Church and state controversy in the middles ages

Résumé du document

The disputes between Ambrose and Theodosius, the Carolingian rebellious episcopacy and Louis the Pious, and Gregory VII and Henry IV led to a same conclusion; the three emperors did penance. We can view these disputes as different episodes at different times of a same thing; the struggle between State and Church. First, it is necessary to replace these disputes in a broad historical context to show what their significance is. Then, we will look closer at these disputes in order to understand how public penance was used as a tool to assert Church's authority over kings. The relationship between Church and State is an important issue in the history of western Christendom. The conflict between Theodosius and Ambrose is generally seen as the first manifestation of the antagonism between the two authorities. Was the relationship between Church and State necessarily conflictive? It is clear that the Church and the State are two powers which both control or tend to control society. However, the idea of a separation between the spiritual power and the temporal power is enounced in the Gospels.

Extraits

[...] Thus, the ambiguity is within the Gospels themselves. On one hand the separation of spiritual and temporal powers is recognized and on the other hand spiritual power is considered as superior and transcendent through temporal power. Since the very start, Christianity was in conflict with the civil power but it is with the collapse of the Roman Empire that things gradually evolved and lead to a real struggle. Whereas the Church in the Byzantine Empire was subordinated to the State, the Church in the Western Christendom became a relative independent authority in Occident, regarding both spiritual and temporal dimensions. [...]

[...] California Epistle of St Paul to Romans, XIII 2nd Epistle of St. Peter, II, 13-14. Dudden, F.H. The life and times of St. Ambrose. Oxford ,p391 Hollister, C.Warren. Medieval Europe. A short history. California p.24. Agobard of Lyons, "Personal Charter Attesting to and Confirming the Penance of Louis the Pious" (October, 833). Dudden, F.H. The life and times of St. Ambrose. Oxford ,p391. [...]

[...] This duty was considered as very important. It was seen as a sacred task. Louis the Pious, as an Emperor was responsible of the well beings of his subjects and of his realm. It is remarkable to see that the main concern of the bishops who wanted to force Louis the Pious to do penance was the welfare of the State. Indeed, the main concern of Ambrose was the salvation of Theodosius' soul. There is a shift in the priority of the bishops' concerns. [...]

[...] It would have been a great damage to his legitimacy. The case of Louis the Pious illustrates even better this political manipulation. He was forced to do penance. However, it is forbidden to force someone to do penance or at least this penance can not be valid. But the bishops forced Louis to do so. It was the best way to “give the finishing touch to Louis' downfall”[9] and help his eldest son Lothar monopolizing the imperial dignity. However, public penance could be also used by rulers to reinforce their prestige and authority. [...]

[...] In return priests and bishops are subordinated to the Papacy. The goal was to establish a Christian society dominated by the Church and by its most prominent representative, the pope, the successor of St Peter. In this Christian society the power of the Church was superior and overshadowed the power of secular lords and kings, because as it is written in the Gospels, spiritual matters are more important than earthly prosperity. As Augustine wrote, human history has as its purpose the growth and welfare of the City of God and not the Earthly City. [...]