Popes in History

[LamaGT]

Were there any popes at all, that were pious people who really should represent god on earth?

 

[Maniacal]

I find it fascinating how many popes rather failed to lead by example and were rather corrupt and immoral. Although perhaps some popes represented their god better than others.

 

[LightSpectra]

What are you talking about? Henry IV's claims were that same as though as every other early Medieval monarchs. And if you read Gregory VII letters, he was actively trying to cause a civil war in the Empire through Saxony. His goal was to gain political power through a church that at the time still didn't swear fealty to Rome across the board. Gregory eventually brought down the Salian Dynasty through 50 some odd years of civil war that was only resolved by the Hohenstaufens. Yea, I'm sure that what Jesus wanted his representative on earth to be engaged in.

I hate responding to these types of posts, since you clearly know something about what you're talking about, since you're reading professional literature; just really bad professional literature that has been discredited.

Gregory VII's ultimate goal was to seize ecclesiastical authority from what was (prior to the end of the Gregorian reforms) held by the Kaiser. This is the traditional account, and it's also the best one, since the revisionist account is so full of bizarre assumptions and incorrect facts that there's no way it can be accepted unconditionally. The Kaiser had the power to appoint bishops, and since the Reich had little de jure centralized authority, they used the bishops -- frequently, ones in the pocket or the bloodline of the Kaiser -- in order to achieve de facto control. Thus, the only reason to support the Salians in this matter is if you actually want church and state to be the same thing, and not diverge, which it began to at this point.

The ultimate goal of Gregory VII was not the liquidation of the Salians per se, but rather depoliticizing offices in the Church. Which ended up happening; so yes, I think Jesus is happy with St. Gregory.

Were there any popes at all, that were pious people who really should represent god on earth?

Yes, any one whose title has "Bl." or "St." in it.

I find it fascinating how many popes rather failed to lead by example and were rather corrupt and immoral. Although perhaps some popes represented their god better than others.

There were more good Popes than bad. Frequently, the Popes we consider to be "bad" are only in retrospect, because really their failures were irresponsibly magnified by modern writers who want to sell a good story rather than be technically accurate.

 

[Quackers]

Pope John Paul II for his role (albeit minor) in ending Communism.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

I hate responding to these types of posts, since you clearly know something about what you're talking about, since you're reading professional literature; just really bad professional literature that has been discredited.

Gregory VII's ultimate goal was to seize ecclesiastical authority from what was (prior to the end of the Gregorian reforms) held by the Kaiser. This is the traditional account, and it's also the best one, since the revisionist account is so full of bizarre assumptions and incorrect facts that there's no way it can be accepted unconditionally. The Kaiser had the power to appoint bishops, and since the Reich had little de jure centralized authority, they used the bishops -- frequently, ones in the pocket or the bloodline of the Kaiser -- in order to achieve de facto control. Thus, the only reason to support the Salians in this matter is if you actually want church and state to be the same thing, and not diverge, which it began to at this point.

The ultimate goal of Gregory VII was not the liquidation of the Salians per se, but rather depoliticizing offices in the Church. Which ended up happening; so yes, I think Jesus is happy with St. Gregory.

Actually papist, I've not just read modern histories I've read the primary sources on the Investiture Controversy due to writing a research paper on it for college. Thank you go trying to give the definition of what an investiture is as a proof for you. Its not even fair to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man. You are under the assumption that the Bishop of Rome was in complete overall control of the Western Church, which wasn't the case at all. The Gregorian Reforms, as you say, were an attempt for the Papacy to gain political control over the Western Church, and due to the close connection between the ecclesiastical and lay bodies in this time (as the was no separation of church and state atm), political control over the monarchs as well. Just like in our Joan of Arc "discussion", if you actually read the primary sources you keep espousing so, you realize they don't say what you think you say. Gregory himself declared in his letter to Henry that the German Emperor should swear fealty, yes POLITICAL fealty, to the Bishop in Rome.

 

[Polycrates]

Pope Stephen VI

Dude dug up the previous pope's corpse, dressed him in pope robes and put him on trial. Then declared him guilty, chopped his fingers off and chucked him in the river.

That's the sort of out-and-out crazy that I can get behind, plus it made for awesome artwork.

Edit: I see Plotinus already mentioned Formosus, the one that got dug up. Should have been called Pope Boniface, amirite? I'm here all week, folks.

 

[LightSpectra]

Actually papist, I've not just read modern histories I've read the primary sources on the Investiture Controversy due to writing a research paper on it for college.

I'm impressed: You tried to establish your own credibility on the matter, immediately after sabotaging yourself by using a pejorative term to refer to your opponent.

You are under the assumption that the Bishop of Rome was in complete overall control of the Western Church, which wasn't the case at all.

No, actually, since that would make the whole controversy entirely pointless. Gregory VII was trying to wrestle control over election of bishops from the Kaiser. That wouldn't make any sense if he "was in complete overall control of the Western Church."

The Gregorian Reforms, as you say, were an attempt for the Papacy to gain political control over the Western Church, and due to the close connection between the ecclesiastical and lay bodies in this time (as the was no separation of church and state atm), political control over the monarchs as well. Just like in our Joan of Arc "discussion", if you actually read the primary sources you keep espousing so, you realize they don't say what you think you say. Gregory himself declared in his letter to Henry that the German Emperor should swear fealty, yes POLITICAL fealty, to the Bishop in Rome.

First of all, you apparently didn't understand the conversation about Jeanne d'Arc, since that debate wasn't about what the primary sources said per se, but rather to what degree they're reliable, and what information we can safely derive or discard upon establishing their credibility. You also name dropped some historians, who I know for a fact do not agree with your assertions as you gave them. But that's for the other thread.

Now, how about we actually look at some primary sources, shall we? The Dictatus Papae did indeed say, for article #9, "that of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet", and for article #12, "That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors." I'm assuming you, or your secondary sources, read those and then stopped doing research at this point, because that's all you need to establish motive on Gregory's part. Not quite. These were not official dictates of 1075: actually, these were created by the Italian Cardinal Deusdedit in 1090 and attributed to Gregory VII. This has been known for over a century in scholarship. The hallmark of a bad source on this matter is that the Dictatus will still be ascribed to Gregory. Cf. Edward Foley's From Age to Age: How Christians have Celebrated the Eucharist (2008), pg. 186. Also observe the Decree of Rome in 1074:

Those who have been advanced to any grade of holy orders, or to any office, through simony, that is, by the payment of money, shall hereafter have no right to officiate in the holy church. Those also who have secured churches by giving money shall certainly be deprived of them. And in the future it shall be illegal for anyone to buy or to sell [any ecclesiastical office, position, etc.]. Nor shall clergymen who are married say mass or serve the altar in any way. We decree also that if they refuse to obey our orders, or rather those of the holy fathers, the people shall refuse to receive their ministrations, in order that those who disregard the love of God and the dignity of their office may be brought to their senses through feeling the shame of the world and the reproof of the people.

Source: Fordham Medieval Sourcebook, 1996.

The actual roots of the Investiture Controversy go back to 1074, which is when German bishops (appointed through the Kaiser's resources) responded negatively to Pope Gregory VII's measures to curb simony and corruption in the Church. So they appealed to the Kaiser to veto the Pope, who then declared Gregory to be "Hildebrand, no longer pope but a false monk" through 26 German bishops at the Diet of Worms in 1076:

there is no grade in the church which thou hast omitted to make a partaker not of honour but of confusion, not of benediction but of malediction. For, to mention few and especial cases out of many, not only hast thou not feared to lay hands upon the rulers of the holy church, the anointed of the Lord-the archbishops, namely, bishops and priests-but thou hast trodden them under foot like slaves ignorant of what their master is doing. Thou hast won favour from the common herd by crushing them; thou hast looked upon all of them as knowing nothing, upon thy sole self, moreover, as knowing all things. This knowledge, however, thou hast used not for edification but for destruction; so that with reason we believe that St. Gregory, whose name thou has usurped for thyself, was prophesying concerning thee when he said: "The pride of him who is in power increases the more, the greater the number of those subject to him; and he thinks that he himself can do more than all." And we, indeed, have endured all this, being eager to guard the honour of the apostolic see; thou, however, has understood our humility to be fear, and hast not, accordingly, shunned to rise up against the royal power conferred upon us by God, daring to threaten to divest us of it. As if we had received our kingdom from thee! As if the kingdom and the empire were in thine and not in God's hand!...

Heinrich's letter to Gregory VII, January 24, 1706. Source: Fordham Medieval Sourcebook, 1996.

So you see, Heinrich didn't believe in any conspiracy of the Papacy against his dynasty. If you go back to May 1074, when he repented to Papal legates in Nuremberg for supporting German bishops that were excommunicated by Gregory, he admitted there as well that the Investiture Controversy was about the Papacy trying to assert then-nonexistent authority over bishops that traditionally the Kaiser appointed. Heinrich only recanted his apology and went back to trying to defend his bishops after he no longer needed Papal support when he put down the Saxon rebellion in the June of 1075. This was brought up in the second deposition of Heinrich in 1080:

Among them, especially, Henry whom they call king, son of Henry the emperor, did raise his heel against your church and strive, by casting me down, to subjugate it, having made a conspiracy with many ultramontane bishops. But your authority resisted and your power destroyed their pride. He, confounded and humbled, came to me in Lombardy and sought absolution from the bann. I seeing him humiliated, having received many promises from him concerning the bettering of his way of living, restored to him the communion. But only that; I did not reinstate him in his kingdom from which I had deposed him in a Roman synod, nor did I order that the fealty from which, in that synod, I have absolved all those who had sworn it to him, or were about to swear it, should be observed towards him. And my reason for not doing so was that I might do justice in the matter or arrange peace-as Henry himself, by an oath before two bishops, had promised me should be done-between him and the ultramontane bishops or princes who, being commanded to do so y your church, had resisted him. But the said ultramontane bishops and princes, hearing that he had not kept his promise to me, and, as it were, despairing of him, elected for themselves without my advice-ye are my witnesses-duke Rudolf as king.

Source: Fordham Medieval Sourcebook, 1996.]

There is nothing here about the Pope trying to destroy the Salian dynasty through covert political measures: rather, he was trying to assert control over Kaiser-aligned bishops, and the Kaiser himself kept their loyalty by trying to depose the Pope. The civil war in the Reich began when German aristocrats, ignoring the Kaiser's reconciliation with the Pope after the Walk to Canossa, supported rival king Rudolf of Rheinfelden in the March of 1077. Essentially, the princes were extending the Investiture Controversy for their own measures, against any sort of intention of the Pope therein.

So, in short, the Pope wasn't looking for the general authority to depose the Kaiser. That was particular to this circumstance. Your claim that Gregory's "goal was to gain political power through a church that at the time still didn't swear fealty to Rome across the board" is manifestly false, and is universally considered to be so by all reliable scholarly sources, as well as through consistent testimony of primary sources. Your other claim that "he was actively trying to cause a civil war in the Empire through Saxony" isn't actually claimed by any scholar that I know; as far as I can tell, that's you misunderstanding the progression of events from 1073-1077.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

Pope Sylvester I slew a Dragon. That's pretty fantastic.

 

[classical_hero]

Pope Leo X. It was against his rule that the protestant movement started.

One thing I like about the history of the papacy is the times when three people had claims of being the rightful Pope. Now that is hilarious.

 

[Lord Baal]

Pope Leo X. It was against his rule that the protestant movement started.

One thing I like about the history of the papacy is the times when three people had claims of being the rightful Pope. Now that is hilarious.

Well, if God is a trinity, why not his representative on earth?

 

[LightSpectra]

One thing I like about the history of the papacy is the times when three people had claims of being the rightful Pope. Now that is hilarious.

Why is that funny?

 

[Ajidica]

Because God was temporarily schizoid.

 

[NovaKart]

It just shows what a political mess you get mixing religion with politics and power to that extreme.

 

[LightSpectra]

Because God was temporarily schizoid.

What?

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

Yes, it is well known that the Dictatus Papae was written by Peter Damian in 1059. However, I again suggest that you actually read the primary sources instead of reading excerpts from some average undergrad sourcebook. In the letter where Peter Damian claims authorship, he states that he did so at the behest of Gregory as the papal position on the authority of the Apostolic See. So, while yes the Dictatus Papae wasn’t the wasn’t an official declaration or penned by the hand of Gregory himself, it is in a way similar to Gen. Lee’s lost orders in 1862 in that with it you know what Gregory’s endgame is and Gregory is just as much the author of it as the president is of his speeches or proposals. H.E.J. Cowder says this much in his bio on Gregory. Also, its not just points IX or XII that are political in nature. It is hard to find a single point that isn’t political in the context of the time period. Ecclesiastical office was political office. Abbots, Bishops, and Archbishops controlled vast amounts of wealth and land (which were largely synonyms in that age) and the peoples and economies within them. Thus the appointment of Ecclesiastical offices had huge political and economic importance in the realms where the see’s were located. While this crisis is mostly seen through the events of the HRE, other monarchs in Europe were threatened by this attach on their historic rights. This was especially true in England, where there was a regal vs. papal battle over investitures that was rivaled only by the slap fight between Henry and Gregory. And if there was more political stability in France and Iberia, the monarchs there would be going to fisticuffs with Gregory just as badly as the HRE and England. In fact if you want to got there, the roots of the reform movement arose in the Peace of God movement in France due to the lack of proper political authority thought out the kingdom.

In reference to the historical examples that you bring up, you are right in many way. However, you are missing the key fact that there was no real difference between political and ecclesiastical authority in the early Medieval period. The Emperor derived his power and legitimacy from also being the head of the church in his realm and Gregory’s attempts to take away his right of imperial investitures undermined his authority to rule. A bedrock of early Medieval kingship was the theory that that kingship was divinely appointed. Gregory himself was using the language of early Medieval kingship. Seriously, go back and read your little sourcebook and pretend that Gregory was a King instead of a Pope and try and tell me that what he’s saying doesn’t make more sense now. Every time Henry gave into Gregory a bit, civil war would erupt. Gregory knew what he wanted and knew how he wanted to get it. I never meant that he was out to destroy the Salian Dynasty, but his actions led to their ultimate demise. If Gregory really was all about pious unity for the mother church, then he would have accepted the condemnation in 1080 by 29 (mostly Italian) Bishops. But instead, he gets the Southern Italian Normans to sack Rome, which turned out to be a horrible idea as he was run out of town by the populace by the people of Rome for the bloodshed. Many historians accept that Gregory was out to make an over all Papal theocracy that all Ecclesiastical Sees and Lay Monarchies were subservient to.

(Couple of extra thoughts.)
1: Please stop trying to look smarter or mature or whatever you’re doing by constantly using the other forms of historical figures names out side of normal English (like Heinrich or Jeanne). This is frowned upon in real history departments as almost childish and stuck-up and since I see you as probably a guy working on a history minor I don’t think that you spend enough time in a real history department to know
2: I am well aware that I will not convince you of my side and have been warned by many cfc member that you look at things through your super thick pro-catholic rose colored glasses. I just want you to know that my aim is not anti-Catholic or anti-anything really, I just think you have to look at the checkered past of the Medieval period openly.

 

[Ajidica]

What?

Clearly God couldn't decide who should be his vice-regent on Earth.

 

[LightSpectra]

Clearly God couldn't decide who should be his vice-regent on Earth.

???

So, there is one Pope and two people who claim to be Pope, therefore there is three Popes? I take it the American public was also schizophrenic because we had a U.S. president at the same time that we had an Emperor & Protector of Mexico?

 

[NovaKart]

What a bizarre comparison.

 

[Leoreth]

The ultimate goal of Gregory VII was not the liquidation of the Salians per se, but rather depoliticizing offices in the Church.

Which is hard to achieve when many offices in the church hold political power within the empire.

 

[classical_hero]

Well, if God is a trinity, why not his representative on earth?

According to the Bible there is a representative on earth, he is called the Holy Spirit.

Also what Nova said about my remark. It was clearly politics that played the role in that split, not for religious reasons. Also there have been plenty of Popes who have been absolutely immoral in their conduct. Too many times they have used it for political power rather than Spiritual power, so they really have not been the so called representative for God, when they are doing the works of the Devil. Of course I have never believed for one moment that they were ever God's representative, when he does not need one on earth to do his job.