Separate Religious Powers

1738 Words7 Pages
When one considers the separation of secular and spiritual powers, he or she may refer to the modern American concept of maintaining religion and government as separate powers. Although they are separate entities and the United States government attempts to separate spiritual and secular power, they still overlap on occasion. The separation of these two powerful entities has not always been the norm though. Throughout the Middle Ages, the church and the imperial powers were in constant struggle for authority both in the church, over control of investiture, and in the secular realm as well. It should be made clear that there were no “states” in regards to modern definitions, but rather kingdoms and city-states that ruled throughout what we now…show more content…
The power of the king to rule and the authority of bishops to lead the church both derived from God. The power of the kings was believed to derive directly from God. The rituals involved in the coronation of the king involved many of the same rituals involved in church ceremonies and sacraments. For example, like priests, kings were anointed with holy oil during their coronation ceremonies. This example shows the “holy” impression that the kings embodied. This anointing with oil made the kings like priests, although they could not “consecrate things or people, and they were not expected to be celibate.” The power bestowed by God to the kings gave kings the impression that they now had primary authority over all secular as well as spiritual matters. The king had both the right and the responsibility to intervene in the church as well as the duty to protect and supervise the church. This idea of responsibility for the church drove the kings to believe that they had the power of investiture. Investiture was simply the ritual of bestowing power, but the controversy arose from who the power came from. Investiture in the tenth and eleventh centuries became one of the most significant duties of the king. The person who invested a bishop had a position of power over him and if the king…show more content…
Gregory not only excommunicated Henry IV but he also “released all his subjects and vassals from their sworn allegiance.” The Pope began seeking possible replacements for the king. Despite Henry’s attempt to make amends with Gregory, which resulted in the eradication of the excommunication, Henry’s opposition elected Rudolf of Swabia as the antiking in March of 1077, which resulted in a civil war that soaked up the majority of Henry’s time and resources. Around the same time, Henry gathered all of his appointed bishops to condemn Gregory and elect a new pope, which forced Gregory to once again excommunicate the
Open Document