When I was young I developed a fascination for the Middle Ages. Don't ask me why, I just did. It was the 80's and besides Dead can Dance, Matia Bazar, Fleetwood Mac, This Mortal Coil, Roxy Music, Siouxsie and the Banshees, PIL, and what not, I played Hildegard von Bingen albums. It was weird for I am not religious, neither was my upbringing. You couId say I am agnostic. Anyway, I decided to study the Middle Ages but I quit because well, there didn't seem to be a lot of job prospects.
Years later I understood that my Middle Ages thing was actually a deep fascination for the history of religion. Especially the history of the Popes. It still remains a mystery why, but there it is.
Anyway, I thought it would be cool to share tidbits of Pope history and trivia. Their stories are intriguing to say the least. So without further ado, here it goes.
The pieces you find here were first started on my other blog. This one is solely dedicated to our papal friends and their stories.
It's been a while. Time just went on and on. The world righted itself, or it's inhabitants just found a way how to live during a pandemic. Or so it seemed because sometimes, to me, it feels like quite the opposite. But anyway. I missed writing my blog with tidbits of popetrivia. I missed getting a bit lost in a world so far removed from this fragmented world I experience now. So, finally, here's a new entry. It's a radically different one.
I wanted to write about Pope Pius IX, also known as Pio Nono. But as I was desperate to write about a mellow tidbit in the turbulent history of our papal friends, I discovered that the tale of Pio Nono wasn't mellow at all. His was a controversial character. He did good in the eyes of many and just as bad in the eyes of just as many. So I stopped writing the piece. I couldn't do it. At this time I'm really fed up with polarity. Even in history! It's a shame but I'm confident that my fascination for these specific historic events will return. But for now I'm going to let it rest.
I will however still write on my blog mytrivia and post pictures on my photo blog but this will only be pieces which give me joy, calm, peace, energy, happiness or excitement. I'm sure I will continue with the popetrivia because it was a delight to write the pieces.
Of course I listened to some music while writing this piece. This time it was Philip Glass, specifically the album The Hours (Music from the Motion Picture Soundtrack) The music on this album is hauntingly beautiful.
It isn't that long ago that I discovered that a big part of my interest in (non-secular) Middle Ages and Pope history, specifically during that time-period, derives from the Romanticism period. Evidently I have an old soul ;-). Romanticism ensured that the pope (and the Middle Ages) gained in popularity and was seen as some kind of savior, a single hope for peace and tranquility for all. The instigator of this phenomenon was, perhaps strangely enough, the French Revolution.
On August 29th 1799, Pope Pius VI died. Never before did a pope die under such humiliating circumstances. When he died he was a prisoner of the French revolutionary government, who wanted to put him away so he could do 'no more harm'. His death certificate read: civilian Giovanni Angelo Braschi, occupation: high priest. This government didn't give permission to bury the pope so his body remained above ground for six months. Napoleon finally gave permission to bury him. Pius's death marked ten years of turmoil that even the most radical reformers couldn't have thought possible. Everyone was convinced that the papacy was doomed. But rarely was an institute rehabilitated as fast as the papacy did.
The French Revolution seemed like a good idea to make sure that there would be more freedom and equality for all. The King and Queen of France lost their heads, as did 15.000 others, and everything would be better for everyone. Not! It was a chaotic mess. For the Catholics it was a nightmare. The French government, with Robespierre as one of the leaders, were in favor of freedom of religion. Robespierre wanted a state religion, a religion of reason instead of, in his mind, the 'old religion'. After the French Republic was formed, a number of Catholic celebrations were canceled and municipalities had the right to abolish Catholicism all together.
So, hold on. Developments like his didn't seem a big improvement for the French people. They got rid of one usurper and seemingly gained another. But, slowly other opinions were formed and earlier views of the Middle Ages were changed. Was this period previously seen as dark, dirty and a far cry from the more sophisticated old world (ancient Greece), now more and more it was seen as a time were things were orderly and clear. During the Middle Ages there was always the Pope who was seen of the father of all who ensured Christians a trusted environment, or so it seemed in post Revolution France.
The romantic generation in 1800 preferred the pope to the Emperor as a symbol of peace, order, and harmony. Medieval Rome and the Pope were immensely popular. After all, the whole of Europe was converted to Christianity from Rome. And so the young nations learned to look up to the Pope as the source of all culture and authority. Friedrich von Schlegel (1772 - 1829) considered Medieval Germany as a shining example of a balance between rights and freedom. It was the only European country where a happy fusion had taken place of the two major cultural forces which had formed Europe: the German and the Roman spirit. Schlegel also thought it very fortunate that there had been a second leader next to the Emperor: the Pope. The authority of both lay in the will of the people, but the Emperor represented power and the Pope the right. For Schlegel (and Joseph de Maistre 1753 - 1821) it was clear that Europe owed it to the Catholic Church and the Pope that it once had a taste of freedom, and this could only happen again when the Church and the Pope would be restored in their former grandeur. It is clear that a sense of freedom in the old Medieval ways was a major part of the idealistic view of the Middle Ages and the Pope.
So, in the beginning of the 1800's the Popes status was that his political power was substantially diminished. But, like a phoenix from the flames, his prestige resurrected significantly. This was mainly supported by young intellectuals who thought that a powerful papacy could turn the emptiness of the Enlightenment and the chaos of the Revolution and restore order, authority and peace in Europe. Their idolizing of the papacy didn't click with the Popes until after 1848. From 1850 the Pope initiated the reconstruction of the Church as seen through the eyes of the Romanticists and he began to see himself as his Medieval predecessors. Never before were the Popes so powerful and important in the lives of all believers. The Church and the papacy reinvented themselves. Again. And better than ever before.
Thank you French Revolution for showing that radical change is not always the best answer in order to improve the lives of ordinary people. And that's not just in the perspective of Christianity or papacy. I wish more people would learn from our history.
Wanderer above the Sea of Fog by Caspar David Friedrich.
While writing this I listened to my Audiophile playlist on....Tidal (yep, switched to Tidal for better sound quality).
I started this infatuation with the history of the Popes with a fascination for the Middle ages. But I was always most intrigued by the non-secular parts of that period. Especially monks and all that. Again, no idea where I got that from ;-). I figured out that it must have been the romantic idea of it all: quiet, solitude, focus, profound, spiritual, scholarly, etc. Celibacy, not so much an attractive feature. Never understood that one. Anyway, through the monks I discovered the Knights Templar and I was enthralled! So I read their stories and history and their unfortunate demise. Thought about that for a long time. When I visited the Notre Dame in Paris years ago, where the leaders of the Knights were sentenced and burned at the stake, I could still sense their misery.
Be prepared for a long one.
The responsible one
Who was responsible for that misery? Well that was the King of France Philip IV or Philip the Fair (1268 - 1314) and Bertrand de Goth, also known as Clement V (1264 - 1314). I mentioned Clement earlier when I wrote about the Avignon period. Clement was Philips puppet, but I'm not sure that excuses him from his responsibility for his actions and the following atrocities against the Knights. But why eradicate them? The answer to that question is quite trivial: for their money!
Who were the Knights?
The Knights were very popular for a while, being champions of the crusades in the middle-east (the Holy Land). The order was founded in Jerusalem. So here was a religious order with a license to kill. Monks and murder; contradiction right? Not according to Bernard of Clairvaux (famous Benedictine monk), he was clear about this: monks could be knights and were entitled to receive absolution for their sins. They were soldiers of God. The Knights became rich because of the rights pope Honorius III gave them in 1129 to collect 10 percent of their possessions (i.e. land and harvest thereof). Their privileges, gifts and tax-reductions were also acknowledged by pope Innocent II in 1139. They became skilled bankers who provided loans to influential people like the pope himself, i.e. Alexander III was the first one who used them for financial support.
What went before
The misery actually started with Pope Boniface VIII (Benedetto Caetani) [1294–1303] who became involved in a power struggle with Philip IV. They were squabbling about taxes: secular leaders couldn't ask clergymen to pay taxes, according to the pope, well Philip was not amused by that. Philip was fed up and became very aggressive towards the pope who fled his wrath and ultimately died because of the aggression towards him. This marked the end of the leading position of the pope in the world. Philip showed who was boss; the secular leaders of the world, the kings!
The inquisition
During the 13th century the inquisition was brought to life. This was an institution where both church and state played a part; the church needed to convict suspects of heresy and the state imposed penalties for the crime. The inquisition was a very dangerous phenomena. The church was always right, if you were a suspect you didn't stand a chance. You were on your own and the only way to escape punishment was to acknowledge the crimes of which you were accused. Usually this was forced by torture. When the heretic recanted his earlier confession there was only one appropriate punishment: the stake.
Beginning of the End
So Philip had momentum to do as he pleased, including the persecution of a religious order like the Knights Templar. He was always in need of money as a consequence of high military expenditure and a inherited debt from his father. And he thought that if he could persecute the pope, he could also persecute a religious order where there was a lot of money to be gained. And so, on September 14th in the year 1307 Philip ordered the arrest of the French Knights, which took place on Friday the 13th (probably the source of the superstition for that date). About 2000 members were arrested, including the Knights Grand Master Jacques de Molay. The foundation for this arrest was based on the information that he got from reliable sources about the order which, according to these sources, was in fact a heretic organisation. It was said that the members renounced Christ, spit on his image, and kissed each other on several body parts. They also had intercourse with each other and worshiped an idol. Well! In this way, he was preparing his case against the Knights.
Clement
Where is Clement in all this? Well he was furious about the shenanigans of the King and he let him know that he was totally out of line. In 1308 Clement considered the allegations as being rumors and told Philip he didn't believe it. Clement and Jacques de Molay must have thought that the whole thing would fade out. But Philip was in a hurry for he needed money. He wanted to move fast and he didn't trust Clement to do his bidding. But he needed a clergyman on the case because heresy was church business. He got a minister (William d'Imbert) who was a member of the Dominican order to execute the arrest. Later he became the French inquisitor. Clement feared Philip but he assumed a leading role in the proceedings and tried do defy him as much as possible by dragging the process. Still he summoned all European leaders to arrest the Knights and to make all their possessions available to the church. His reluctance to assist in the convictions was diminished by the acknowledgment of the accusations by the Grand Master in front of a large audience. He himself was still not convinced of their guilt.
The tortures
Philip knew that they had very little evidence to substantiate the allegations and therefore the prisoners were threatened and tortured in advance of the Inquisition hearings. The order members were to be explained that a confession would lead to forgiveness, while denying would have the death penalty as a consequence. Most prisoners pleaded guilty. It is irrefutable that the majority was tortured, physically and mentally. Fatigue, threatening, fire held under feet or legs, hanging weights on testicles were commonly used so that 'justice was served in a clean and orderly way'. There were numerous reports that prisoners were killed by torture. Most Templar prisoners were priests, servants, warriors. Most knights were still fighting abroad. It made it somewhat easier to extract confessions, knights would possibly put up more of a resistance. The confessions of the Grand Master Jacques de Molay and other leaders broke all resistance and it looked like Philip got his way quite easily.
Resistance
In 1307 Jacques de Molay recanted his confession. Said he confessed out of fear for torture. So did a lot of the other members. In 1308 Clement suspended the activities of the French Inquisition. He took over all responsibilities. The church again gained power and it started to look grim for Philips case, but he pressed on in using propaganda to create support for his allegations. The next card he played was getting a group of Templars to confess by choice. This started a series of events which eventually made the Pope give permission to the French Inquisition to resume their work. in August 1308 the Pope presented his accusation against the Knights Templar order. It existed of 127 articles of heretic practices. It included the denying of Christ, new members were obliged to spit on the cross, the Templars worshiped a cat, the members were stimulated to perform homosexual acts, they hardly gave anything to the poor... and more of this. The Pope gave the whole thing a formal stature and hearings were to be started in Lyon.
The Council and the End of the Knights Templars
In 1310 approximately 550 imprisoned Templars were assisted by a great number of colleagues as defenders for their trials. They actually prepared a good case. But Philip put a stop to their efforts when he ordered 54 members to be burned at the stake for recanting their earlier confessions. This and other events scared the remaining defenders off and they fled the scene, further efforts were nipped in the bud. On Saturday the 16th of October 1311 Clement opened the council in the basilica of Vienne in Lyon. The attendants discussed what to do with the possessions of the order and Philip wanted to form a new order. When Philip in 1312 appeared with a large army, the Pope caved and on April 3rd he announced to the council that he had decided to dissolve the order of the Knights Templar, this was stated in the Vox in excelso . He would consider later what to do with the members and their possessions. Ultimately possessions were divided. And the leaders of the order were subjected to a papal court. On March the 18th 1314 in Paris Jacques de Molay and Godfried of Charnay declared that the order was completely innocent and to the horror of the audience they recanted publicly their confessions. Philip sentenced the two men to death immediately and they would to be burnt at the stake. Legend tells us that just before the fire got to him, Jacques de Molay cursed the King and the Pope. He predicted that they would have to stand trial in heaven within a year and would have to take responsibility for their actions. And indeed, both died that same year.
And that's a wrap! I know Tumblr is supposed to be a mini blog platform. This piece is not a mini blog, I guess. But I don't think I really care. When I want to tell a story like this one, I have to use all the words to tell it as I want or need to. And I used as little as I could ;-).
While writing this I listened to a nice mix of my current favorite songs on Deezer.
And I mean literally. I thought about this when the temperatures finally rose in our neck of the woods. I'm not a big fan of sweltering heat and neither were several popes who lived in Rome during the summer before the invention of electricity and cooling devices. I remembered that I noticed the several mentions of Roman summer heat in the John Julius Norwich book 'The Popes'. I love this book and not in the least for the way he wrote it. It's even kind of cheeky now and again ;-).
Not only the Popes suffered from the heat and fled to palaces in cooler places. Roman summer was a notorious enemy of several armies. For instance Frederick Barbarossa's army fell in 1167 in one week. Rapidly following on his earlier triumph, heavy rain began to fall, followed by a still and oppressive heat on which pestilence erupted. Within a matter of days it was no longer possible to bury all the dead and the rising piles of corpses, swollen and decomposing in the merciless heat of a Roman August, made their own awful contribution to the sickness and the horror.
Innocent III (1198-1216) loathed the Roman summer and tried to avoid it when he could. In 1202 however he couldn't escape it. The sun was murderous, the flies an additional torture. So much so that no one in the papal party tried to venture to a nearby lake to cool down because it took too much effort. Innocent did though and splashed the cool water on his face. This bit of trivia is especially nice and gives a little more insight in this pope under which leadership the medieval papacy rose to extraordinary heights.
However when Innocent died, his body was stolen from the house in which he had died. His body was found naked and rapidly decomposing in the summer heat. The disrespectful burial of one of the greatest medieval popes was later rectified by Leo XIII at the end of the 19th century. His bones returned to the Lateran in a suitcase of a priest, travelling by rail.
In 1691 Alexander VIII (1689–91) died. The ensuing conclave lasted 5 months, the longest since 1305. It would have lasted longer had it not been for the summer heat, which was exceptional even for Roman standards, which raised the temperature in the Sistine Chapel to incredible heights.
Nowadays the Roman summer temperatures are still noteworthy. A quick Google search led me to: 'Honestly? Rome's climate in summer is relentlessly hot. Most people who live and work in the city get out as fast as they can when summer comes, and head for the coast. Temperatures can reach as high as 45° C, 113°F, and there is often little or no breeze. It's hot, it's sweaty and it's very, very tiring'. The Popes weren't nagging it seems. Luckily for them airconditioning is now an option so they are much more comfortable in their long robes during Roman summer heat.
While writing this I listened to Röyskopp - The Inevitable End. No association with this entry, just very nice. Especially 'Something in My Heart'
Regardless of the fact that I love history, I can't say that I know it all. Of course not. Besides, I'm not a historian. You could say I have more than an average interest. No, scratch that. I'm intrigued, fascinated, captivated, pulled in by all history involving ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, and the history of Europe (specifically the Middle Ages and the Renaissance). And last but not least, the history of the Popes. Their stories cover a lot of history on a lot of my favorite subjects. And played a major part in the history of the Holy Roman Empire.
But, I never quite understood the foundation of the term Holy Roman Empire. There were numerous kings and emperors involved during a long period of time and who was what!? Reading several books about the Popes and other historical tales raised the question even more. The characterization by Voltaire said it all: The Holy Roman Empire was ‘Neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire’—
Alright, but what is it then? To begin with, the empire was founded in 800 and was dissolved in 1806. It started with the coronation of Charles the Great or Charlemagne (King of the Frankish Kingdom, later German Kingdom) by Pope Leo III. This marked a slow transition point from the Roman Empire into something new. The exact term "Holy Roman Empire" was not used until the 13th century, before which the empire was referred to by various other terms as Christian empire, or Roman empire. The dynastic office of Holy Roman Emperor was traditionally elective through the mostly German prince-electors, the highest-ranking noblemen of the empire; they would elect one of their peers as "King of the Romans" to be crowned emperor by the Pope, although the tradition of papal coronations was discontinued in the 16th century. Napoleon Bonaparte broke this streak, but that is a different story.
The connection between the German rulers and the Popes was forged through the assistance of Pepin, Charles' father, when Pope Zachary (741 - 52) asked for protection against the threat of the Lombard Kings. For his help Pepin was anointed protector of the Romans and of the Roman Church. A title many a King desired.
Leo III was instrumental in the recognition of Charles as Emperor. For the Byzantine rulers still saw themselves as Emperor. And when Leo crowned Charles as Emperor, they refused to acknowledge him as such. What mattered in the west was that Leo’s action implied that he, the pope, held ultimate power. This question was to become central to the relationship between the emperors and the papacy until the 13th century.
Charles interfered in church affairs. He promoted church reform and the establishment of monasteries, where the scribes copied ancient texts so that now 90 percent of all ancient texts known to us derived from the work of these scribes.
Charlemagne as imagined by Albrecht Dürer, 1514.
The link between the papacy and the empire loosened after the 14th century and was severely undermined by the Reformation. Until then the connection between was a firm one. Their stories interlinked.
There were several dynasties along the way who produced heirs to the Imperial throne. Some were good (Otto I the Great) some were less impressive. To see a complete list of all the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire, check this out.
The story of the Holy Roman Empire ended in 1806 when Napoleon elevated Bavaria and Württemberg into kingdoms and formed the Confederation of the Rhine. In response to an ultimatum from Napoleon, Francis II agreed to dissolve the Holy Roman Empire.
I guess for me the Holy Roman Empire is this; a continuation of the Western Roman Empire blessed upon by the Holy Pope. Just to keep it simple :-).
While writing this I listened to my favorite entries for the Eurovision Songcontest which takes place tonight in Rotterdam, my hometown. I believe this is highly appropriate while writing about the Holy Roman Empire ;-).
My absolute favorite is the Ukrainian entry SHUM by Go_A (hauntingly beautiful, mesmerizing, spiritual, deeply positive with a dark edge), followed by the Swiss entry Tout l'univers by Gjon's Tears (ugh, so beautiful), the Lithuanian entry Discotheque by THE ROOP, the Finnish entry Dark Side by Blind Channel, and the Belgian entry The Wrong Place by Hooverphonic and the Albanian entry Karma by Anxhela Peristeri (I love the drama).
I tried to keep it kind of chronological but I decided to let go of that principle. And because I just cannot wait to tell you about Avignon, I am going to tell you about it now without feeling that I'm screwing up the timeline ;-). Beware, it's gonna be a long one.
It's the weirdest thing that for a long period of time (1309–67 and 1370–6) the Popes resided in Avignon after centuries and centuries being seated in Rome. It took a while but all the papal power, influence and money was eventually centered in Avignon. Why, you might ask.
In 1305 the Frenchman Bertrand de Got, Archbishop of Bordeaux, who took the name of Clement V was elected as the new Pope. The King of France, Philip IV (or Philip the Fair) pressured Clement to do as he pleased. To begin with he insisted that the new Pope would be crowned in France. Maybe Clement had every intention to move to Rome eventually but decided to stay in France in order to help calm things down between England and France so that they could combine their forces for another Crusade to the Holy Land. We all know that the appeasement between the countries didn't happen for a long, long time (Hundred Years' War). In any case, Clement decided to settle in Avignon on the east bank of the Rhone. He was a puppet of the French King and he was forced to play a big part in the disgusting plan of the King to get rid of the Knights Templar, but that's another story.
Avignon, in 1309 a village with 5,000 inhabitants, would be the home of 6 popes after Clement and be the seat of the Popes for 68 years. The poet Petrarch described it as a disgusting city, ‘a sewer where all the filth of the universe is collected’. Sounds delightable. Then again Petrarch was also not a fan of Rome. I presume that most cities during that time were disgusting with shit and piss running down the streets given the fact there was no plumbing or proper sanitation. By the way, Petrarch wasn't solely talking about sanitation.
Pope John XXII (1316-34) came after Clement. When he died Avignon was no longer a stinking village but a wealthy city where whole districts were swept away for mansions and palaces to be build for the cardinals and for the rich and famous. Avignon was booming. Upon seeing the debauchery that took place The Wolf of Wall Street would pale in comparison ;-). John founded the vineyards of Châteauneuf-du-Pape and a surviving record of provisions he ordered for a banquet to celebrate the marriage of his great-niece included the astounding list of:
9 oxen, 55 sheep, 8 pigs, 4 wild boars, 200 capons, 690 chickens, 3,000 eggs, 580 partridges, 270 rabbits, 4 plovers, 36 ducks, 58 pigeons, 4 cranes, 2 pheasants, 2 peacocks, 292 small birds, three hundredweight of cheese, 2,000 apples and other fruit, and 11 barrels of wine.
I can't even relate... and it only got more extravagant with Clement VI.
In 1335 work had begun on the Palais du Papes (Palace of the Popes) and there was no longer any doubt that the papacy was to remain in Avignon.
In 1348 the Black Death had reached Avignon. When I read about it now it reminds me of our current struggle with the covid-19 pandemic. They didn't know what caused the plague or how it could be cured. And the death rate was staggering. After Europe awakened from the nightmare they searched for a scapegoat and found it in the Jews (again). The Pope, Clement VI, condemned the subsequent massacres and threatened with excommunication for all who threatened the Jews. He was the first Pope who actively defended the Jews. But I digress, again.
In the mean time: after half a century without a pope, Rome had become a sad city. Pilgrims arriving in Rome were shocked by the ruins and decay. Rome needed it's Bishop, and the wealth therewith, back. Pope Urban V tried to return in 1367, but again the animosity between England and France that hindered a potential successful crusade (that crusade again!) messed it up. He returned to Avignon in 1370. By then Avignon was a fine and prosperous city with a population of 30,000. It was a religious and intellectual centre and a focus of banking and international trade. With churches and monasteries, palaces and mansions.
In the end it was Gregory XI who moved the papacy back to Rome. He believed that despite the obvious advantages of Avignon, the papacy belonged in Rome. And well, it did, didn't it. So he set sail to Rome and in 1377 he arrived. The papacy was back in Rome, for good this time.
I can understand that by that time a whole generation grew up not knowing any better than to believe the Pope belonged in Avignon. What I believe to be the most fascinating part of this episode is to see what a papacy can do in regard of wealth and prosperity. Nowadays Avignon is just a city and best known for the period of time when the Pope resided there. And Rome. After the Pope returned, Rome resurrected again as the true seat of the papacy and regained its splendor bit by bit.
Palais du Papes, Avignon
While writing this I listened to the Susan Sundfor album Ten Little Lovesongs. I'm still so not done with this one. If you want a really, really annoying song to get stuck in your head, you might want to listen to this one. Really appropriate for this entry :-).
Pope Joan (and now for something completely different)
The papal stories are predominantly male stories. When you read the history of the popes it seems there were hardly any women at all. Well there were obviously, but mostly not of any consequence in this religious and political adventure. But I was surprised to discover that it seemed that there had been a female pope, Pope Joan. Of course it was all improbable and has to be set aside as a legend. Nevertheless, there is enough historic evidence in favor of her existence, as well as evidence against it.
Pope Joan (?855-57) disguised herself as a man and was chosen as Pope John VII or VIII. The most notable legend goes that she became pregnant by her companion. And while in procession from St Peter to the cathedral of the pope, St John of Lateran, she delivered her baby on the street. Another telling of this tale has her giving birth while mounting her horse. By Roman justice she was then tied to the horse's tail and dragged and stoned by the people. Ugh!
After her death some precautions were taken to prevent making the same mistake. The Welsh priest Adam of Usk (1352 - 1430) is the first to tell us the 'fun' fact that at the election of the pope he is seated on a chair which is pierced beneath so that one of the younger cardinals can feel the proof that the pope-elect is indeed of the male gender. This so-called chaisse percée could be one of the two 'sedia curules' which were used for 400 years in papal enthronements. The chair stands in the Cabinet of Masks and has indeed a hole in the seat.
So you can believe it or not. For me, I'm not sure if I even want to believe it. There is so much disgust and disdain about the whole story. I sincerely hope it didn't happen for I get so sad for the woman (and her child) who had to get through the whole thing. And even though it is now many centuries later, I still can't see it happening. Unfortunately there hasn't been enough progress in that regard. A female pope... One can only imagine. For now.
Pope Joan Movie Poster
While writing this I listened to the wonderful Hans Zimmer soundtrack for the The Da Vinci Code. I needed some female support so especially the hauntingly beautiful Kyrie for the Magdalene helped.
So the Western-Roman Empire fell in 476. This meant that there must have been an Eastern-Roman Empire. Well there was, Byzantium. After 476 Byzantium was the Roman Empire, the Emperor resided in Constantinople. There were in fact two Romes, in the 'old' Rome resided the most important bishop of the Christian Church, the Pope. The bishop of 'new' Rome, Constantinople, we now know as the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Greek orthodox Church.
Since Constantine proclaimed Christianity as the official religion in the Roman Empire this was forged by law, the so called constitutio. Emperor Justinian I called it the codex in 529. This codex was the basis for the source of law and was being used till 1946! Anyway, I digress (again - but there's so much history here and it's tempting to tell it all ;-). What I was building up to is the fact that because of the Imperial law, the constitutio, the Pope and the Emperor of Rome were stuck with each other.
Who was the Christian equivalent of the Emperor? Well, in 691 the ecumenical council stated that there were five prime bishops: of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. They were equals. But, because the Bishop of Rome was the first and the successor of St Peter himself, he was the primus inter pares. The Pope ruled! Try to imagine, things (regarding the Catholic Church) would have been really different if this wouldn't have been the case. I say this because the institute was build and forged on a golden Empire, the great Roman Empire. In a city which was known for its splendor. But by now there was not much left of the splendor and it would get much, much, worse. Constantinople was the center now, the main capitol. But the attraction of Rome for new rulers remained and not in the least because of the Bishop of Rome, the Pope.
This Pope had to fend for himself against his enemies. His colleague in Constantinople had the help of the Emperors army. Because of this, our Popes became autonomous and sought out help on their own. For example, when the Byzantine powers were deteriorating half way through the eighth century, the Pope sought patronage with the Franks. Until this time the permission of the Byzantine Emperor was needed when choosing a new Pope. This rule was largely abandoned when Charlemagne ascended to the throne in 741 and the subsequent coronation to Emperor by the Pope. This introduced a whole new chapter in the history of our Papal friends.
Justinian I
While writing this I listened to one of the most unique performers of this world, Lisa Gerrard, in this case her album The Mirror Pool, including the brilliant Sanvean. Lovely, lovely, beautiful gloom and doom ;-).
When I read more and more books about the Popes and their history, I became more and more aware that not all Popes, or their entourage, were very reverent or God-fearing. On the contrary. It's not that I expected them to be, I really had no idea and kept an open mind whatsoever. Like I mentioned earlier I am not religiously inclined, but regardless all that and the fact I am (really) not squeamish I was still a bit taken aback by what I discovered.
For example John VIII (872–82) was assassinated by his own priests, they poisoned him and when that didn't work they hammered in his skull. Formosus (891–6) died in his bed but his successor Stephen VI (896–7), exhumed the body of Formosus, eight months after his death, clothed in pontifical clothing, propped up on a throne and subjected to a mock trial (this picture was stuck in my head for quite a while) finally his body (minus the three fingers of his right hand that he had used to give blessings) was tossed into the Tiber. Stephen himself was thrown in prison and strangled, call it karma. Sergius III (904–11) had a mistress of 15 years old, Marozia, Senatrix of Rome, their son would become Pope John XI. John XII (955–64), grandson of Marozia) was in his teens when he became Pope and he was the most abominable of them all in this time period. He lived in open adultery, his rapes of widows and virgins scaring off female pilgrims.
Later on in history we see fine examples such as Rodrigo Borgia, Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), who bribed his way into the papacy. Though he was not a terrible Pope politically, he was indifferent to religion, a womanizer, had multiple children, and was not opposed to assassination of his enemies. His nemesis Giuliano della Rovere, Pope Julius II (1503–13) was a soldier, literally with little regard of honor, (probably) had a homosexual relationship with Cardinal Francesco Alidosi, was worldly ambitious, unscrupulous, died of syphilis. But, we owe to him Michelangelo's paintings in the sixteenth chapel, the rebuilding of St Peter by Bramante, fresco's by Raphael.
There were many more examples of Popes who had trouble with celibacy, spending money, gambling, simony, nepotism, indulgence, among other things. It stands next to acts of greatness, love and kindness. It's like they are human after all.
Julius II (Giuliano della Rovere) [1503–13] (cover of the graphic novel 'The Horrendous Pope by Alexandro Jodorowsky and Theo)
Nice tune to listen to while reading this: Watermät - Ruff Like This
For the Christians in Rome during the first couple of centuries AD, life in general was still quite miserable. They were still being persecuted by some Roman Emperors or Governors. But by 260 Gallienus succeeded the cruel Valerian as Emperor. Gallienus reversed his father’s policies, allowing Christians throughout the Empire not only to worship in freedom but to convert to another faith. There were several competing religions, including the cult of Mithras, that of Sol Invictus (the unconquered sun) and of course the old worship of the Olympian gods, which was kept going by an official priesthood more as an ancient tradition than as a living faith. But in Rome the Christians by now outnumbered them all. Still there was one more ruler (Diocletian 284-305) the Christians had to suffer before a promising figure appeared on stage.
Constantine was named Emperor in 306. He is now known as Constantine the Great and is considered one of the most influential man who ever lived. He made two decisions that changed the course of history. The first one was religious: he adopted Christianity both personally and imperially. Resulting in the fact that Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. The second one was political: he build a new city on the shores of the Bosphorus on the site of the old Greek city of Byzantium. The new city was called Constantinople (now known as Istanbul), the Roman Empire became the Byzantine Empire, nevertheless it remained the Roman Empire for all its subjects.
He was the first Christian Emperor. He gathered the first ecclesiastical council (Nicaea). When Constantine died in 337 Christianity was the official religion in the Roman Empire. He initiated builds for great basilica like St Peter on the Vatican Hill, Saint John Lateran, St Helen's, St Sebastian. And let's not forget the magnificent St Sophia in Constantinople (now known as Hagia Sophia).
Constantine actually dwarfed the Pope himself (Sylvester I (314-335) but I think of him as a great enabler of what the papacy is today.
Gregory, son of Gordian, came from a rich and well-established Roman family, with strong connections to the papacy. He was the first monk to be elected Pope when he was 50. He wasn't thrilled about it. Gregory led a segregated life in his Benedictine cloister cell. In his new role he compared himself to a monkey forced to play a lion.
It may have started that way for Gregory but apparently the role grew on him. Power does something to people. Only greatness wields it appropriately. At heart Gregory remained a humble monk, carrying on the traditions of his hero St Benedict in every way that he could. It was perhaps because of this humility – for no man was ever less spoiled by power – that he is considered one of the greatest Popes.
When I first read about him I was eager to find out what he did to earn such a magnificent title. Well, at first it was kind of disappointing what I found out. I don't know what I expected but not a 'Servant of the Servants of God', as he called himself, who thought it was high time the people should be made more aware of their religious consciousness for the end of times were near! Bit of a gloom-and-doom character. Don't get me wrong, I like gloom-and-doom, it's practically my middle-name. But I don't like the fear evoking kind.
Also, in 594 he sent forty monks across the North Sea to convert England to Catholicism. Their leader was August of Canterbury, who became the first archbishop of England. In England, August found colonies of Christians who had hardly ever heard of the Pope and priests who were almost all of them married. Gregory thought that they had to choose between the altar or the marital bed. Any form of sex in his eyes was detestable, every man was born in grave sin, every infant who died without being baptized went straight to hell. Gregory sounded like a lovely fellow.
To avert a plague epidemic he held penitential processions and when he saw the archangel Michael shed his sword on the castle walls of the Castel Sant'Angelo he knew the danger was averted. Reeks a bit of superstition but in his case it was a show of his deep religious belief in mystical signs.
Gregory was well versed in the classics but he was also well aware that the refined Latin language which spoke of mythical figures was slowly being transformed in something more primitive: a kind of bastard language, not Latin and not completely Italian yet and a popular belief, loaded with stories of magic and miracles.
Most clergyman were preaching to people who didn't relate, didn't understand. Gregory thought that this had to change. The preaching of the new Pope spoke to all people, young and old, and was full of angels, devils, apparitions and miracles in plain language that anybody could understand. Religion became a magic box and in that regard Gregory introduced the Middle Ages with this new approach to bring religion to the people. Now I'm getting more excited about this Pope.
He was also an excellent politician. By exploiting the properties of the Church (the Church was by now the largest single landowner in the West) he took care of the Roman citizens by providing them with grain and oil supplies. It seemed that Gregory was a social person after all, especially for that time. The world of Gregory was a world where the Byzantine Emperor Justinian was constantly trying to reverse the clock and regain the western part of the Byzantine Empire. Gregory wasn't a fan of the Empire. Just two years before the start of Gregory’s pontificate, the Patriarch of Constantinople, John the Faster, took it upon himself to adopt the title of ‘Ecumenical’ – thereby implying universal supremacy over all other prelates, including the Pope himself. That didn't sit well with Gregory.
Emperors who used to reside in Rome, were now seated in Constantinople - the center of the Roman Empire. The Pope however was, as always, resided in Rome. Gregory had a lot of contacts with Western rulers but his political agenda was mostly dictated by the Roman Empire. In this capacity he extended the truce with the Langobards, who were a threat for the Roman structure. And when that truce ended and they still marched unto Rome, he bought them of with a yearly estimation, and so he insured the safety of the Roman citizens for a while longer.
As the greatest Pope of the early Middle Ages, Gregory’s most important achievement was to implant lasting in men’s minds the idea that the Roman Catholic Church was the most important institution in the world, and that the papacy was the supreme authority within it. He made important changes in the liturgy and showed a particular interest in church music: traditional plainsong is commonly known today as ‘Gregorian chant’ – even though in his time it remained largely undeveloped – and the Roman Schola Cantorum, probably the first body of trained singers to take over from the clergy and congregation and, as such, the ancestor of the modern cathedral choir school, was his personal creation. Then there were the Dialogues, dealing with the lives and miracles of Italian saints – including of course Benedict – a series of sermons on the gospels and a critical essay on the book of Job.
All in all, when you consider the context a.k.a. the historical perspective of the time in which Gregory lived, he really did great things. The liturgy, marking the beginning of the Middle Ages through his mystical telling during his sermons in a common language, the early beginning of Gregorian Chant, of Church music, his political talent and his care for the Roman citizens. It was a lot. He was also genuinely loved, so much so that immediately after his death his people demanded that he should be made a saint. The title of ‘the Great’ came later.
I'm convinced, he was great.
While I wrote this I listened to 2 songs 'Let Me In by Kleerup' and 'Fade Away by Susanne Sundfor'. On repeat! I'm currently in love with these songs. More appropriate music however could have been Gregorian Chant by The Monks of the Abbey of Notre Dame which is so beautiful.
The procedure governing papal elections had always been vague. The bishops of Rome and supreme pontiffs (popes) of the Catholic Church were often appointed by their predecessors or by political rulers (a greenhouse for nepotism). Later it was theoretically based on a settlement, originated by the Emperor Lothair in 824 and renewed by Otto the Great in the following century, according to which the election was to be carried out by the entire clergy and nobility of Rome; the new pontiff (the head of the Roman Catholic Church), however, was to be consecrated only after he had taken an oath to the Emperor. Such a decree, loose enough in its original conception and looser still in its interpretation through well over 200 years, was bound to lead to abuses (which it did).
On 13 April 1059 Pope Nicholas held a synod at the Lateran; and there, in the presence of 113 bishops he announced the decree which, with one or two later amendments, continues to regulate papal elections to the present day. For the first time the responsibility for electing a new pope was placed squarely on the cardinals, effectively the senior clergy in Rome. Only after a pontiff had been elected was the agreement of the rest of the clergy and people to be sought.
Even then the elections tended to be hit-and-miss affairs, their rules never formally laid down. Until Pope Alexander convoked the Third Lateran Council in 1179, the most important result of which was the decree governing papal elections. At last Alexander ordained that the right to elect a new pope was to be restricted to the College of Cardinals, with a two-thirds majority required before any candidate could be elected. Apart from the fact that since the pontificate of John Paul II the right to vote has been restricted to those cardinals aged under eighty (kind of discriminatory), virtually the same rules apply today.
Later we will see that this procedure is still not as neat as you might think. Rodrigo Borgia (Pope Alexander VI) has shown this in a spectacular way. But still, just think, this process was first laid down 962 years ago. And it's been used in the same way for 842 years. I find this amazing!
Until now there have been 236 Popes and 39 antipopes. The title Pope, which derives from the Greek papas, however was until the 9th century given to any senior member of the community. By no means did it have the same connotation it has today.
The name John has been chosen the most (23 times). A name like Hyginus only once. I wonder why.
An antipope was someone who was chosen out of protest because there was not enough consensus for the chosen Pope. Or there was but a number of people chose to ignore that. You can still see that happening now I guess. I figure that the Popes invented stuff like that. It was, or it became, a very, very political tool. But, I digress. The highest number of antipopes were named during the so-called Western Schism (1378 - 1418). I'm sure I will get into that in a later post.
The first Pope was St Peter. His name originally was Simon, a fisherman. Later on he became the first of the disciples of Jesus and of the twelve apostles. St Matthew (XVI, 18–19) reports Jesus as saying to him: ‘Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church … I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.’ On those few words – the Latin version of which is inscribed around the base of the dome of St Peter’s Basilica – rests the entire structure of the Roman Catholic Church. Nice fact: the name Peter derives from the Aramaic kephas, translated into the Greek petros, meaning a rock or stone.
Whether Jesus meant that he was to establish a church in Rome where infinite successors would follow and reside in that same city is unproven and seems quite unlikely. The city of Jerusalem would surely be a more preferred city by Jesus for such a holy function.
It is unclear what happened to Peter later in life. An early tradition states that St Paul and St Peter were both in Rome in 64 A.D. The historian Tacitus writes that they were one of the victims of a raging fire in the city. A fire presumably caused by the Emperor Nero, it wouldn’t surprise me if he did. However in The Acts of the Apostles by St Luke we see stories of St Paul which took place after the time of the fire. And it is sure that St Peter was with him at that time. It is all very vague. Was Peter really in Rome? He certainly had good reason to, simply because he was entrusted the mission to the Jews, and – with some 30,000–40,000 Jews living in Rome at that time – the early Roman Church would have been very largely Jewish. In any case, Paul met his fate through beheading and Peter was said to be crucified upside down.
In the second century it was generally accepted that Paul and Peter had both been martyred in Rome. There were two cemeteries that were associated with their martyrdom: one outside the walls on the road to Ostia, the other on the Vatican Hill. When, in about A.D. 320, the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great decided to build a basilica dedicated to St Peter on the Vatican Hill, he was clearly determined to build it on that precise spot and nowhere else. Right on top of the cemetery. Kind of creepy and disrespectful indeed, but ok. Constantine believed that the bones of St Peter were buried here and that was enough reason to forego all other arguments against building right there.
The thing is, Peter’s function was to be a foundation stone for the Church. And though the doctrine of the Apostolic Succession, which is accepted by both the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches, holds that bishops represent a direct, uninterrupted line of spiritual descent from the Apostles, it doesn’t say anywhere in the New Testament that they may inherit the distinctive commission that was given to Peter alone.
So, in the end. You could say that Peter was the first Pope but actually he was not. He didn’t really build the Roman church. The only thing that links him to the institute that it now is, are those 24 words from Matthew XVI 18-19. It is centuries after the death of Peter that the institute starts to build. Starting with Constantine and his basilica which very fitting would bare the name of the man on whose bones it was built: St Peter.
"Petrus in de gevangenis" (St. Peter in prison) (1631) by Rembrandt van Rijn
While writing this I listened to a Hildegard von Bingen album, yep I still do that sometimes. I think it is fantastic that so much of her music can be found on digital platforms like Deezer.
