Papacy

Election of the Popes.

The pope, like all the bishops, was chosen by means of election, in which both the clergy and the laity took part. The latter were represented in the most essential functions of the election by the aristocracy: at first by the senate, and later by the exercitus romanus, or rather of its staff, com posed of Byzantine officers. It was the latter which gave rise to the feudal aristocracy which we see appearing under the Car olingians. The new pope was chosen by the principal members of the clergy and nobles, and then set before the assembled people, who gave their decision by acclamation ; and this acclamation was accepted as the vote of the assembly of the faithful. The pope-elect was then put in possession of the episcopal house, and after waiting till the next Sunday his consecration was proceeded with. This ceremony was at first celebrated in the Lateran, but from Byzantine times onwards it took place at St. Peter's. It was also under the Byzantine regime that the condition was imposed that the pope should not be consecrated until the emperor had ratified his election. This had not been required under the old Latin emperors nor under the Gothic kings, and it disappeared of its own accord with the Byzantine regime. It was revived, however, by the emperor Louis the Pious, much to the disgust of the Romans, who resisted on several occasions. The Roman "princes" or "senators" in the loth century went still further: it was they who actually nominated the pope. The same was the case with the Saxon emperors (Otto I., II. and III.), and in the 11th century of the lords of Tusculum, the latter nominating them selves and choosing members of their own family for the pontif icate. When the emperor Henry III. (1046) put an end to this oppression it was only to substitute another. The popes of Tusculum did, at least, belong to the country, while the German kings chose bishops from the other side of the Alps.

The Hildebrandine Reform.

The entry of Hildebrand into the counsels of the papacy marks the beginning of a great change in this institution. He cannot, however, claim the honour of having opened the way which he impelled his predecessors to follow even before following it himself. All good Christians were calling for reforms ; bishops, princes and monks were in agreement on this point when they spoke or acted according to their convictions. Many of them had tried to effect something; but these isolated efforts were often countermined by incompatible aims, and had produced no serious results. It is in the supreme head of the Church that the movement ought to have found its origin and inspiration. There was no dispute as to his possessing the authority in spiritual matters necessary to impose reform and overbear the resistance which might arise; no one was better qualified than he to treat with the holders of the temporal power and obtain the support which was necessary from them. The Fathers of the Church had repeated times without number that the priesthood stands. above even the supreme secular authority; the bible was full of stories most aptly illustrating this theory; nobody questioned that, within the Church, the pope was the vicar of Christ, and that, as such, his powers were unlimited; as proof positive could be cited—by councils and decretals—whether authentic or spurious ; at any rate all authorized by long usage and taken as received authorities. It only remained to take possession of this incontestable power and use it with firmness and consistency. The example of Nicholas I., two centuries before, had shown the position which a pope could occupy in Christen dom ; but for a long time past the man had come short of the institution, the workman of his tool. Under Leo IX. (1048– 1054) the pope suddenly came forward as the active and inde fatigable champion of reform ; simony and incontinence of the clergy were attacked by the one most qualified to purify the Church of them. Henceforth the way was open, and it became clear that, given good popes, the reform movement might be carried into effect. The choice of the pope was then subject to the pleasure of the sovereign of Germany, against whom the Roman feudal lords, devoted as they were to the old abuses, were in constant revolt. In the midst of the frequent changes of pope which went on during these years, and the political vicissitudes of Italy, Hildebrand took such measures as enabled him to check mate the opposition of the Roman barons by turning against them, now the armed force of the Normans, now the influence of the German king'. Side by side with the general movement

towards reform, he had set before himself the object of freeing the papacy, not only from its temporal oppressors but also from its protectors. He was successful at the council of 1059, the pontifical election was placed out of reach of the schemes of the local feudal lords and restored to the heads of the clergy; certain reservations were made with regard to those rights which the Holy See was considered to have conceded personally to Henry of Germany (the young king Henry IV., son of the emperor Henry III.), but nothing more. At the election of Alexander II. (1061-1073)—a rival who for a long time had been supported by the German king—and even at the election of Hildebrand, this rule had its effect. Henceforth the elections remained entirely free from those secular influences which had hitherto been so oppressive. In 1073 Hildebrand was raised to the pontifical throne by the acclamation of the people of Rome, under the name of Gregory VII.

Gregory VII., 1073-1085.

The work of reform was now in a good way; the freedom of the pontifical elections had been assured, which gave some promise that the struggle against abuses would be conducted successfully. All that now remained was to go on following wisely and firmly the way that had already been opened. But this attitude was not likely to appeal to the exuber ant energy of the new pope. Now that Gregory's hands were no longer tied, he could act freely. The choice of the pope had been almost entirely removed from the sphere of secular influence, and especially from that of the German king. Gregory claimed that the same condition should apply to bishops, and these were the grounds of the dispute about investitures—a dispute which could find no solution, for it was impossible for the Teutonic sovereigns to renounce all interest in a matter of such importance 'On the 5th of April io58, six days after the death of Pope Stephen X., John, bishop of Velletri, the nominee of the Roman nobles, was enthroned as Pope Benedict X. Hildebrand set up Gerard, bishop of Florence, as a rival candidate, won over a part of the Romans to his cause, and secured the support of the empress regent Agnes at the Diet of Augsburg in June. Gerard was elected pope at Siena (as Nicholas II., q.v.) by those cardinals who had fled from Rome on the elevation of Benedict X. A synod was held at Sutri, at which the powerful Godfrey, duke of Lorraine and Spoleto, and margrave of Tuscany, and the chancellor Wibert were present. Measures were here concerted against Pope Benedict, who was driven out of Rome in Jan. 1059, Nicholas II. being regularly enthroned on the 24th of the same month. A synod assembled at the Lateran in April passed the famous new regulations for the elections to the papacy. (See CONCLAVE and LATERAN COUNCILS.) -[ ED.] in the workings of their state. Since the time of Clovis the German sovereigns had never ceased to intervene in such matters. But this question soon fell into the background. Gregory's contention was that the secular sovereigns should be entirely in the power of the head of the Church, and that he should be able to advance them or dispossess them at will, according to the estimate which he formed of their conduct. A terrible struggle arose between these obviously exorbitant demands and the resistance which they provoked. Its details cannot be described in this place (see INVESTITURES) ; we need only say that this ill-fated quarrel was not calculated to advance the reform movement, but rather to impede it, and, further, that it ended in failure. Gregory died far away from Rome, upon which he had brought incalculable evils ; and not only Rome, but the papacy itself had to pay the penalty for the want Of moderation of the pope. Great indeed was the difference between the state in which he received it and that in which he left it. We must not, however, let this mislead us. This struggle between spiritual and secular powers, owing to the tremendous sensation which it created throughout Christendom, showed the nations that at the head of the Church there was a great force for justice, always able to combat iniquity and oppres sion, and sometimes to defeat them, however powerful the evil and the tyrants might seem. The scene at Canossa, which had at the moment a merely relative importance, remained in the mem ories of men as a symbol which was hateful or comforting, ac cording to the point of view from which it was considered.