Schism between Church, Politics and Religion.?

Question

School kids kindly view Egress here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061227/us_nm/brown_death_film_dc

What were the perceived or recorded events in the Christian Church that finally lead to loss of political power and it’s military might?

Does this stem from the Orthodox church as represented in Rome ?

Key references appreciated, if any survived the carnage of the crusades, knights of St John and subsequent wars.

Note: This is not an academic exercise for all the school chidren on winter holiday.

Correction: Chidren : children
Commentary: Better to have tried than to never have. A pressing question on "thinkers rebelling from the socially accepted sovreignty of the church." How did this evolve ? Raising next question.

REMARKS

Caicos Turkey lays out a good summary of established records for curious passer-bys to read, which also serves to prepare the ground work.

Bangnoai // Probably right and hence to post questions elsewhere with YA as a test bed for commonly accepted ideas and notions: verification of accepted or ludicrous questions, answers, and so on.

JoHansen lays out a brief but clear version of transpired pivotal events suitable for the average YA.


JoHansen’s reply will be used as a forward with Caicos Turkey in support of the chosen answer. Good answers all.

Answer 1

Catholic church. Christian churches in general never had much political power or military might. But the things that chipped away at the Catholic Church's power were:

Great Schism of 1378 separated the church into the greek orthodox and roman catholic, essentially dividing Europe into east/west halves, and the roman catholics losing control over the east.

The Reformation itself starting in 1517 with Martin Luther and his 95 Theses split the holy roman empire with a series of holy wars. In france, Henry IV issued the Edict of Nantes which granted religious choice between Catholic or Protestant (huguenots), which made the church lose power as well.

Decline of chiefly catholic nations (Spain and France) because of various revolutions and just their decline of power.

The Enlightenment- thinkers rebelling from the socially accepted sovreignty of the church, and rulers exerting absolute control, rather than following the church. Absolutists including HEnry IV, Henry VIII, Catherine the Great, Frederick the Great, Louis XIII, Louis XIV, among others.

The Rebellion of Henry VIII of england and the institution of the Anglican Church, severing Britain (one of the most powerful nations in the world) from the church so he could marry as many women as he wanted.

Widespread literacy. In the dark ages, only nobility and church leaders were literate. When more people could read (and literature was more widely available), and thereby think for themselves, they pushed for reforms and worker's revolutions and chose who really was the boss.

Unification of Italy's City-States and the red shirts. Italy was made up of various smaller kingdoms who were pretty much ruled by the Vatican until its violent unification in the 1900s. The unification could not touch the Vatican, which is why it remains a separate nation today.

None of this came from Rome, it's not a conspiracy, just changes over time.

Answer 2

I appreciate your question although I think it would take more than what the scope of Y!A provides for to discuss such questions.

I'm a Roman Catholic, and I could never understand why schims HAD to be perpetrated in our history. In that, Roman Church indeed had responsibilities, which I'm not to deny.

Back to the point, it seems to me when Church authorities mingle with politics, what gets out of that is a mangled faith.

Answer 3

The Holy Roman Empire was the medieval state that embraced most of central Europe and Italy under the rule of the German kings from 962 to 1806. It was considered to be a restoration and continuation of the ancient Roman Empire, although in fact it had little in common with its predecessor. Earlier, the Frankish king Charlemagne had revived the same name. His Roman Empire lasted from 800 to 925. In 962, Otto I of Germany and Pope John XII cooperated in a second revival. Threatened in his possession of the Papal States by Berengar II, king of Italy, John begged Otto to come to his aid. Otto did so, and the pope solemnly crowned him Emperor of the Romans as a reward. From this time, the German kings claimed the right to rule the empire.
In theory, the Holy Roman Empire (the word "Holy" was added during the 12th century) reflected two important medieval values: the unity of all Christians, or at least all Western Christians, in a single state as the civil counterpart to the One Holy Catholic Church; and a concept of hierarchical political organization that called for one ultimate head over all existing states. In practice, the empire never fully conformed to either ideal. France and England, for example, never acknowledged any real subordination to the emperor, although they recognized a vague supremacy in him. The empire's aims varied according to the program and philosophy of the many emperors and popes who controlled its destiny. The German kings - who called themselves kings of the Romans, not kings of Germany, as soon as they were elected by the German princes - considered themselves entitled to become Roman emperor as soon as they could arrange the imperial coronation, which was supposed to take place in Rome at the hands of the Pope. (By later convention, they are called kings of Germany, however, and many of them never secured imperial coronation.) From the ruler's point of view, the imperial title established his right to control Italy and Burgundy as well as Germany and was thus a potential source of power, wealth, and prestige. The Empire's vast size and the disparity of its peoples, however, were serious obstacles to effective rule and good government.
The churchmen who crowned the emperors, and thus actually sustained the Empire, considered it to be the church's secular arm, sharing responsibility for the welfare and spread of the Christian faith and duty-bound to protect the Papacy. This view of the relationship between church and state, which dated from the reign of Roman emperor Constantine I, was generally accepted by both emperors and Popes. In practice, however, this partnership seldom worked smoothly, as one of the partners inevitably tried to dominate the other. Frequent fluctuations in the actual power and vitality of each individual as well as changes in the prevailing political and theological theories gave a fluid, dynamic quality to the empire's history.
The history of the Holy Roman Empire can be divided into four periods: the age of emperors, the age of princes, the early Habsburg period, and the final age.

(i) Age of the Emperors

The first age, from 962 to 1250, was dominated by the strong emperors of the Saxon, Salian (or Franconian), and Hohenstaufen dynasties. These emperors made serious efforts to control Italy, which in practical political terms was the most important part of the empire. Their power, however, depended on their German resources, which were never great. Italy consisted of the Lombard area, with its wealthy towns; the Papal States; scattered regions still claimed by the Byzantine Empire; and the Norman kingdom of Naples and Sicily. The emperors generally tried to govern through existing officials such as counts and bishops rather than by creating a direct administrative system. The papacy, weak and disturbed by the Roman aristocracy, needed the emperors, who, during the Saxon and early Salian generations, thought of the Bishop of Rome as subject to the same kind of control that they exercised over their own German bishops. Henry III, for example, deposed unsatisfactory Popes and nominated new ones as he deemed fit.

During the reigns of Henry IV and Henry V in the late 11th and early 12th centuries, the papacy was influenced by a powerful reform movement that demanded an end to lay domination. Popes Gregory VII and Urban II insisted on independence for the papacy and for the church in general during the Investiture Controversy. Later Popes continued jealously to guard their freedom, and this produced conflict with the Hohenstaufen emperors Frederick I and Frederick II, both of whom wanted to exercise control over all of Italy. The later Hohenstaufen emperors gained control of the Norman kingdom in southern Italy and declared it a fief of the popes, who nevertheless worried about their independence and often supported the emperors' Lombard foes. In the 13th century, Popes Innocent III, Gregory IX, and Innocent IV restricted the authority of Otto IV and Frederick II in many bitter disputes.

(ii) Age of the Princes

During the age of the princes, from 1250 to 1438, the emperors were much weaker. They exercised minimal authority in Italy, and many of them were never crowned emperor by the pope. Even in Germany their power was reduced, for Frederick II had dissipated royal prerogatives and resources in his northern lands while struggling to dominate Italy. The emperors were unable to restrain the German nobles or to resist French encroachments on the western frontiers of the empire, and the Slavic rulers in the east rejected all imperial overlordship. The Guelphs, or anti-imperialists in Italy (see Guelfs and Ghibellines), spoke of ending the empire or transferring it to the French kings. Political theorists such as Engelbert of Admont (1250-1331), Alexander of Roes (fl. late 13th century), and even Dante, however, insisted that the German emperors were needed. Marsilius of Padua, in his Defensor pacis, argued for the end of all papal influence on the empire.

At this time the practice of electing the German king, or emperor, was given formal definition by the Golden Bull (1356) of Emperor Charles IV. This document, which defined the status of the seven German princely electors, made it clear that the emperor held office by election rather than hereditary right. The electors usually chose insignificant rulers who could not interfere with the electors' privileges, but such rulers could neither govern effectively nor maintain imperial rights. Their power was largely limited to strengthening their own families. The empire consequently began to disintegrate into nearly independent territories or self-governing groups such as the Hanseatic League.

(iii) Early Habsburg Period

After 1438 the electors almost always chose a member of the Habsburg dynasty of Austria as king; the one exception was the election (1742) of the Bavarian Charles VII. The Habsburg FrederickIII was the last emperor to be crowned in Rome; his great-grandson Charles V was the last to be crowned by a pope.

By this time a few of the more farsighted princes saw the need to strengthen the empire's central government. From 1485 to 1555 these reformers strove to create a federal system. The diet, originally a loose assembly of princes, had been organized into three strata--electors, princes, and representatives of the imperial cities--by the Golden Bull and came to resemble a legislature. In 1500 it was proposed that an executive committee (Reichsregiment) appointed by the diet be given administrative authority. A system of imperial courts was created, and permanent institutions to provide for defense and taxation were also discussed. The various states were organized into ten districts or circles.

These reform efforts seldom worked, however, because the princes would not relinquish their jurisdiction. The situation was further complicated by the advent of the Reformation, which fostered religious conflicts that divided the principalities against one another. In addition, the princes became alarmed at the sudden growth of power of the Habsburgs when that dynasty acquired Spain. Under the guise of the Counter-Reformation, Ferdinand II and Ferdinand III tried to concentrate power in their hands, but defeat in the Thirty Years' War undid their efforts and proved that the empire could not reform itself.

(iv) Final Phase

After the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) the Holy Roman Empire was little more than a loose confederation of about 300 independent principalities and 1,500 or more semi-sovereign bodies or individuals. Threats from the Ottoman Empire or from Louis XIV of France occasionally stimulated imperial cooperation, but usually each state considered only its own welfare. The Austrian-Prussian wars, Hanover's acquisition of the English throne, and Saxony's holding of the Polish crown exemplify the particularism that prevailed.

Napoleon I finally destroyed the empire. After defeating Austria and its imperial allies in 1797 and 1801, he annexed some German land and suggested that the larger territories compensate themselves by confiscating the free cities and ecclesiastical states. By the Diet's Recess (1803), 112 small states were thus seized by their neighbors. Three years later Napoleon compelled 16 German states to form the Confederation of the Rhine and to secede from the empire. On March 6, 1806, Francis II, who had previously assumed the title of Emperor of Austria, abdicated as Holy Roman Emperor and declared the old empire dissolved.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook1l.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/hre-prussia.html