Schism and Concilliarism

Schism and Conciliarism
Review - some of the major issues raised by this course related to what we’re looking at this week.
Christianity’s transition from being a prescribed religion to becoming the favored religion of the roman emperors and then the religion of the whole european society as well as a few countries beyond e.g. Ethiopia.
Christians welcomed this but it also created some difficulties for them, when it was prescribed it was still quite easy to distinguish between the earthly and heavenly kingdoms, christians knew where there loyalties lay. Christians knew that they were part of heaven, in this world but not of it. It becomes a lot more difficult when the kingdom of this world embraces the kingdom of christ, declaring itself a christian empire. What to make of it if your christian?
a) heaven has now become earth - the end of the world has arrived. Christ will return and put the final seal on the system.
But as we’re also seen when the system began to collapse with things like the barbarian invasion, this view was no longer possible. So there’s still this nagging sense that the church still doesn’t quite belong here, that’s its not comfortable in this world, but because the earth is still embracing it, the church has not to reach some kind of working system with the world.
The way they reach this mode is to establish two spheres of influence, of governance. ONe sphere is the sphere of the christian ruler, the government, his job is protect peoples bodies. To ensure physical safety. The government of the church - the second sphere, is concerned with the soul, the body will eventually pass away but the soul is immortal, because its immortal it’s got to prepare itself for its immortal destiny either in heaven or hell. If the spiritual government doesn’t do its job the danger is hell - ahhhhh!!
Problem is the church is also responsible for the souls of the earthly kings, its often very hard for a christian king to conduct his life in the way that Jesus demanded - turn the other cheek, love and pray for your enemies - what happens when you’re invaded? Can you turn your cheek on behalf of your people?
What if heresy arises amongst your people. heresy doesn’t exactly put bodies in danger but it does put souls in danger, if you do nothing about it as a Christian ruler then you have allowed those in your care to go to hell.
What if the heretic is your brother? Your heir? The sherif? Which is more important the soul or the peace and protection of the people in the south?
What should a King do?
This is all part of a very long process of secularization slowly over the centuries form 313 europeans have attempted to establish christian states, but even while christianity is at it’s height its beginning to fall apart under the strain of the rivalry between the claims of this world and the next. the latin world for age/world saeculum its here that we get our world secular. There are two ages/saecula the world now and the world to come. But when the mediaeval talk of the saecula there are increasingly talking of this world rather than the world to come. Gradually we see the lords/kings etc asserting themselves more and more, they find that the churches view of the next world is interfering with there ability to get on in this world, so we see ourselves asserting themselves in this world and gradually taking over.
This is not a story of goodies and badies, both sides in this debate believe that they have the best interests of the church of Christendom at heart, neither side pulls it off entirely. al i want you to see and think about is how each sides struggled for what they thought would be best.
This framed in the language of the two swords - the sword of the king ( a real one!) and the sword of the spirit (which is yielded by the church) the 13th century church developed saying to describe this.
Pope Gelasius 494
‘There are two powers...’ again the idea that the king looks after the body etc.
Dictatus papae (1087) Gregory VII - a series of rules trying to state the churches position e.g.
‘That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal’
‘That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops...’
‘That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors....’
‘That he himself may be judged by none.’
Basically Popes are saying to the Kings that the Kings need to act as they should but Christian rules, if they don’t they loose the support of the church.
Three principles
i) the Pope holds Plenituda potestastis: fullness of power (i.e. over the whole church)
ii) ludex ordinaritus: right to reach judgments at all levels of the church - this is where it gets really dodgy, the popes also claim that the power of kings at least in europe is also delegated to them by the papacy. There’s a legend that constantine made a will, giving his authority to pope Sylvester I, because he had cured him of leprosy, this document didn’t appear to the 8th century, but at least in the early mediaeval ages everyone accepted it as genuine, the popes used it to say that under Sylvester the popes had taken that power then given it conditionally. The popes aren’t trying to claim political power - except in the papal states - but they do claim that they have it in theory. One of the basis to there claim that they can take it back. A very heavily contested claim by the time you get to the reformation
iii)They are the ordinary judge - basically it’s like the european court - you can appeal right up to the level of the papacy. He can step into any diocese over the head of the local bishop and interfere.
iv) Vicarius Christi: Christ’’s delegate to the whole church - until now they had been the vicar of Peter, they had said they could be Christ’s rep in Rome, now they are saying they are Christ’s rep to the whole kingdom. This has some very practical implications e.g. Innocent III (1198-1216), the Lateran council declared that any ruler who tried to tax the church without asking the pope using legitimate purposes then they are instantly excommunicated - taxes for crusades is fine, but not for warring families.
Rulers were not allowed to employ Jews in public office.
This is the height of papal self assertion in the 13th century it all goes downhill from now on, epitomized in a struggle involving Philip IV the Fair) and Bonfire VIII.
Philip was at war with Edward I, (as was Scotland) Edward was invading France, so Philip began taxing the church. Boniface issued a Bull condemning all taxation of the church - Clerics Iaicos (1294) . Boniface is treating Philip like a stroppy teenager and tries to slap an ASBO on him. But Boniface was in a very weak position at home, for most of the 13th century had been the platy thing of 3 noble Roman families, Boniface was a member of one of these families, his family would have supported him but would have come with ready made enemies, who are ready to ally themselves with anyone who hates boniface, so Philip had ready made enemies in Italy. He also succeeded a very strange pope, who wasn’t a member of any of these families, he was a hermit. Who had actually resigned, it was fearful of him so put him under a kind of house arrest, Celestone (the hermit pope) soon died under fairly suspicious circumstances.
In 1294, France and Scotland sign an alliance. Edward was also taxing the English church, Clerics laicos was also directed at the English.
The French and their Italian allies: The first tactic they take is to accuse Boniface as having improperly deposed his predecessor Celestone V and having murdered him (which he probably did. So they called a council to try and get rid of Boniface. Drawing up a whole list of crimes.
Boniface responded with another Bull - Unam Sanctum (1302) which is considered the strongest claim of the age - very hard line pinnacle of papal claims. Basically it’s to do with one holy catholic etc. It starts with a list of claims/statements ‘we declare, state, define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for very human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.’
In a way the louder the Pope shouts and rants the weaker they are, there must be a reason to try and state there authority. What this claim doesn’t mean that the pope wants to be ruler of the world, it’s purely authority of salvation. There’s one church and no salvation out with the church. In relation to the position in France, he’s saying that he must accept the church’s authority or loose his salvation.
Philip wasn’t taking this and called a council in the Louvre, and repeated the list of claims against Boniface. However this time it was before a general council, so they were attempting to go over the popes head. So the French got together an army of Italian mercenaries and invaded his home town where he had his papal palace and came within an ace of killing him. He was half hoping that he would make a Thomas Becket of him. But they held back from killing him and eventually retreated, Boniface went back to Rome and died a few months later, probably of shock.
This conflict represents a kind of tipping point, form this point on the papacy starts going on a bumpy ride down hill, the secular begin to gain the upper hand, it really take the reformation fro the papacy to once again gain the upper hand. The reformation could happen because the papacy was on a whole new low, after the papacy can redefine itself in a new Europe.
The Great Schism
The Popes in Avignon: The papacy in Babylon?
i) rulers spent a lot of time away from there capitals mainly to ensure that there peripherals did not rise up against them. They did a lot of time touring, for example in Scotland there were many capitals that the king divided his time. During the 12th century the popes spent about 60% of there time outside Rome. Certainly during the summer Rome is so hot anywhere that popes would generally go to cooler climbs.
Yes Avignon was different, the Popes spent 70 years there, but Avignon is not a bad alternative.
1. It’s on the river Rhone - very useful for transport - the rivers were like super highways. The super powerfully political families in England and France were all largely accessible by sea and river. For access to places of power Avignon is much more accessible and convenient place for the papacy to be. Eventually the popes also bought Avignon off its temporal rulers and it became part of the papal states.
After Boniface Philip was keen to get a Frenchman in the papacy, this happened in 1305 - Clement V, he was crowned pope in Lyon and decided for the time being the most convenient place for him was in France for he wanted to secure peace between england and france, the district he was from was actually English, so he was and English Frenchman, so wanted to do quite a bit of touring. He got ill and was nursed by the dominicans in Avignon. He died near them.
His successor John XXII was from Avignon decided to stay there and made Avignon his capital and began extending the bishops palace.
None of the following popes were french and were generally all sympathetic to French policy and would generally favor French policy against the English.
The list of Avignon popes show that they’re there for about 70 years, throughout this time the popes are making pious statements about there return to Rome, they know they should be there but they never quite make it. One of the things that is holding them back is the complete political anarchy in the papal states and in Italy in general, it’s a period of particularly bitter civil war, between cities, families etc. It’s very much a war zone. For example Urban V in 1367, did return to Rome very briefly the the rioting in Rome and the continuation of the civil war/mafia turf war, made it unbearable and after 3 years he headed back to Avignon, things gradually began to claim down in the papal states, so in 1376, decided to return to Rome. Part of his reasoning would have been now that the states were settled they’d be easier to tax so would’ve wanted to be there. The papacy certainly did not frame it that way. It was shown to be much more of as response to begging acts so he would seem pious. But shortly after his time in Rome he died.
The cardinals came together in the conclave to decide on a new pope, the Roman mobs were very keen to have a pope that would stay in Rome. Many of the families also saw it as an opportunity to claim the throne as there own, so put people in the mob to stir things up. The cry went up in the crowd ‘a Roman, a Roman.’ eventually the mob breaks in the cardinals panic, dress the oldest guy up in the popes robes and stuck him on the throne which seemed to claimed things down! A few days later they elected the Arch bishop of Bari once things were claimed down, he was crowned Urban VI. But Urban turns out to not be what they expect, he starts trying to kick the cardinals into shape.
As a result they try to get rid of him.... he’s crraaazzy!
On the 20th Sept 1378 they elected Robert of Geneva - Clement VII - often referred to as the anti-pope. Even at the time it was very unclear as to who actually was pope.
Clement failed to take Rome from Urban so headed back to
PAPAL schism - not GREAT WESTERN
For the ordinary people, particularly the monarchs, the schism was largely seen as a political interruption rather then anything theological. It didn’t really matter where the pope was to them, they used it was a court system more than anything else. So Europe divided between the two papacies or two obediences as they were called.
The French obviously followed Avignon so England followed Rome and Scotland also followed Avignon. Italy of course stuck with Rome.
The theological crisis arose in the Universities, all of them were discussing the legal, political and theological implications and ways it might be solved. the possible ways of ending the schism can be summed up in 5 ways...
1) Via facti: By military means (tried by both sides) had reached a kind of impass
2) Via cessionis: by resignation
3) Via compromisst: by arbitration
4) Via concilli: by decision of a general council
5) Via discussionis: by discussion between rival popes
A few worries, if you pick the wrong pope and die while there’s still schism then you might go to hell. Additionally there was a degree of admiration toward the pope (bowing to him etc.) if one of the popes was false then one of the popes was treated as an idol, as a result the theologians didn’t want to show either pope as popes so that was 5) cut down.
3 + 4 was cancelled out because they both involve someone or some group sitting in judgement of the pope, and as we already have seen by the legislation laid down by the
popes that no one but God sits in judgement of the pope.
So number 2 becomes the firm favorite - they want BOTH popes to resign. we’ll forget anything ever happened and just elect a new pope.
So from the 1390’s tremendous pressure is being placed on the popes by various monarchy to resign. Cardinals are beginning to say that if they are elected pope they will accept the office on the understanding that if the other pope resigns they automatically will too. So for example on the 28th Sept 1398 a new pope was elected in Avignon, a Spaniard renamed Benedict the XIII, he had taken an oath that he would do all he could to end the schism and on the death or resignation of the other pope he would resign. But as soon as he was elected he got cold feet, he was worried about the problem of idolatry and believed that one of the popes needed to be shown false but he wanted a clear judgement of the rights and wrongs of the schism. It wasn’t going to have some sort of flabby compromise. At this point the french church lost patience with Ben 13, they called a council in the same year and they undertook an act of subtraction - they withdrew there obedience from Ben 13 they placed the French church under the temporary obedience of the French monarchy - meaning that it can collect tax form it etc. they then declared Ben a schismatic. Medieval theology made a very interesting defining point - if someone was a persistent schismatic then they were also a heretic (reasoning from Augustine). So the council in Paris declared that he was both a schismatic and a heretic. Canon law allowed people to withdraw and depose the pope if he was a heretic, because if he was a heretic then ipso facto he was no longer pope anyway. Sets a very important precedent...
1) first time the church of a country had declared independence (important for Henry 8th)
2) a council has sat in judgement AND declared him a heretic.
3) they have a appealed over the head of the papacy to a council of a country (something Luther later does)
In 1406 the Roman pope died, the Cardinals went into conclave and swore the same oath as Avignon saying they’d resign etc etc. At this time the pressure was on for both popes to meet and come to a resolution. They both go to the region where they were meant to meet and basically circled each other both getting colder and colder feet.
In 1409 cardinals from both sides gave up in disgust assembled in council in Pisa and deposed BOTH popes, declaring they were schismatic, heretics, perjury, scandalous and stubborn in these respects. New pope John 23rd elected, but then both parties just go back and elect there own popes again!
The Pisa pope began to attract more and more european states, he seemed to have the legitimacy mainly because both the French and the English and a lot of Italy were on his side. John was able to take form and Gregory fled to the kingdom of Naples.
It was clear another council had to be called John 23 called one at Rome, it was very poorly attended and was quickly shut down. It became clear that a council had to take place outside both France and Italy. It became the task of the Holy Roman Emperor - Sigismund to organize a council in Germany. IN 1414 everyone goes to Constance in Switzerland. John 23rd arrives in full papal splendor but during the procession the wheel broke on his cart and he fell out - a sign of things to come?
It quickly became clear that the council was going to try and solve the schism as the council of Pisa had done by getting rid of the 3 popes and starting afresh. Pressure was put on John 23rd to resign, he just wasn’t interested in that. So his opponents begin to spread rumors about him - incest, sodomy etc. etc. He really wasn’t a saint to begin with so a lot of the mud, stuck.