Page:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu/745

ORIGINS TO 1087] realized in the celebrated forgery known as the “False Decretals” (see ).

Hardly were they in circulation throughout the Frankish Empire when it happened that a pope, Nicholas I., was elected who was animated by the same spirit as that which had inspired them. There was no lack of opportunities for intervening in the affairs not only of the Western but of the Eastern Church, and he seized upon them with great decision. He staunchly supported the patriarch Ignatius against his rival, Photius, at Constantinople; he upheld the rights of Teutberga, who had been repudiated by her husband, Lothair II. of Lorraine, against that prince and his brother, the emperor Louis II.; and he combated Hincmar, the powerful metropolitan of Reims. It was in the course of this last dispute that the False Decretals found their way to Rome. Nicholas received them with some reserve; he refrained from giving them his sanction, and only borrowed from them what they had already borrowed from authentic texts, but in general he took up the same attitude as the forger had ascribed to his remote predecessors. The language of his successors, Andrian II. and John VIII., still shows some trace of the energy and pride of Nicholas. But the circumstances were becoming difficult. Europe was being split up under the influence of feudalism; Christendom was assailed by the barbarians, Norsemen, Saracens and Huns; at Rome the papacy was passing into the power of the local aristocracy, with whom after Otto I. it was disputed from time to time by the sovereigns of Germany. It was still being held in strict subjection by the latter when, towards the end of the 11th century, Hildebrand (Gregory VII.) undertook its enfranchisement and began the war of the s (q.v.), from which the papacy was to issue with such an extraordinary renewal of its vitality.

In Eastern Christendom the papacy was at this period an almost forgotten institution, whose pretensions were always met by the combined opposition of the imperial authority, which was still preponderant in the Byzantine Church, and the authority of the patriarchate of Constantinople, around which centred all that survived of Christianity in those regions. To complete the situation, a formal rupture had occurred in 1054 between the patriarch Michael Cerularius and Pope Leo IX.

In the West, Rome and her sanctuaries had always been held in the highest veneration, and the pilgrimage to Rome was still the most important in the West. The pope, as officiating in these holiest of all sanctuaries, as guardian of the tombs of St Peter and St Paul and the inheritor of their rank, their rights, and their traditions, was the greatest ecclesiastical figure and the highest religious authority in the West. The greatest princes bowed before him; it was he who consecrated the emperor. In virtue of the spurious donation of Constantine, forged at Rome in the time of Charlemagne, which was at first circulated in obscurity, but ended by gaining universal credit, it was believed that the first Christian emperor, in withdrawing to Constantinople, had bestowed on the pope all the provinces of the Western Empire, and that in consequence all sovereignty in the West, even that of the emperor, was derived from pontifical concessions. From all points of view, both religious and political, the pope was thus the greatest man of the West, the ideal head of all Christendom.

When it was necessary to account for this position, theologians quoted the text of the Gospels, where St Peter is represented as the rock on which the Church is built, the pastor of the sheep and lambs of the Lord, the doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven. The statements made in the New Testament about St Peter were applied without hesitation to all the popes, considered as his successors, the inheritors of his see (Petri sedes) and of all his prerogatives. This idea, moreover, that the bishops of Rome were the successors of St Peter was expressed very early—as far back as the 2nd century. Whatever may be said as to its historical value, it symbolizes very well the great authority of the Roman Church in the early days of Christianity; an

authority which was then administered by the bishops of Rome, and came to be more and more identified with them. The councils were also quoted, and especially that of Nicaea, which does not itself mention the question, but certain texts of which contained the famous gloss: Ecclesia romana semper habuit primatum. But this proof was rather insufficient, as indeed it was felt to be, and, in any case, nothing could be deduced from It save a kind of precedence in honour, which was never contested even by the Greeks. The Gospel and unbroken tradition offered a better argument.

In his capacity as head of the church, “and president of the Christian agape,” as St Ignatius of Antioch would have said, the pope was considered to be the supreme president and moderator of the oecumenical assemblies. When the episcopate met in council the bishop of Rome had to be at its head. No decisions of a general nature, whether dogmatic or disciplinary, could be made without his consent. The appeal from all patriarchal or conciliary judgments was to him; and on those occasions when he had to depose bishops of the highest standing, notably those of Alexandria and Constantinople, his judgments were carried into effect. During the religious struggles between the East and West he was on a few occasions condemned (by the Eastern council of Sardica, by Dioscorus, by Photius); but the sentences were not carried out, and were even, as in the case of Dioscorus, considered and punished as sacrilegious attacks. In the West the principle, “prima sedes a nemine judicatur,” was always recognized and applied.

In ordinary practice this theoretically wide authority had only a limited application. The apostolic see hardly ever interfered in the government of the local Churches. Save in its own metropolitan province, it took no part in the nomination of bishops; the provincial or regional councils were held without its authorization; their judgments and regulations were carried out without any suggestion that they should be ratified by Rome. It is only after the False Decretals that we meet with the idea that a bishop cannot be deposed and his place filled without the consent of the pope. And it should be noticed that this idea was put forward, not by the pope with the object of increasing his power, but by the opinion of the Church with a view to defending the bishops against unjust sentences, and especially those inspired by the secular authority.

It was admitted, however, throughout the whole Church that the Holy See had an appellate jurisdiction, and recourse was had to it on occasion. At the council of Sardica (343) an attempt had been made to regulate the procedure in these appeals, by recognizing as the right of the pope the reversing of judgments, and the appointment of fresh judges. In practice, appeals to the pope, when they involved the annulling of a judgment, were judged by the pope in person.

But the intervention of the Holy See in the ecclesiastical affairs of the West, which resulted from these appeals, was only of a limited, sporadic and occasional nature. Nothing could have been more removed from a centralized administration than the condition in which matters stood with regard to this point. The pope was the head of the Church, but he exercised his authority only intermittently. When he did exercise it, it was far more frequently at the request of bishops or princes, or of the faithful, than of his own initiative. Nor had any administrative body for the supreme government of the Church ever been organized. The old Roman clergy, the deacons and priests of the church at Rome (presbyteri incardinati, cardinales) formed the pope’s council, and when necessary his tribunal; to them were usually added the bishops of the neighbourhood. The body of ecclesiastical notaries served as the staff of the chancery.

The Roman Church had from a very early date possessed considerable wealth. Long before Constantine we find her employing it in aid of the most distant churches, as far afield as Cappadocia and Arabia. Her real property, confiscated under Diocletian, was restored by Constantine, and since then had been continually

increased by gifts and bequests. In the 4th and 5th centuries,