But, ironically, that period of greatest power (which the Great Schism from Eastern Orthodoxy and the Chaldedonian Divide from Oriental Orthodoxy were before) were already setting up for the Reformation through rampant abuses of that power. In a broad historical sense, can the Pope truly be called THE leader of Christiandom? And comparing the height of the Papacy to that of secular nations seems odd.
250 years have passed from the end of the "imperial" papacy to the Reformation. Between which there was "just something"
1. the internal crisis of the papal state, directly related to the next strengthening of the local nobility, and indirectly - with the beginning of the general crisis of the European economy (because the first symptoms of the little ice age appeared just then)
2. the relocation of the popes to Avignon under the wing of the French king with all the ensuing consequences
3. "The Great Western Schism." The popes moved back to Rome and the idea of an independent papacy from the French seemed unbearable to the French. As a result, half of Western Europe ended up under the control of alternative popes in the good old Avignon.
4. And only then, after a modest 150 years, the era of the Renaissance Papacy began, the Terrible Abuses (tm) of which gave rise to the Reformation. At the same time, the power of the popes of that time was a pale shadow of their influence of the "imperial" era.
As a result, the secular monarchs decided that "it is possible" – and not only for the French king. And after the beginning of the rise of the economy in the 16th century – because of warming, innovation and maritime expansion into the New World and beyond – what else is needed.
Now a little bit of Russian economic theory. Catholic economic ethics and the economic structures created by the Church have become banally outdated in regions predisposed to rapid economic growth. At the same time, it should be understood that even moderate capitalism and the other spirit of Protestantism in an economy with growth of 0.1% per year (for harsh objective reasons) will simply kill this economy. Because this is a zero-sum game. That is, if someone becomes richer, then someone becomes poorer, and if someone starts working more, someone will be left without a job. Hence the complex system of checks and balances, which seems from the capitalist reality to be a non-functional whim.
This worked well in the Middle Ages, but even then there were exceptions in the most dynamic regions. After 1500, half of Europe became an exception.
As for the Terrible Abuses(tm) ... three–quarters of them are banally sucked out of the finger by propaganda, and if popes were absolutely holy people – which in general has been a rare excess since the beginning of time - then the situation, if it had changed, would have been the opposite of what was expected. For it was, to put it mildly, futile to fight against the characters who smelled the smell of money and church property with personal holiness. Paper and a printing press are whatever cheaper than something that can be looted. The "highly moral" Henry the Eighth and his vassals will happily confirm this.
But the Habsburg soldiers and bonfires had a Powerful Practical Value.
And comparing the height of the Papacy to that of secular nations seems odd.
Uh…Why? The secular power of the popes had an extremely practical expression.
1. They directly exercised administrative control over very impressive territories outside central Italy. See the map of church properties.
2. Many secular sovereigns, up to and including kings, were vassals of the pope
3. Popes collected tithes, which in terms of physical expression did not differ from tribute. At the same time, they operated with an apparatus of coercion – it is obvious that you can not pay tithes only at the instigation of the Devil and it's time to send good guys from the Order of the dogs of the Lord (Dominicans) to the fallen into Satanism. For a thoughtful soul-saving conversation in the Inquisition basement.
If you think that the sacred status of popes changes everything, then I have a long series of surprises for you. In fact, the status of the pope was fundamentally lower than the living gods, which were considered to be the pharaohs, the "divine" emperors of Rome, Japan, etc. This is the level of trivial priest-kings, who are the rule rather than the exception in a crowd of monarchs. See, for example, Maya, Sumer, China, Tibet, the Caliphate, the Ottoman Empire (the Sultan was also the caliph), England. The King of which, I remind you, is also the head of the Anglican Church. And finally, modern Iran is quite officially a theocratic state.
