Chapter 11: I Lyons - Vienne
The question of reform remained a chief concern of the Church during the years following IV Lateran, but the history of the Councils focuses attention on another recurring difficulty: the struggle of the Church with temporal rulers. In 1215, Frederick II (already king of Sicily and Puglia) became emperor of Germany. By 1220 he had managed to be solemnly crowned by Pope Honorius III. His grandfather, Frederick Barbarossa, had been a problem to Pope Alexander III and the III Lateran Council. Frederick II was now to prove an even greater burden to three later popes. But this struggle with the Hohenstaufen rulers was destined to come to a head under Pope Innocent IV. The I Council of Lyons (1245) stands as a witness to the strength of this Pope in resisting the power of temporal rulers who would challenge the spiritual rule of the Church.
Frederick soon after showed that he was going to be no special friend of the Church. His ultimate aim could be nothing more than to make the Church a part of the State. He had no regard for former promises and did all he could to obstruct the work of the Church. The popes, on the other hand, withstood him and emerged from the battle victorious. The man who had been Frederick's tutor became Pope Honorius III in 1216. He was an old man by then, and hardly a match for the young prince who was beginning to show the crafty side of his nature. Honorius was much concerned about the situation in the Holy Land, and he had hoped for another crusade. Earlier, Frederick had promised to set out on such a crusade, but he never did. He later came into even closer conflict with the Pope. Honorius saw the conflict brewing, but he died in 1227 before it became an open battle.
The next pope was Gregory IX, a man who had served under Honorius III. He recognized the situation that had developed, and he had the strength to act at once. Gregory almost immediately excommunicated the Emperor for his failure to keep his promises, especially for his halfhearted attempts to fulfill his crusader's vow. Frederick ignored the Pope, however, and set out to cement his relations with the Mohammedan rulers of the East.
Something of an uneasy peace eventually dominated the reign of Gregory IX for some years, while Frederick did his best to gain control of as much territory as he could. By 1239, however, the Pope's patience gave way, and he again excommunicated the Emperor. Gregory also attempted to convoke a Council in 1241 to deal with Frederick. Knowing the difficulty of traveling through land so greatly controlled by the Emperor, the Pope arranged to have the bishops brought to Rome by the fleet of Genoa. The Emperor attacked the fleet, however, and captured 100 or more of the bishops and delegates.
It seemed that nothing would stop Frederick's new plans to take Rome. As he neared the city Gregory IX, now an old man, died; this was in August of 1241. By October 25, the few cardinals left had agreed on Celestine IV; and by November 10 he had died also. The choice now passed to Pope Innocent IV, although he was not elected for another year and a half, when Louis IX of France managed to get Frederick to agree to release the cardinals he held as prisoners, and allow the election to continue.
Innocent IV was elected on June 25, 1243. He knew by now that there could be no compromise with Frederick. Either the Church became a department of the State, or Frederick would continue to fight until he made it that. On the other hand, the new Pope knew that, judging from experience, it would not be easy to outwit the Emperor. Nevertheless he set about making his plans carefully, with grim determination.
In May of 1244 he created twelve new cardinals; there were only nine left by now. He then transferred himself and his court to Lyons, in France. He had determined to convoke a General Council to deal with Frederick, and he knew this could not be done in Rome. He presumably did not make any agreement with the King of France concerning this move, although he was surely not ignorant of the fact that this saintly king (St. Louis) would be nearby in case help was needed. He chose Lyons as a more or less "free city." The French influence was strong, but it was still independent, and was not strictly within the empire of Frederick II. The city had the added advantage of being centrally located; it had been an important center in the ancient Roman Empire in Gaul.
Innocent then installed himself in the fortresslike monastery of St. Just at the beginning of December, 1244, and made arrangements for the Council. He set the opening for the feast of St. John the Baptist, June 24, 1245. In January of that year, he sent out his letters to the bishops and Christian princes. The purpose of the Council was obviously to deal with the Emperor, but the general concern with reform and with the threat of the Mohammedans also figured in his plans.
To clarify his position, Innocent IV once again excommunicated the Emperor on April 13, 1245, and on April 18 cited him to appear before the Council. At the beginning of June, Frederick wrote the cardinals protesting the action of the Pope; nevertheless he indicated that he would send his representatives to the gathering. In June the bishops began to arrive at Lyons - about 150, plus a good number of abbots.
There was a preparatory meeting two days later than the date planned for the opening of the Council. On June 26, the Pope met with Frederick's representatives in the refectory of the monastery. They proposed new conditions of peace, but the Pope would have none of it. The time for diplomacy and compromise was past. Frederick had shown that he could not be trusted and that he was intent on making the Church a department of the State. Innocent IV was determined that the matter should now be cleared up, once and for all.
The first solemn session opened in the Cathedral of St. John on June 28; the second and third sessions followed on July 5 and 17. Innocent himself preached at the opening session, comparing to the five wounds of Christ the five problems which grieved him: (1) the evil conduct of the bishops, the priests, and the faithful; (2) the onslaughts of the followers of Mohammed in the Holy Land; (3) the Greek schism; (4) the cruelty of the Tartars who had invaded Hungary; (5) the persecution of the Church by Frederick II. There was no doubt, however, that this Council had been called almost as a solemn trial of the Emperor. Frederick had been unfaithful in all ways, had attacked the Church, had held bishops captive, and had negotiated with the Mohammedans. He ought now be deposed as Emperor, since he had shown himself unworthy of this Christian office.
Basically this was a question of the relationship of the Church and State in the Middle Ages. It touched upon the question of whether any temporal ruler can dominate the Church, and whether the Christian people owe allegiance to a ruler who scorns the rights of the Church of Christ. All those who attended the Council realized from the start the true import of the discussions.
Frederick II was represented chiefly by Thaddeus of Suessa, the Archbishop of Palermo. He tried every line of argument. At first he suggested that it was not fair to try the Emperor without at least hearing him. This seemed to meet with agreement, and a delay of ten days was granted. Pope Innocent may not have been too enthused about Frederick appearing, most likely with his troops. Although he probably never said it, he is sometimes quoted as remarking: "I feel neither fit nor prepared either for prison or for martyrdom." This statement sums up the general fear felt by all.
The Emperor, however, indicated that he had no intention of appearing, so that the second session took place before the ten days were up. By this time, Frederick had lost whatever support he had had from the bishops. On July 5, he was accused of being contumacious and rebellious against the Church; a number of bishops rose to elaborate on the brutality of Frederick which they themselves had experienced. This time Frederick's representative, Thaddeus, insisted that the Emperor was on his way, and there should be a delay; he was really fighting for time. Thus the third session was postponed until July 17.
Actually Frederick had never left Verona, where he was; and he had no intention of leaving. Therefore, by the 17th all the papers were in order, and the Council proceeded to the condemnation. Thaddeus finally played his last card. He stated that if the condemnation took place, the Emperor would simply appeal to the next Pope and to a General Council, adding that this was no such Council. This brought forth a solemn statement on the part of Innocent that it was an Ecumenical Council, and the deposition took place. The decree stated that Frederick was deprived of his empire and his kingdoms, and excommunicated from the Church; all Christians were forbidden to obey him.
Innocent IV had exercised the full rights given to him by the social and political situation of the Middle Ages. The day of judgment had descended. Although we know little of them, it seems that the Council also issued a number of other canons; they dealt with the questions mentioned in the opening address of Innocent IV in the first session. With the singing of a solemn Te Deum the Council ended. The Dominicans and Franciscans were assigned the task of making known to the faithful the decision reached.
The Council was a great victory for the Church, at least in the realm of theory. The Church stood forth as the spiritual body that Christ intended it to be, free from the domination of temporal rulers. The hopes for another crusade came to nothing; the few attempts to contact the Tartars were not fully successful. But the Council was a victory of the papacy over the king, of the "cold-blooded" Innocent (as he has been described) over the unruly ruler.
Frederick continued to oppose the Pope and the Council; he contended that they had no right to act as they did. In Frederick's theory, the Pope could only crown the Emperor, but he had no right to exercise this power over the faithful. He would have attacked Lyons, but the French king let it be known that, although they were still allies of a sort, he would have to fight against him. In addition, in June of 1247 Frederick's army suffered a great defeat at Parma. He died three years later, in December of 1250. Innocent IV returned to Italy at long last. After staying a year and a half at Perugia, he entered Rome in October, 1253.
There was to be another General Council at Lyons in this century, II Lyons (held in 1274). This Council would be concerned with the still unsolved question of the Greek schism, finally stabilized under Michael Cerularius. Since this is closer in spirit to the Council of Florence (1438-1445), we will pass over it for the present, and return to it in Chapter XIII.
Thirty-two years after the death of Frederick II, another emperor entered the scene, and in large measure his intrigues were responsible for the next General Council: the Council of Vienne (1311-1312). This emperor was Philip the Fair, a ruler who came into conflict with the strongest Pope of the thirteenth century - Boniface VIII.
In 1294, Celestine V resigned his office as pope; he was one of the relatively few popes who have done so. After five months he was convinced that he was not the man for the office. As his successor the cardinals chose a man who knew his way in the world of diplomacy, and it was a fortunate choice. Just nine years before, Philip the Fair had become the new French king. He was a man who would tax the patience of the papacy. Much of what took place was not the result of what Boniface VIII himself had done; he inherited a difficult situation. He was, however, a strong-minded pope in addition to being a diplomat, and when he found himself involved in a quarrel with Philip, he fought ably.
At the beginning Boniface attempted to settle the difficulties by way of compromise; he possibly came out second best in this maneuver. His last years, therefore, showed a reawakened interest in proclaiming the spiritual independence of the Roman Pontiff. He left diplomacy aside, realizing that Philip was actually undermining the Church and supporting those fanatic Christians who were fast falling into heresy -the Spirituals and the Albigensians. The letter of December, 1301, written to the King indicated this new approach. It was entitled Ausculta, Fili, from its opening words: "Listen, O Son." It breathed the spirit of the medieval situation, in which even the Christian prince, as a member of the Church, was subject to the papal authority, and pointed out, accordingly, the effect of Philip's evil ways and bad example.
The King reacted violently to this approach, coached especially by his legal guide, Pierre Flotte. It was even suggested that Boniface was a heretic because of his pretensions; the ferment of Conciliarism was already at work in France. A gathering of bishops was held at Rome, and while there was no deposition of Philip as there had been of Frederick II, the most famous decree of Boniface's career did result -the Unam sanc-tam of November 18, 1302. It was above all a clear-cut statement of the authority of the Pope to correct the evil ways of all members of the Church, both high and low.
Although this decree did not mention either Philip or France, it was obviously aimed at him; he now continued his attacks on the Pope with even greater vehemence. In August of 1303 the Pope finally determined to excommunicate the King. Before he could do so publicly, the papal palace was stormed, and Boniface was threatened with prison or death. The aroused populace saved him for the day, but he was now an old man, about eighty; the situation was more than he could endure, and within three weeks he was dead.
The next pope, Benedict XI, continued the same line of approach in regard to the King, but when he seemed about to achieve lasting success, he died very suddenly; he had been pope for only nine months. The choice then fell on a French bishop who took the name of Clement V. He remained in France throughout his reign, and began the long fine of men known as the Avignon popes which continued for nearly seventy-five years. He was crowned at Lyons in November of 1305.
Clement V was not the strong man that Boniface VIII had been. Yet, by his attitude toward the King, he did manage to avoid any complete break with him. On the other hand, Philip was still anxious to get even with what he considered the unjust intervention of Boniface VIII. In his new plans, he contemplated a condemnation of Boniface. To this he joined the hope of a condemnation of the Order of Knights Templar, to which he had lately turned his special attention.
For a time, considering the political and military strength of Philip, it appeared that some sort of trial of the dead Pope Boniface would take place; in fact, such a trial was already in the making. Pope Clement did manage to ward off any trial of Boniface; whatever records had already been made were destroyed. By way of compromise, it was agreed that the Order should be investigated, and the final decision regarding them sought from a General Council.
In this way the Council of Vienne (a few miles south of Lyons in France) came into existence. For many years, very little was known about the proceedings of this Council; even today our information is relatively scant. By a decree of April 4, 1310, Clement fixed the opening date of the Council for October 1 of the following year; actually the first solemn session did not take place until October 16, 1311. There were possibly 300 who attended in all, but the number of bishops was smaller. For the first time, a Pope selected the bishops who were to attend. Clement's list of 231 names was later reduced to about 165 under the order of the King, and not all of these attended.
We know that the principal task of the Council was the question of the Order of Knights Templar. There was also a discussion of help for the Holy Land and questions of doctrine and morals. We come to our knowledge of the doctrinal decrees, some of them quite important, only by a study of the official decrees themselves; we still know little about the actual sessions.
After the Council began with the solemn session on October 16, 1311, nothing more was done officially until the following spring; Philip himself arrived only on March 20. In the meantime, the Council reviewed, among other things, the records of the investigations of the Order of Knights Templar. This had been going on since 1307, and history has recorded the brutality of the inquiries carried on by the King.
This Order had been founded in the early part of the twelfth century; it was an outgrowth of the Crusades, and was originally dedicated to protecting the Christian pilgrims from attack. It had a strong military flavor, and many of the Knights had died in battle. The three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience were also taken, so that it was a true religious order. In time, however, the Order had acquired large holdings, and thus became a powerful and a wealthy group. Philip had every reason to fear it.
The charge levied, however, was that this Order had been guilty of all sorts of crime. Its members supposedly denied Christ, dishonored the cross, practiced unnatural vice. The Grand Master, Jacques de Molay, had been arrested along with the other members, and they had confessed to all these crimes. History today passes a more mild judgment upon them than historians of the past. Without affirming that all the Knights were saints, it seems far more accurate to say that a good amount of torture was inflicted upon the members; they confessed to anything under these circumstances.
Pope Clement had agreed that the General Council would review all of this evidence. In the session of April 3 the final decision came forth: the Order would be suppressed, "for the good of the Church. .. .* With no further discussion, Clement and the Council solved this debate. It would seem that the Order was something of a peace offering. No particular Order is essential to the life of the Church; the Jesuits would also be suppressed for a time due to the political intrigues of the eighteenth century. In this instance, it seemed the most prudent decision under the circumstances. The large holdings of the Order, however, did not go to Philip, had he entertained any such hopes; they were given to the Hospitallers, a similar type of military order (or, in Spain, to national orders that had fought against the Moors).
The third session of May 6 was apparently concerned with doctrinal questions. One decree concerned the errors of Peter Olivi, although he is not mentioned by name. He had been a leader of a group of Franciscan monks known as the Spirituals, and had apparently fallen into error on certain points concerning Christ. In this decree the Council made its famous statement concerning the relationship of the human soul to the body.
Throughout this entire period of history, there were other movements that are difficult to identify as well-organized groups; they represent more of an attitude or an approach to Christianity. Among the Franciscans, the so-called Spirituals represented this attitude within religious fife. These tendencies, however, led to so great an emphasis upon the inner life of man and the working of the Holy Spirit, that these people failed to give the necessary attention to the visible nature of the Church. The attachment to the spirit of poverty had led to criticism of the possessions of the Church, despite the fact that a visible Church must obviously possess certain material goods; but this criticism was not far from indicating a purely spiritual or invisible Church of Christ. Their interest was also centered on a scriptural theme that frequently preoccupied the medieval mind: the second coming of Christ, which was thought to be very near at hand.
At the Council of Vienne, the bishops had turned their attention to this general fine of thought. As for the Spirituals, things were put in order rather soon under the next pope, John XXII (1316-1334). There were, however, far more radical groups of laymen and laywomen who had adopted some of this spirit; they were a source of great concern. We speak of them today as the Beghards and the Beguines (the first being the group of men; the second, the group of women). These were associations of pious people who did not take religious vows but who banded together to promote their spiritual perfection; they often engaged in special works of mercy as well. Some of these people, however, became interested in a type of spirituality not in keeping with the traditional teaching of the Church. While a large number of true "mystics" appeared in the Church during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, these people marked a decidedly false mysticism. This has been a recurring problem in the history of the Church, and the condemnation of these groups at Vienne indicates how far they had wandered from the truth.
Instead of following the general norms of prayer and fasting as means of drawing closer to God, these people so stressed "inner union with God," that the external practices became unimportant. They held that every man is blessed, and that he need not wait for heaven to "see" God; that is possible on earth. In this way, man can achieve such perfection during this life that he is entirely one with God; he no longer needs to pray or fast, since these are only means to the goal, and this man has now reached that goal.
Even more, because of his great perfection and his union with God, this "perfect man" can no longer sin. This is a teaching that reappeared in the Quietism of the seventeenth century; the name indicates the basic principle: "Let God act, and remain quiet under the hand of God." It is a belief that man need not concern himself with striving for perfection; if he "opens himself to God," nothing more is required. God alone will make him perfect.
Reduced to a more practical level, this teaching had also concluded that man need not concern himself with temptation and sin. Provided he adheres to God, he cannot sin. The Beg-hards and Beguines even concluded that if one follows the promptings of nature in regard to sex, there could be no sin; perfection would not interfere with this. In fact, the "spiritual" man is so perfect that he can allow free reign to his fleshly desires.
It is more than obvious why the Council of Vienne was called upon to condemn these teachings. These were most serious matters. In its condemnations, the Council gives us an insight into the problems of the age. In some of them, especially the criticism of the possessions of the Church and the tendency to emphasize an invisible Church, we can see already the faint outline of the teachings of the Protestant Revolt in the sixteenth century. Before this revolt, however, another crisis faced the Church - the so-called Western Schism. This dispute between the contenders for the papal throne was solved by what is perhaps the most unusual of all the General Councils, the Council of Constance in 1414.