were dissatisfied with these concessions from the very outset and would
have been highly pleased, if Callistus had refused to confirm the Concordat.
In appraising the significance of this
agreement it remains to be seen whether it was intended as a temporary truce or
an enduring peace. Doubts
might very well be (and indeed have been) entertained on this matter, since
formally the document is drawn up only for Henry V. But a close examination of
our sources of information and of contemporary documents has shown that it is erroneous to maintain
that the Concordat enjoyed but a passing recognition and was of small
importance. Not only by the contracting parties, but also by their
contemporaries, the compact was regarded as an enduring fundamental law. It was
solemnly recognized
not only as an imperial statute, but as a law of the Church by the Lateran
Œcumenical Council of 1123. We also know from Gerhoh of Reichersberg,
who was present at the council, that in addition to the imperial document,
which it has been held was alone read, that of the pope was also read and
sanctioned. As Gerhoh
was one of the chief opponents of the Concordat, his evidence in favour of an
unpleasant truth
cannot be doubted.
That the agreement was to possess perpetual binding power, neither party, of
course, intended — and the Concordat was very far from securing such continued
recognition, since it reveals at most the anxiety of the Church for peace, under
the pressure of certain circumstances. By new legislative act the provisions
were modified. Under King Lothair (1125-37) and at the beginning of the reign
of Conrad III (1138-52) the Concordat was still unchallenged and was observed
in its entirety. In 1139, however, Innocent II, in the
twenty-eighth canon of the Council of Rome, confined the
privilege of electing the bishop
to the cathedral
chapter and the representatives of the regular clergy, and made no
mention of lay participation in the election. The ecclesiastical party
assumed that this provision annulled the king's participation in elections and
his right to decide in the case of an equally divided vote of the electors. If
their opinion was correct, the Church alone had
withdrawn on this point from the compact, and the kings had no need to take
cognizance of the fact. In truth
the latter retained their right in this respect, though they used it sparingly,
and frequently waived it. They had ample opportunity to make their influence
felt in other ways. Frederick
I (1152-90) was again complete master of the Church in Germany, and was
generally able to secure the election of the candidate he favoured. In case of
disagreement he took a bold stand and compelled the recognition of his
candidate. Innocent III
(1198-1216) was the first to succeed in introducing free and canonical election
into the German Church. Royal investiture after his time was an empty survival,
a ceremony without
meaning.
Such was the course and the consequence
of the investiture conflict in the German Empire. In England and France, the strife never
assumed the same proportions nor the same bitterness. It was owing to the
importance of the German
Empire and the imperial power that they had in the first instance to bear
the brunt of the fight. Had they suffered defeat, the others could never have engaged
in the contest with the Church.
The conflict in England
In England the conflict is
part of the history of Anselm
of Canterbury. As primate
of England
(1093-1109), he fought almost singlehanded for the canon law against king
nobility and clergy.
William the Conqueror (1066-87) had constituted himself sovereign lord of the Church in England; he ratified the
decisions of the synods,
appointed bishops and abbots, determined how
far the pope should be
recognized, and forbade all intercourse without his permission. The Church in England was therefore
practically a national Church, in spite of its nominal dependence on Rome. Anselm's contest
with William II (1087-1100) was concerned with other matters, but during his
residence in France
and Italy he was one
of the supporters of ecclesiastical
reform, and, being required on his return to take the oath of fealty to the new
king (Henry I, 1100-35) and receive the bishopric from his hands,
he refused to comply. This led to the outbreak of the investiture quarrel. The
king despatched successive embassies to the pope to uphold his right
to investiture, but without success. In his replies to the king and in his
letters to Anselm, Paschal strictly forbade both the oath of fealty and all
investitures by laymen.
Henry then forbade Anselm, who was visiting Rome, to return to England, and seized his
revenues, whereupon, in 1105, the pope excommunicated the
councillors of the king and all prelates who received
investiture at his hands. In the same year, however, an agreement was arrived
at, and was ratified by the pope
in 1106, and by the Parliament in London in 1107. According
to this concordat the king renounced his claims to investiture, but the oath of fealty was still
exacted. In the appointment of the higher dignitaries of the Church, however, the king
still retained the greatest influence. The election took place in the royal
palace, and, whenever a candidate obnoxious to the king was proposed, he simply
proposed another, who was then always elected. The chosen candidate thereupon swore the oath of fealty, which
always preceded the consecration.
The separation of the ecclesiastical
office from the bestowal of the temporalities was the sole object attained, an
achievement of no very great importance.
In France the question of
investiture was not of such importance for the State as to give rise to any
violent contention. The bishops
had neither such power nor such extensive domains as in Germany, and but a
certain number of the bishops
and abbots were
invested by the king, while many others were appointed and invested by the
nobles of the kingdom, the counts and the dukes (i.e. for the so-called mediate
bishoprics). The bishoprics were often
dealt with in a very arbitrary manner, being frequently sold, presented as a
gift, and bestowed upon kinsmen. After the reconciliation between the pope and king, in 1104,
the right of appointment was tacitly renounced by the kings, and free election
became the established rule. The king retained, however, the right of
ratification, and exacted, usually after the consecration, the oath of fealty from the
candidate before he entered on the use of the temporalities. After some minor
conflicts, these conditions were extended to the mediate bishoprics. In some
cases, e.g. in Gascony and Aquitaine, the bishop entered into
immediate possession of the temporalities on the ratification of his election.
It was in France,
therefore, that the requirements of the Church were most
completely fulfilled.
Sources
MEYER VON KNONAU, Jahrbücher des deutschen Reiches unter Heinrich IV und Heinrich V,
I-VII (Leipzig, 1890-1909); RICHTER, Annalen
des deutschen Reiches im Zeitalter der Ottonen und Salier, II (Halle,
1897-98); HAMPE, Deutsche
Kaisergeschichte in der Zeit der Salier und Staufer (Leipzig, 1909);
HEFELE-KNÖPFLER, Conciliengeschichte,
V (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1886); HAUCK, Kirchengeschichte
Deutschlands im Mittelalter, III (3rd and 4th eds., Leipzig, 1906);
GFRÖRER, Papst Gregorius VII, I-VII
(Schaffhausen, 1859-61); MARTENS, Gregor
VII., I, II (Leipzig, 1894); SCHÄFER, Zur
Beurteilung des Wormser Konkordats, in Abhandlungen
der Berliner Akademie, phil.-hist. Klasse, I (1905), 1-95; BERNHEIM, Das Wormser Konkordat (Breslau, 1906);
RUDORFF, Zur Erklärung des Wormser
Konkordats (Weimar, 1906); SCHARNAGL, Der
Begriff der Investitur (Stuttgart, 1908); SCHMITZ, Der englische Investiturstreit (Innsbruck, 1884); LIEBERMANN, Anselm von Canterbury und Hugo von Lyon
in Hist. Aufsätze dem Andenken an G.
Waitzgewidmet (Hanover, 1886); RULE, Life
and Times of St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury (London, 1882); CHURCH, St. Anselm (London, 1888); IMBART DE LA
TOUR, Les élections épiscopales dans
l'église de France du IXe au XIIe siècle (Paris, 1890).
About this page
APA
citation. Löffler, K. (1910). Conflict of Investitures. In The
Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved March 1,
2015 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08084c.htm
MLA
citation. Löffler, Klemens. "Conflict of Investitures." The
Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 1 Mar.
2015 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08084c.htm>.
Transcription.
This article was transcribed for New Advent by Douglas J. Potter. Dedicated to
the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ.
Ecclesiastical
approbation. Nihil
Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact
information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight.
My email address is webmaster at
newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly
appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors
and inappropriate ads.
Copyright © 2012 by Kevin Knight.
Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment