INTRODUCTION
The period of the latter Middle Ages was a period of stark contrasts. There existed side by side the extremes of dire poverty and great wealth, deep piety and gross immorality, acts of self-giving love and vicious religious intolerance, the drab peasant existence and the pageantry of tournaments. As this period opened, a great tide of spiritual revival was beginning to sweep across what had become the Roman Catholic Church; as the period closed, this tide was not only spent, but had so receded that a spiritual depression plagued the Catholic Curch.
In our last lesson, we finished up looking at the early part of the Middle Ages, and so, we’re going to be looking at this time at the latter part of the Middle Ages, the period from AD 1054 to about AD 1517—from the middle of the 11th Century to the early part of the 16th Century.
Many things, of course, occurred historically during this period of time. Some of those you will recognize as we go through this study and, once again, just hitting the very highlights of some of these historical matters, pointing out things that affected how the “church” (as it was at that time, which has become the Roman Catholic Church), the impact, the influence, that it and its leaders had on the secular world, and vice versa, the impact that the secular world and its leaders had upon the papacy and the overall Catholic Church.
THE PAPACY’S STRUGGLE WITH SECULAR POWERS
We want to begin by looking at the struggles which take place during this period of time between the papacy and secular powers. In the 10th and the 11th Centuries (this was the latter part of the period that we were looking at in the last lesson), the papacy had basically become very corrupt. Because of the corruption—because of the things that they were doing—they had lost a great deal of their influence, there was little respect for their authority, and so on. During this same period of time, secular powers of Western Europe were also fairly weakened. They were divided by feudalism, by dynastic struggles, and the like, and where there are no great powers, either spiritual or secular, there are no great power struggles. And so, we see in this period of about 200 to 250 years, there really weren’t any particular power struggles because both the leaders of the Catholic Church, as well as secular leaders, were somewhat weakened.
Things were already changing by the time the Middle Ages began. The stage will become set for a showdown between the claims that a sort of a revived papacy will make and those of a reviving secular power.
First of all, we notice the Papal Reform that was underway. It’s ironic, as one writer pointed out, that the Papal Reform, which made the pope, once again, a serious threat, a serious challenge, to the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, was actually begun by an emperor.
The first great stride, the first giant stride, so to speak, toward reform was begun by Emperor Henry III when he had Leo IX elevated to the papacy in 1048. During the 25 years that followed, Leo was succeeded by other reforming popes. Working quietly, but effectively, behind the scenes during this period was one named Hildebrand. He was an Italian monk, and he was very much committed to reform. Well, in 1073, Hildebrand himself was made pope. When he became pope, he took on the name Gregory VII (1073 – 1085).
Well, the papal reign of Gregory VII, like that of Gregory I (or, as he is often referred to, Gregory the Great), is really sort of one of the high-water marks, if you will, of the papacy. Gregory’s viewpoint of the office of the pope was far from modest. He believed that since the spiritual is superior to the physical, the pope should be superior, then, to any secular rule. Ordinarily, the two realms, the spiritual and the secular—that is, the Roman Catholic Church at this time and the Holy Roman Empire—would not really conflict. They would be involved in separate actions, and so on. However, when the two converged, when the interest, or the work, of the two overlapped, it was Gregory VII’s point of view that the spiritual—that, in this case, the pope—was superior.
Now, this was not just an idle theory as far as Gregory was concerned. When he had the opportunity, and when the occasion arose, he attempted to enforce his belief that the pope was superior, and do so with a great deal of determination. Now, it is true that secular rulers, that the emperor, had his army at his disposal, but the pope was not powerless—the pope was not without weapons of his own. A rebellious leader would be excommunicated, which would often be the invitation for his followers, for his subjects, to assassinate him. Or, in extreme cases, the pope might “interdict.” Now, an “interdiction” is a general, or a special, order that was given by “church authority.” So, on some occasions the pope might use the power of “interdiction,” whereby all public religious services would be withdrawn from the city, or from the region, in order to influence that particular ruler, whoever he might be. We find that, of course, foreign to our thinking, to our understanding, but the pope in those days held a great deal of influence over HIS subjects. And so, if he were to withdraw those who were actually conducting the religious services from a community, or from a region, and the people had no way of worshiping in the way in which they did, of course, then this was very, very troubling, because in the Middle Ages, these services were considered to be very important to the people. And when these services were denied by the pope, this meant that the ruler, the one in secular authority, would have a great deal of pressure brought to bear on him to submit to the pope.
The first great challenge to Gregory’s view on papal authority came when Henry IV succeeded his father on the throne of the Holy Roman Empire. There was a quarrel that arose over the matter of “investiture.” Now, “investiture” is a word which means “the bestowal of honor or position.” At this time, “bishops,” church officials, exercised a certain amount of secular authority. And so, Henry IV considered that, since they exercised a certain amount of secular authority, then he should have the right to choose them and install them in their church offices. Well, Gregory VII, who was the pope at that time, strongly disagreed, insisting that “bishops,” that church leaders, are first spiritual, then secular. Well, the upshot of the controversy was that Gregory deposed Henry, releasing all of his subjects from allegiance to him. How does something like that happen? Well, the pope has said that I don’t have to obey you; I don’t have to be subject to you anymore. And so Henry’s subjects weren’t.
Now, we might sort of look at that, again, in a strange way and have difficulty understanding it. But it worked, because Henry IV actually made a trip, where he had to cross the Alps into northern Italy, where the pope was—a place called Canosa—and he attempted to get an audience with the pope in order to reconcile this, in order to get his subjects back, so to speak. Well, the pope humbled the emperor. The record says that the pope left Henry standing three days in a row in the snow in his bare feet before he would grand him an audience. So, that tells us of, that gives us an indication of, first of all, the struggle that existed, but moreover, the power that was exerted, by the pope in that day.
Now, history also tells us that Henry would have his revenge. Later, he deposed the pope, and Pope Gregory died in exile in 1085 AD.
Then, one comes along named Innocent III (pope 1198 – 1216). Yes, that was his name, Innocent. And by all odds, he was the greatest of the medieval popes. He came closer than any other pope to putting into practice this sweeping view of papal authority that Gregory VII had advanced. Just before Innocent became pope, the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire had died, leaving his infant son as a nominal ruler. Well, the pope, then, faced no challenge from the Empire. What challenge could there be from a nominal ruler, who was an infant? So, Innocent had, pretty much, free reign over the Holy Roman Empire at that time with no one to oppose him. But it didn’t stop there. His influence, his power, reached beyond the borders of the Holy Roman Empire into other regions, as well. Philip Augustus, King of France, had divorced his wife and had remarried. Innocent forced him to take back his first wife. And then, there was King John of England, who refused to accept the pope’s nominee for the archbishopric of Canterbury. Innocent brought him to heel by excommunicating him and placing England—the entire country—under “interdict.” To save his throne, King John surrendered his kingdom to the pope and received it back as a fief, thus becoming, really, nothing more than a vassal of the pope.
During Innocent’s pontificate (“pontificate” meaning his time as the pope), the fourth crusade was launched, which resulted in the capture of Constantinople. There was another very important event, which took place during Innocent’s reign, and that was the Fourth Lateran Council. This was, by church historians, deemed to be one of the most important church councils for the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages. It was convened in 1215 by Innocent and influenced strongly by him. This Council defined a number of very important Roman Catholic doctrines and dogmas.
Well, this was the rise, so to speak, of papal authority. But then, we see almost as quickly that there is a decline which takes place once again. In this period that we’re talking about, the 12th and13th Centuries, several strong popes had come along, but none of them ever reached the level of Innocent, and the decline of the papacy began to be pronounced and began to be able to be seen during the reign of Boniface VIII. He was pope from 1294 – 1303 AD. Boniface made an even more exaggerated claim for the papacy than had any of his predecessors. In his “bull”—and that is the word, “bull,” which is an official papal pronouncement; also known in Latin as Unam Sanctam—he affirmed that “it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Well, he neither had the power or the ability to make such a sweeping claim stick.
And the decline of the papacy, then, became even more obvious when another event occurred—this referred to as “the Babylonian Captivity.” No, not the Babylonian captivity of the children of Israel in the long ago, but rather, a schism, which occurred in the Roman Catholic Church that was specifically involving the papacy—the pope himself. It had to do with the location of where the pope resided. It had been for a long period of time that, of course, Rome had been the center of the Roman Catholic Church, the center of their authority, as well as the center of the Roman Empire—the secular Roman Empire. But, there was a time in the late 13th and into the 14th Centuries when the popes began to live in Southern France. This led, then, to a schism which occurred, because in 1378 a new pope was elected in Rome, and he chose to remain in Rome, thus “bucking the tradition,” so to speak, which had been established for a long time. But, many of the cardinals, many of the other officials of the church, had become accustomed to the luxuries that they enjoyed while living in Southern France, and they returned to Southern France. And they selected their own pope. So, they end up with a pope in Rome and a pope in France. This is referred to as “the Babylonian Captivity.”
And then, this led to divisions and schisms among various secular powers for whatever reason—for political, or for economic, or for maybe religious reasons. Various rulers and monarchs would state their allegiance to the pope who was in Rome and others to the pope who was in France. And then, this assisted along the decline of the papacy.
And so it was that the latter Middle Ages saw the papacy emerge from its corruption and rise to a level of prestige until the pope had really become the most powerful figure, the most powerful man, in the West. But by the end of the Middle Ages, the papacy had been so reduced in power and influence that the pope was really regarded as little more than a petty Italian ruler.
THE CRUSADES
That leads us, then, into the Crusades. What were the Crusades about? You probably remember this from your world history or your European history. Of course, the Crusades had their roots in the matter of religion. Pilgrimages had become a big business in the latter part of the Middle Ages. Many countries had various so-called “holy places” that attracted pilgrims by the thousands, Rome being high on that list because of all of the landmarks and churches [buildings] and other things of that nature, which people wanted to go visit and felt compelled to do that.
But Palestine, the Holy Land, was the most cherished of all destinations for pilgrims. Now, many years before this, you recall, Palestine had fallen into the hands of the Moslems. At first, the Arabs (and these, of course, were Arabs who had swept in and taken Palestine—Damascus and a number of other cities and regions in the Middle East) had originally banned pilgrimages and had even persecuted those who would come in violation of the bans. But in time, the Arabs found it profitable to permit pilgrimages. So, the pilgrimages grew in popularity, and more and more people traveled to the Middle East, specifically to the Holy Lands.
Well, in the 11th Century, the Seljuk Turks swept out of Asia and took over the crumbling Arab empire. The Turks, who had only recently been converted to Mohammedanism, were very rigid in their practice of their religion, and they began, once again, persecuting pilgrims who would come into their area. And thus, the stage was set for the Crusades.
It was in AD 1095 that Pope Urban II, in a council of church leaders and nobles, issued a stirring call to arms against the infidels. Many inducements were held out to those who would participate: remission of sins, indulgences, and, O yes…the hope of plunder. And the people responded after this stirring message, “God wills it.”
Now, no doubt, Urban hoped to enhance his office and, perhaps, also to try to unite, once again, the “church” in the East and the West. You remember, we had talked about that at the end of our previous lesson—about the great schism that had taken place between the Roman Catholic Church and what would become the Greek Orthodox, or the Eastern Orthodox, Church, which occurred in AD 1054. But Urban had an eye on that, as well—perhaps the “church” could once again be reunited.
Interestingly enough, the enthusiasm for the Crusades was not confined to a warrior class or to the higher class of knights and folks of that ilk. Thousands of peasants and artisans, aroused by the preaching of a couple of monks, began a foot trek across the continent to go to the Middle East. By the way, these monks—one was named “Peter the Hermit” and the other was “Walter the Penniless”—were French monks. They were working independently, and each one of them was a leader of one of these “peasant bands” as they marched across the continent in quest of the Holy Land.
Well, many died along the way—no surprise there—and others who managed to reach the Turkish soil were massacred or sold into slavery. But then, later, the organized Crusaders, those who did make up the warrior class—knights, and so on—arrived, and after many months of hard fighting they were able to capture much of Palestine. Finally, in 1099, their goal was reached, and Jerusalem was taken.
Now, the First Crusade was the most successful, but several would follow. In all, the Crusading fervor lasted nearly two hundred years.
The Second Crusade was necessitated when Edessa, a key to the defense of the Crusaders’ kingdom, fell in 1144. Bernard of Clairvaux, a great leader in monastic reform, preached this Crusade. In spite of the success of Bernard in arousing enthusiasm for the venture, the Crusade itself failed.
The Third Crusade, launched in 1189, after the Turks had retaken Jerusalem, called forth the most illustrious leadership of any of the Crusades. At its head was the eminent Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, King Philip Augustus of France, and King Richard the Lionhearted of England. The emperor drowned on his way to Palestine and the two kings spent more time quarreling between themselves than they did fighting the Turks, who at this time were led by the brilliant and generous Saladin. As a result, this Crusade failed in its purpose of retaking Jerusalem.
The Fourth Crusade, launched in 1202, was directed against Constantinople rather than against the Turks. The Crusaders succeeded in capturing the Byzantine capital and installing one of their own number as ruler.
The most tragic of all was the Children’s Crusade. This one was quite alarming. It was argued that the earlier Crusades had failed because the Crusaders—those who were fighting, those who were doing the “crusading”, so to speak—did not have clean hands or pure hearts. As a result of this reasoning, thousands of children left their homes in AD 1212 to wander across Europe toward the Holy Land. Untold thousands died along the way, and the few who did manage to reach Turkish territory were immediately seized and sold into slavery. That’s a very sad account, is it not? But, nevertheless, it is historically accurate.
The Crusades did, at least for a brief period, open the Holy Land for pilgrimages. But other results of the Crusades were far more reaching. Feudalism was weakened, for many of the nobles never returned, thus allowing the kings, the monarchs, to centralize their authority in the West. During the Crusades, the papacy was enhanced. Although the ultimate result of the Crusades was to have been by many to undermine the papacy by strengthening the kings in the West, just the opposite was true.
MONASTICISM AND SCHOLASTICISM
We see, also, during this time two significant movements. One is sort of a “resurrection” of one that we have seen before. You remember the teacher Montanus? He arose back in the 2nd Century, and he put forth a doctrine of aesthetic living, of divesting oneself of one’s possessions—basically living a monastic life.
Well, in the 13th Century, there was an important new form of this monasticism which emerged. It is called the “mendicant orders.” The mendicants are so called because they begged for their subsistence. On the other hand, they believed that their mission was to preach and serve in the world. And so, while they lived the aesthetic life, while they divested themselves of their property, while they earned a living, or got sustenance, by begging for it, they did not retreat into the hills or in to monasteries as their predecessors had done. They, rather, saw their mission in life to be with people, to influence people, to preach and to serve in the world. Because of their obvious concern for their fellow men, the mendicant monks became known as Friars, derived from the Latin word for “brother.”
The two most important mendicant orders that came out of this period were the Franciscans and the Dominicans. While the Franciscans and the Dominicans were similar in many ways, they also differed in important respects. The Franciscans sought to win men by the example of good deeds. The Dominicans, on the other hand, stressed learning and a logical approach. You might say that the Franciscans appealed to men’s hearts while the Dominicans appealed to men’s heads [minds]. Both orders were quite missionary in their view, and they had been responsible for much of the missionary growth of the Roman Catholic Church, even to this day.
The other movement which came along during this period that is of significant note (and there were others besides these two, of course) is one that is called “Scholasticism.” In addition to there being a great spiritual revival, the latter Middle Ages witnessed a great revival of learning, coming out of what was knows as the Dark Ages. This movement, often referred to as Scholasticism, was an effort to support the faith by the use of reason. The Scholastics tended to approach theology from the viewpoint of philosophy rather than from the viewpoint of the Bible. The Scholastics relied heavily upon the writings of such Greek philosophers as Plato and Aristotle, especially the works of the latter. The greatest of all of the Scholastics from this period was one named Thomas Aquinas. I’m sure that you are familiar with that name. He is well-known, even to this day, and some of his writings are still well-known and available to be read.
LIFE, DOCTRINE AND WORSHIP
The church, as it is described in the Bible, the church as it was established in the New Testament and as it existed throughout the 1st Century and into the 2nd and even the 3rd Centuries, would hardly be recognized. Now, we have discussed a number of times that the church continued to exist, even at this time, but we have the historical record of the Roman Catholic Church—of what did become the Roman Catholic Church. We don’t have the historical record about faithful brethren who continued to meet at this time, but when we compare the 1st Century church, the church that Jesus built, to what has now become the Roman Catholic Church, it is hardly recognizable. That is certainly the case during this period of time.
The simple faith and worship that was prevalent, that characterized the church in the 1st Century and in the New Testament has now been replaced with superstition-laden worship of the Middle Ages. Important to the religious life of the “laity” in this period of time, and continuing, but this is where the importance of the sacraments really came to be stressed and to be noticed.
There are only two ordinances listed in the New Testament. One is baptism, and the other is the Lord’s Supper. But gradually, within the development of the Roman Catholic Church, there have been a number of what are referred to as “sacraments” which have been initiated. In the 15th Century, this number of “sacraments” had grown to seven, and they include baptism, confirmation, penance, the Eucharist, extreme unction, marriage and ordination.
Infant baptism by this time had also become the universal practice of the Roman Catholic Church. And this was justified because it was believed that an infant dying un-baptized could not, because of the taint of “original sin,” enjoy the presence of God. There was also the private confession of sins to a priest that became a standard practice during this period.
The heart of the public worship had by this time become the Eucharist, or the Mass. By the latter Middle Ages, the cup had been withdrawn from the “laity,” so to speak. The “laity” only received the bread.
The persons living in the world of the Middle Ages were very superstitious, and they were very intent upon Satan and his demons being active, doing things in an overt way. And so, in order to ward off these evil spirits, they began the prolific use of various icons, of crosses—wearing crosses—and that kind of thing.
As we’ve already talked about, pilgrimages were quite popular. Travel of any kind was often quite hazardous in the Middle Ages; yet, in spite of this, a constant stream of pilgrims made their way to Rome, and hardier souls even ventured to the Holy Land.
A word must be said about the “church” architecture of this period. Scattered across Western Europe are the great Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals which were built in the 10th, 11th and 12th Centuries and following, and they are still standing in Italy, France, Germany and other places.
Well, this is the latter part of the Middle Ages. As we move on, we will begin to see the development of denominational groups as we get in to the Reformation. We’ll actually be looking at some of the pre-Reformation period, and then into the period of the Reformation.