Papal power finds its emblematic exponent in Gregory VII (Hildebrand) and the ‘reforms’ which he initiated in the eleventh century. Since Gelasius in the fifth century the powers of priest and king had been arranged in separation and in precarious balance with one another; though, by the time of the Carolingian dynasty, this had apparently been misunderstood as a submission of the church to the emperor.[1] Gregory was determined to command the obedience of the kings and bishops of Christendom. He wielded the threat of excommunication; and, in an unparalleled step, took for himself the position of supreme and universal judge. He wrested back the legacy of Gelasius for the side of the papacy. The Dictatus Papae (1075) is a terse list of assertions of papal will over secular princedoms and local sees without qualification. We may note two of these decrees:
VIIII Quod solius papae pedes omnes principes deosculentur; (only the pope's feet may princes kiss)
and
XII Quod illi liceat imperatores deponere. (the pope can depose emperors)
The pope alone is he whose feet may be kissed by the princes it is his right to depose; which gives the pope a unique secular power in addition to his spiritual authority. In him the two power are thus to be brought to heel.
The unity of the papal powers has its theological source in the power of the keys given to Peter by Jesus in Mt 16:18-19, to which Gregory repeatedly refers. The power of the keys he interprets as that power to administer a binding justice on earth as in heaven. In a gloss on this passage he writes:
Are kings excepted here? Or are they not of the sheep which the Son of God committed to St Peter? Who, I ask, thinks himself excluded from this universal grant of the power of binding and loosing to St Peter unless, perchance, that unhappy man who, being unwilling to bear the yoke of the Lord, subjects himself to the burden of the Devil and reuses to be numbered in the flock of Christ? His wretched liberty shall profit him nothing; for if he shakes off from his proud neck the power divinely granted to Peter, so much the heavier shall it be for him in the day of judgment.[2]
Moreover, he claims that the see of St Peter is actually in possession of the merits of St Peter such that it can assume an authority of innocence compared to the guilt of kings that approach it. Gregory urges on kings a rightful humility corresponding to Christ’s own humility, the humility that Saul lacked:
If they humbly imitate him, they shall pass from their servile and transient reign into the kingdom of eternal liberty.[3]
However – and this is the accusation that the Tempter makes, too – the papacy at this point seemed to exempt itself from the virtue of humility; and to so assure itself of its inherited Petrine merits that it is immune to the lust for power which so affects princes. It was of course the indubitable historical reality of papal corruption that made the Gregorian edifice crumble.
[1] Oliver O'Donovan and Joan Lockwood O'Donovan, From Irenaeus to Grotius: A Sourcebook in Christian Political Thought 100-1625 (Grand Rapids, Mich., Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1999), p. 178.
[2] Letter 8.21 in Ibid., p. 243-44
[3] Letter 8.21 in Ibid., p. 249
7 comments:
What is truly diabolical in the Roman doctrine is how it has barricaded itself against outside attacks. The Papal power is said to derive from the divinely instituted "power of the keys". It seems plain to me that whatever the passage in Matthew means, it means nothing of the sort. But Rome, through this very power, also claims a monopoly on the interpretation of Scripture; and they say it is about papal authority. How do they know? Because it is written in the Word of God? How do they know that this is what the Word of God means? Because the Roman magisterium says so. How do they know that what the Roman magisterium says is true? Because Mt 16:18-9 says so! It is a system which is impossible to prove wrong rationally.
Yes, I wonder what the contemporary Roman interpretation of the passage is?
I always held the 'rock' in that passage to be Peter's declaration of the identity of Christ as Jesus... and his authority as being the preaching of that message.
It is amazing how the authority of the text is understood in such personal terms! What a shame that the person with the authority is not the one whose Spirit of Truth governed its production!
Well this indeed was/is the problem: that it meant that the papacy was blind to its own corruption, at the time.
As I said, I am not sure that the Hildebrandian conception still is dogma in Rome...
The combination of temporal and spiritual authority in the papacy is a complex historical issue. While the pope was seen for centuries as a legitimate earthly ruler over the Papal States as set out in the (forged) "Donation of Constantine", the papacy was forced in order to defend its territory from Saracen invaders to beg support from Christian princes and at the same time to demand their submission. This frequently led to bloody squabbles, especially among the descendants of Charlemagne who desired papal approval of their claims to rule over a western empire. Successive popes were content to play various contenders against each other as instability frequently aided their own political position. In later centuries the same game was played out among the ruling Italian families such as the Orsini and Medici. Thoughout the scandals of simony, intrigue, and murder, the papacy claimed the primacy of Peter as a justification for their monopoly on temporal and spiritual power. It is at the same time both disturbing and fascinating.
Wow, thanks Luke: I really needed that background actually.
You guys are kind of ill informed.
http://www.mwt.net/~lnpalm/jw_jpk.htm
check it out. I find it astounding that anyone can believe two thousand years of tradition can be dismissed so easily.
The popes were not perfect, but the office itself has not been corrupted
Post a Comment