Jesus to the Renaissance - Day 11

Good evening. I'm William Haines, and tonight we will be looking at God's providence in Western Europe, particularly how it developed more successfully compared to other regions. We previously examined God's providence in Slavic lands, reaching as far as Peter the Great, and noted both successes and setbacks that created conditions for the rise of communism centuries later. Now, we will explore the decline and collapse of the Roman Empire and why God's providence shifted from Rome to the Germanic tribes. The Roman Empire had become totalitarian, with the state controlling every aspect of life, and Christianity, as the official religion, no longer allowed for the freedom to receive the Messiah. Had the Messiah been born in the Roman Empire and not subscribed to the Nicene Creed, He would have been accused of heresy and possibly executed. Therefore, God's providence moved to the Germanic tribes, which eventually developed into the Anglo-Saxon world.

With the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West, the Merovingian dynasty emerged as rulers of the Franks, dominating the area known as Gaul during the Roman period, with Paris as its capital. Over time, the dynasty weakened, and power shifted to the Mayor of the Palace. One of the most notable Mayors was Charles Martel, who faced the Muslim invasion from North Africa. The Muslims crossed into what is now Spain and then into France. Charles Martel gathered an army and defeated the Umayyads at the Battle of Tours in 732, which halted the Muslim advance into Western Europe. He also established feudalism in the region, which was ruled by the Merovingians. Saint Boniface, who came from Devon, became known as the apostle to the Germans, converting the Saxons and reforming the Frankish Church under Charles Martel.

Charles Martel's grandson, Charlemagne, became the King of the Franks and expanded the Carolingian Empire through constant warfare. He fought against Muslims in Spain and engaged in a long conflict with the Saxons, attempting to convert them to Christianity by force. Charlemagne's campaigns against the Saxons were brutal; he passed laws stating that any Saxon who refused to convert would be executed. This culminated in the Massacre of Verden in 782, where he ordered the execution of 4,500 Saxons who refused to embrace Christianity. While Charlemagne is often credited with spreading Christianity in Western Europe, it is essential to acknowledge the violent means by which he did so.

Despite the violent methods, Charlemagne also initiated what is known as the Carolingian Renaissance, inviting learned individuals like Alcuin of York to his court. This period saw a revival in education, culture, and political reform. However, it is important to note that during this time, Islamic Spain was far more advanced in various fields than Western Europe. Charlemagne's empire expanded significantly, encompassing various territories, but his crowning as Emperor of the Romans by Pope Leo III in 800 was politically controversial. The Pope, having fled Rome due to conflicts with powerful families, sought protection from Charlemagne. By crowning Charlemagne, the Pope effectively declared him the heir to the deposed Emperor Constantine VI, which led to tensions with the Eastern Roman Empire in Constantinople.

The legitimacy of Charlemagne's title as Emperor was contested, particularly since the Eastern Roman Empire was ruled by Irene, a woman, which was not accepted in Western Europe. This created a complex situation regarding authority and legitimacy. Charlemagne, while crowned Emperor, did not actively seek this title and preferred to resolve conflicts peacefully. He even proposed a marriage alliance with Irene, but powerful figures in Constantinople opposed this idea. After Charlemagne's death, his son Louis the Pious was crowned by Charlemagne himself, bypassing the Pope, which led to further civil wars among Louis's sons. This raises the question of the Pope's authority to crown Charlemagne in the first place. If I were to visit someone and claim the authority to crown them King of England, it would hold no significance without legitimate authority.

The question arises: why is the act of the Pope regarded as legitimate? As John Julius Maurice states, by bestowing the imperial crown upon Charlemagne, the Pope abrogated to himself the right to appoint the Emperor of the Romans, establishing the imperial crown as his personal gift while simultaneously granting himself implicit superiority over the Emperor whom he created. This is why Charlemagne was not pleased to be crowned by the Pope; if the Pope could crown Charlemagne, it meant he had the authority to decide who became Emperor. If one has the authority to appoint an Emperor or a King, one also has the authority to depose them, and no King wanted to have their title derived from the Pope. So, where did this authority originate?

There is a document known as the Donation of Constantine, thought to be forged in the middle of the eighth century. This document was supposedly left by Constantine when he established Constantinople and the Eastern Empire. It was said that one of his descendants wrote a letter to the Pope, granting him authority in Rome and the power to appoint an Emperor. For a long time, this became the source of authority for papal power in Europe, right up until the late Middle Ages when it was exposed as a forgery, likely written in the eighth century. Why was it forged? At that time, Pope Stephen II was negotiating with Pepin, who wanted to become King of the Franks after the last Merovingian King had died. The Pope needed someone to protect him from the Romans and other threats, as he did not have his own armies or much land.

Pope Stephen II claimed that he had the authority to appoint and crown Pepin as the legitimate King of the Franks, asserting that the Emperor had granted him this authority. Thus, Stephen crowned Pepin, which also ended the Merovingian line and established a new dynasty over the Franks. In exchange, Pepin granted land in Italy to the Pope, which became the Papal States and the source of Vatican power and wealth for the next thousand years, until the Concordat signed with Hitler. The question remains: was the Donation of Constantine forged? Defenders of the Catholic Church argue that it was not false; rather, there was such a document that was lost or destroyed over time. They suggest that Pope Stephen II was not forging it but recreating it based on memory.

This controversy defined church-state relations in Western Europe for the next thousand years and continues to echo today. There remains a conflict over who is the ultimate source of authority: the state or the church? Who can decide what the law is? This issue has plagued Europe for centuries, particularly in Catholic countries. For instance, in Ireland, there was significant controversy over priests who committed illegal acts being sheltered by the church, with the state arguing they should be tried by church courts rather than civil courts. This problem persisted throughout European history, raising questions about the appropriate relationship between church and state.

According to the Divine Principle, after crowning and blessing the Emperor, the Pope was to obey him as one of his subjects in temporal matters. The important term was to lift up and further the spiritual work of the papacy. However, the Emperor was also trying to further the spiritual work of the papacy, which was not necessarily a good thing, as it meant the power of the state could be used to persecute heretics. The Pope did not obey the Emperor in temporal matters because he believed in his absolute authority. According to the Divine Principle, the relationship should have been one where each had their own sphere of activity, with the Pope acknowledging the Emperor's authority in temporal matters, while the Emperor should be guided by the church in spiritual matters.

Much of European history is defined by the movements of tribes from the east, including the Magyars, who threatened the eastern section of the Carolingian Empire. Conrad I of Germany was the first non-Carolingian elected as King of Germany by the German nobles. After his death, Henry Fowler succeeded him as the first non-Carolingian king in 919. Interestingly, Henry refused to be anointed or crowned by the Archbishop, wanting his authority to come from the nobles rather than the church. This reflected the ancient Germanic tribal tradition where a king was recognized through acclamation, with the people proclaiming, 'God save the King.'

Henry the Fowler founded the Ottonian dynasty, marking the beginning of a new era in Europe. Unlike the Carolingians, Henry did not seek to establish a centralized monarchy; instead, he aimed for a federated system of autonomous duchies. This tradition of decentralization continues in Germany today, where the federal structure allows for significant autonomy among states. For example, while Angela Merkel may have been Chancellor, she did not possess the same absolute authority as Emmanuel Macron in France. This pattern of governance has persisted for the last thousand years, deeply rooted in the Germanic political culture.

Henry the Fowler was succeeded by his son Otto the Great, who became King in 936 and was crowned Holy Roman Emperor by the Pope in 962. One of Otto's significant achievements was ending the Hungarian invasions, as the Magyars had been moving from the east. The Carolingians were not particularly interested in defending the Germanic parts of the empire, which is why Henry was appointed to lead the fight against the Magyars. After Otto's victory, the Hungarians settled in Hungary, marking a significant turning point. Meanwhile, the Carolingian dynasty was declining, with King Louis the Pious being the last of the Carolingians, succeeded by Hugh Capet in 987, marking the beginning of a new dynasty in the west.

This division between east and west became more pronounced, with the establishment of what we now call the Great Schism within the church. The Roman Catholic Church, ruled from Rome, was a universal entity transcending nationality, while the Orthodox churches were national entities. The decline of the Roman Empire led to a separation in language and belief, with Latin being the common language in the west and Greek in the east. As the empire declined, fewer people could speak Greek or Latin, making communication increasingly difficult. This linguistic barrier contributed to theological disagreements, such as the addition of the 'Filioque' clause to the Nicene Creed, which the Pope opposed, leading to further division.

In 1054, the mutual excommunications between the Catholic and Orthodox churches marked a significant rupture. Interestingly, the letters of excommunication were written in different languages, leading to misunderstandings about their contents. The Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople both believed they were right, resulting in a long-standing division that persisted until the mid-1960s when Pope John Paul II visited the Patriarch of Constantinople. This division is one of the great tragedies of history, as reconciliation and healing are often nearly impossible. Even today, there remains significant conflict between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, particularly with the Russian Orthodox Church.

Between the Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church, another really important event took place, connected to church-state relations. This was called the Investiture Controversy, which divided Europe for much of the Middle Ages. Investiture refers to the act of giving the symbols of power and office to a person. When you invest someone, it means you give them a letter, crown, or star that invests them with the authority of a particular role or position. The central question was: who has the authority to appoint church officials? Who has the authority to appoint priests, bishops, and archbishops?

With the decline of the Roman Empire, secular authorities often took on the role of appointing bishops. Local secular authorities might decide to appoint a priest, and particularly, the emperor would choose and appoint a pope, who in return would appoint the emperor. This arrangement was largely due to the church being a major landowner. When people died, they often left land to the church in their wills, hoping to gain favour with God in the next world. Kings, dukes, and earls would bequeath vast tracts of land to the church, making it an incredible landowner. At one point, the church owned about a quarter or a third of the land in Europe. The church never died; once land was given to it, it was never transferred or given away, leading to the church accumulating vast amounts of land over the decades and centuries.

In those days, land was a source of power. The church, as a major landowner, wielded significant influence. Under feudalism, peasants lived on the land, and the feudal lord decided who the peasants would fight for. If a king wanted to raise an army, he needed the peasants to join. Therefore, it was crucial for the king and secular authorities to have church leaders who were also political allies. If the church leaders and bishops were not aligned with the king, his position would be very weak. This dynamic continues today; for example, in England, the queen is the head of faith and the head of the Church of England. Historically, the archbishop was appointed by the queen or king, but this evolved to the prime minister appointing the archbishop, as they were the queen's first minister.

This arrangement lasted until the 20th century when the church decided it wanted to appoint the archbishop itself. Negotiations ensued, as the prime minister preferred to appoint an archbishop who supported their political policies. A compromise was reached in the mid-1970s, establishing an independent body that would recommend two candidates to the prime minister, who would then choose one. However, the independent body had its preferences, and when the names were presented to Prime Minister Thatcher, she chose the candidate she believed would be more politically favourable, illustrating the ongoing intertwining of church and state.

At the same time, priests and bishops were incredibly wealthy. A priest's church would be a huge landowner, and all members of the congregation were expected to tithe one-tenth of their income. In every village, there was a tithe barn where these contributions were collected. The priest would pass on one-tenth of the tithe to the bishop, while administering the rest with the parish council. In times of famine or difficulty, the wealth from the tithe would be redistributed to support the poor and needy within the parish. However, because priests held significant authority, their families often lived comfortably, with priests frequently residing in larger houses than others. Bishops, too, enjoyed immense wealth, living in palaces and wielding both religious and political power.

This fusion of political, secular, and religious power led to corruption. Kings could sell bishoprics, allowing individuals to buy their way into positions of authority. Many Christians were unhappy with this practice, feeling it was inappropriate. In those days, monks and nuns were not married and lived in monasteries or convents, while ordinary priests were. In the Orthodox Church, priests are still allowed to marry, but in the Catholic Church, this changed around the 12th century. When priests were married, they often wanted their children to inherit their positions, leading to nepotism and the capture of parishes by particular families. This situation was seen as corrupt, prompting efforts to address the issue.

One solution proposed was to declare that priests could not marry, allowing bishops to appoint new priests when vacancies arose. This was justified theologically, with claims that Christ was not married and that the priest was married to the church. However, the practical reason was to eliminate corruption and nepotism within the church. The challenge of nepotism remains relevant in both church governance and any form of government. The question arises: should authority be granted based on familial connections or on merit? This debate was significant in church-state relations, as many church members sought to reclaim the power of investiture.

In 1056, the Holy Roman Emperor died, and Henry IV became king at the age of six. Although he was too young to understand the situation, he held the authority to appoint the pope. The church elders were excited about this, and three years later, they established a college of cardinals to elect the pope. This college continues to function today; when a pope dies, cardinals from around the world convene to elect a new pope. This idea of democracy within the church is deeply ingrained. When the next pope, Gregory VII, was elected, he initiated what is known as the Gregorian Reform. He declared that the church was founded by God and that the pope, as the vicar of Christ, held universal authority over kings.

Gregory VII controversially declared that only the pope could appoint bishops. When Henry IV, now an adult, attempted to appoint a bishop, Gregory overruled him, leading to a significant conflict. Offended, Henry wrote to Gregory, calling him a false monk and demanding his deposition. In response, Gregory excommunicated Henry, which meant that Henry could not enter heaven upon his death. Excommunication expelled him from the church, and as Augustine stated, there is no salvation outside the church. Furthermore, Gregory deposed Henry as king and released all Christians from their oaths of allegiance to him, creating a profound crisis in church-state relations.

Then he said to all Christians living in Henry's realm, "You're released from your oath of allegiance." In other words, you don't have to obey the king or the emperor; you can do as you please, and you're no longer being disloyal. The German princes were becoming increasingly annoyed with Henry because, as I mentioned, Henry Fowler wanted to establish a base of power. He set out to create a highly decentralised system of government for Otto when he became emperor. However, gradually, Henry began to centralise power and exert more control over the princes, moving them around. The German princes were quite pleased with the pope, and they started to rebel against Henry because they wanted more autonomy and independence within the empire. This made Henry's position unsustainable; without the support of the princes, how could he act as emperor? The whole German realm was becoming destabilised and unfavourable, so he realised he needed to sort out his problems.

The following year, he went to visit the pope at Christmas time, seeking forgiveness and a restoration of his position as king after being excommunicated. The pope was uncertain about Henry's sincerity. Was he genuinely coming to apologise and repent, or was he simply trying to regain his position? The pope decided that Henry must perform penance, so Henry had to stand in the snow for three days until the pope granted him an audience. When he finally met the pope, he apologised, and the pope welcomed him back into communion, restoring his authority as emperor. However, the princes were not happy about this and did not want Henry back. They decided to elect a rival king, and Gregory, the pope, supported this rival and excommunicated Henry again.

Henry, growing tired of this situation, attacked Rome and the Vatican. He seized control of Rome and deposed Gregory, enthroning a friend as the new pope, who was later called the anti-pope. Gregory sought help from the Normans, who were powerful at that time in Sicily and other parts of the Italian peninsula. They were looking for a way to gain power as well. When Gregory invited the Normans to get involved, they were eager to do so, as it meant they could exert their authority over the papacy. The Normans entered Rome, drove Henry out, and rescued Gregory. However, Gregory was somewhat traumatised by the experience and died shortly after. A new pope was elected by the cardinals under Norman influence, who was sympathetic to their cause.

During this tumultuous time, there were also several reform movements. God raised up many individuals to bring about reform within the Western Church. Some of the outstanding figures included Bernard of Clairvaux, who travelled extensively across Europe and founded hundreds of monasteries, contributing to the revival of Western Christianity. Others, like Hildegard of Bingen, were also significant figures. Francis of Assisi is well-known for his calling from God to rebuild the Church and for starting his own order after renouncing wealth. Dominic founded a teaching order aimed at improving education within the Church. William of Ockham was a notable philosopher, and Julian of Norwich was a mystic. Thomas Aquinas was regarded as one of the greatest medieval philosophers.

These figures, among many others, played crucial roles during the medieval period. Interestingly, many of them founded their own orders and remained loyal to the pope. Even though some sought reform, they took vows of poverty and maintained loyalty to the Church. Francis, for example, was initially opposed to wealth, yet within a short time, people began giving his order land and houses, and they became quite wealthy. Hildegard of Bingen, a scientist and founder of a convent, was also an extraordinary musician. In the context of the Catholic Church, there was space for accomplished women to thrive. Despite the male-dominated society, many convents were founded by abbesses, and some women were incredibly well-educated and accomplished. For women seeking to make a difference, joining a convent provided opportunities for education and involvement in various societal roles.