Sundays: 9:00 AM Sunday School | 10:30 AM Worship Service

Watch Live

|

Contact

|

App

|

Sunday School

Lesson 3: Papal Corruption and Schism

Speaker
David Capoccia

Now Playing

Watch Video Save MP3 Save PDF


Slides / Handouts

PDF document available for this sermon.

Your browser doesn’t support PDF embedding.

Download PDF

Reading Tools:

Aa

Auto Transcript

Note: This transcript and summary was autogenerated. It has not yet been proofread or edited by a human.

Summary

This lesson traces the corruption of the medieval papacy from the forged Donation of Constantine through the East-West Schism of 1054, the rise of sacramentalism, and the Western Schism of 1378. We are reminded that when the church departs from Scripture and accumulates worldly power, corruption inevitably follows. The forged Donation of Constantine transformed the papacy into a political prize, attracting power-hungry men rather than faithful shepherds.

The resulting centuries of violence, immorality, and theological drift culminated in competing popes, corrupt practices, and a church barely recognizable from its biblical foundations.

Key Lessons:

  1. When secular power and wealth enter the church, they attract unbelievers into leadership positions and corrupt the institution from within.
  2. The gradual drift from Scripture—seen in confusion over sacraments and the rise of sacramentalism—shows how small theological ambiguities can grow into massive doctrinal errors over centuries.
  3. The East-West Schism of 1054 demonstrates how cultural, linguistic, and political differences, combined with unilateral theological decisions, can permanently fracture the body of Christ.
  4. No human institution—no matter how prestigious—can substitute for the authority of Scripture; systems that claim ultimate authority apart from God’s Word inevitably become self-serving.

Application: We are called to guard the church from the same temptations of power, wealth, and departure from Scripture that corrupted the medieval church. We must hold fast to God’s design of plural, Scripture-submitting local church leadership and never assume corruption cannot happen among us.

Discussion Questions:

  1. How can modern churches guard against the temptation to accumulate worldly power and influence at the expense of faithfulness to Scripture?
  2. In what ways might gradual theological drift be happening in our own churches today, and how can we detect and correct it?
  3. The medieval church used sacraments as tools of control—how should we understand and practice the ordinances of baptism and communion in a way that honors their biblical purpose?

Scripture Focus: John 15:26 and John 16:7 were discussed in the context of the Filioque controversy regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit. John 20:22 was referenced regarding Christ breathing out the Spirit. The lesson also referenced the biblical model of church leadership through plural elders/pastors/overseers in local congregations versus papal supremacy.

Outline

Introduction

Church History 102 series on the medieval church. Last week we talked about the rise of the papacy. That is, we talked about the rise and position of the bishop or pope in Rome. Not only in his gaining additional spiritual authority and influence in the Christian west but also his gradually acquiring and using secular power.

Now, two of the earliest and greatest popes, Leo I in the mid 400s and Gregory the Great in the late 500s and early 600s, sought to use this increased church power for good, to serve God and to serve others. But what about the popes who would come later? Spoiler alert: it’s going to get ugly.

In explaining papal corruption and schism to you today, I would like to proceed chronologically through the rest of medieval history. We’re going to specifically engage with four topics: the Donation of Constantine, the East-West Schism, the sacramentalization of the medieval church, and the Western Schism.

Let me pray before we go on. Lord God, thank you that you are the Lord of the church and thank you that your promises will never fail. As we look at what is definitely a dark time in church history, I pray, God, that we would take necessary warning but also encouragement, Lord, that your way is always the best way. Let us not fall prey to the wisdom of man or the temptations of the flesh. In Jesus’ name, amen.

The Donation of Constantine

Let’s begin by talking about something called the Donation of Constantine. What is the Donation of Constantine? It is a legal document found sometime in the 700s written by Emperor Constantine the Great. You remember him from the 4th century. It concerns the Roman patriarch of Constantine’s time, a man named Sylvester.

This document would fundamentally change what it means to be pope in Rome. What is contained in this document? Allow me to read a few excerpts from the Donation of Constantine.

“This document would fundamentally change what it means to be pope in Rome.”

Contents of the Forged Document

We together with all our senators and the whole Senate and my nobles and also all the people subject to the government of glorious Rome considered it advisable that as the blessed Peter is seen to have been constituted vicar of the son of God on the earth. So the pontiffs who are representatives of the same chief of the apostles should obtain from us and from our empire the power of a supremacy greater than the clemency of our earthly imperial serenity is seen to have conceded to it.

And to the extent of our earthly imperial power, we have decreed that his holy Roman church shall be honored with veneration and that more than our empire and earthly throne, the most sacred seat of the blessed Peter shall be gloriously exalted. We giving to it power and dignity of glory and vigor and honor imperial.

Wherefore, in order that the supreme pontificate may not deteriorate, but may rather be adorned with glory and power even more than is the dignity of an earthly rule. Behold, we give over and relinquish to the aforesaid our most blessed Pontiff Sylvester the universal pope as well as our palace as has been said as also the city of Rome and all the provinces, places, and cities of Italy and the western regions. And we decree by this our godlike and pragmatic sanction that they are to be controlled by him and by his successors and we grant that they shall remain under the law of the holy Roman church.

Help me summarize here.

“We give over and relinquish to the Pontiff…the city of Rome and all the provinces of Italy and the western regions.”

What is this document decreeing? A lot of power.

The pope has just been granted not just spiritual power but secular power. The pope is recognized as the greatest ruler of the world and he’s officially designated essentially king in Italy.

The western provinces, the city of Rome, the surrounding regions, they all have been given over to the pope. I’ve got to keep moving. What a crazy find, right?

Apparently, it was the will of Constantine, the first Christian emperor, after being miraculously cured by Pope Sylvester of leprosy, which is mentioned in another part of the document, to not only exalt Rome above all the other churches, but to create a perpetual papal state, a political state controlled by the pope in Italy. This document also goes on to describe all the pomp that the papal state was to have.

The pope was supposed to have imperial robes and a glorious tiara and jurisdiction over lands throughout the eastern and western Roman empires. There was no end to the pious generosity of Constantine toward the seed of Peter.

Wow. But there’s just one problem with this document. Can you guess what it is?

The Forgery Exposed

It’s fake. This document is a forgery.

Constantine never wrote this. Where this document came from or who wrote it, nobody knows. But it appeared very conveniently right at the time that papal power and ambition was ready to take the next step in the 700s. The papacy treated the document as legitimate, and at first, so did everyone else.

It’s not until after the year 1000 that people really began to question the document. In 1440, the document was finally proven to be false.

“It’s fake. This document is a forgery. Constantine never wrote this.”

Nevertheless, for almost 700 years, the Donation of Constantine not only legitimized the already acquired power and wealth of the Roman popes, but also excused and justified further expansion under official papal monarchy. Now, as you might guess, this document suddenly makes the position of pope a very valuable position.

The Power Struggle for the Papacy

So, who’s now going to want to be pope?

Humble men who just want to shepherd Christ’s church? No. What kind of people?

Politicians. Proud men, power-hungry men, people who want to be king. And that’s exactly right. With the donation of Constantine, there was now going to be a power struggle to become and stay pope. At first, the only problem was factionalism. Various groups wanted their pope to become the next one in line because you suddenly are connected to power in that way.

But this factionalism sometimes resulted in violence. In 799, Pope Leo III was attacked by followers of a rival faction who wanted to deprive the pope of his eyes and tongue.

“Politicians. Proud men, power-hungry men, people who want to be king.”

Leo III fled to Charlemagne, the great king of the Franks, the people of France and West Germany, who at the Pope’s request marched down with his armies to Rome to put Leo III back in power. Charlemagne and Leo III succeeded. The Pope was reinstalled and as reward Charlemagne was crowned emperor of the Holy Roman Empire by the Pope in 800. This act was more about prestige for Charlemagne than gaining any new power.

In 817, Pascal I became pope after two officers died under mysterious circumstances and he forbid any investigation into their deaths. So there’s this new tension in the papacy and also new impurity. Pope Adrian II who reigned from 867 to 872 had an illegitimate child with the wife of one of his papal delegates.

In response, the humiliated delegate kidnapped the pope’s daughter from a previous marriage. And then the delegate murdered his wife and the pope’s daughter. So things were clearly getting worse at the top of Western Christianity. But then they plunged off a cliff in 896.

The Cadaver Synod and Papal Anarchy

Historian Eric Russell Chamberlain in his book The Bad Popes describes the situation. In the closing years of the 9th century, the faction battles for the chair of Peter brought Rome to the edge of social disintegration. In March 896, the ghastly Synod of Herrena, which sat in judgment upon a corpse, marked the moment when the city plunged finally into anarchy and delivered as an inescapable result the chair of Peter to whomever was bold enough to ascend it.

In that month, the triumphant faction, whose leader now ruled as Pope Stephen III, set in motion a solemn trial of Pope Formosus, the leader of a rival faction. The act of judgment was no mere formality. The corpse itself was dragged from the tomb where it had rested for eight months and dressed again. This synod is also called the Cadaver Synod. It was meant to assert new authority and to humiliate a rival faction. The supporters of Pope Stephen actually put the corpse of the previous pope on trial and accused it of crimes.

The synod found the corpse guilty. The fingers of the corpse that were used for blessing were cut off and the body was thrown into the Tiber River. The public reacted against this.

However, I forgot the name of the previous pope, but it was the corpse of the previous pope that Pope Stephen had tried and had desecrated in this way. The public reacted against this, and Pope Stephen was later found strangled in prison. Now, who was supposed to be pope? One faction put forward Cardinal Sergius.

But Chamberlain describes what happened next. In a sudden burst of violence, Sergius and most of his followers were chased out of the city. It did not end the battle for the chair of Peter. Over the next 12 months, four more popes scrambled onto the bloodstained throne, maintained themselves precariously for a few weeks or even days before being hurled themselves into their graves.

“Four more popes scrambled onto the bloodstained throne, maintained themselves precariously for a few weeks or even days.”

Seven popes and an antipope had appeared in a little over six years when with the turn of the century there came a stay in the rhythm of violence. Cardinal Sergius reappeared after seven years of exile, backed now by the swords of a feudal lord who saw a means thereby of gaining entry into Rome. The reigning pope fell from grace. The slaughters in the city reached a climax. And then Cardinal Sergius emerged as Pope Sergius, sole survivor of the claimants and now supreme pontiff.

This is pretty horrifying, isn’t it? Between 880 and 1000 there were 30 popes who reigned for less than two years each, meaning that they probably murdered to get the chair of Peter and then were either murdered or deposed themselves.

Immorality and Corruption of the Popes

And it wasn’t just murder and intrigue.

The popes in this period were notorious for their immorality. Historians even refer to a pornocracy in charge at one point.

Basically ruling Italy because they had control of the popes, furthermore, popes could be bought. Bribery and corruption were rampant. The papacy was in shambles.

“The popes in this period were notorious for their immorality…bribery and corruption were rampant.”

The Papacy’s Continued Claims Despite Corruption

This institution supposedly designed by God to lead Western Europe and even all Christians. Where’s the legitimate Petrine succession in this period? How could it ever even be recovered? The whole system is obviously broken.

It’s only finally in 1049 that Pope Leo IX brought back some order and character to the papacy. The chaos and immorality of the last two centuries finally ebbed. But after this time, the character of popes remained suspect.

What’s perhaps most stunning though is that both during and after this period of obvious corruption, the papacy continued to rule its kingdom in Italy and continued to assert itself to be the most important church of all Christianity with the pope as a universal priest. This is the leadership. This is the one church leader that we are all supposed to unite behind. That continued to be the claim.

With such impure yet ambitious leadership at the head, it was only a matter of time before the rest of the body would suffer or split away. Which leads us to the second topic for today. There’s a lot to discuss.

“With such impure yet ambitious leadership at the head, it was only a matter of time before the body would suffer or split away.”

The East-West Schism

We’ve seen the donation of Constantine in its aftermath, but let’s talk about the east-west schism. Also called the great schism. Does anyone know in what year this occurred?

Not 1010. Not 1046.

1054. In 1054, we have the schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. A schism that is extremely significant and that continues until the present day. But how did it happen?

Pre-Existing Differences Between East and West

Well, in some ways, this schism of 1054 would not have surprised anyone who was living in that period. Recall some of the great differences that had already been developing between Western and Eastern Christians before 1054.

There’s a difference in language. The two sides cannot really understand each other’s words. We have Latin versus Greek.

There’s a difference in location. There’s a great distance geographically.

There’s a difference in government. Those in the east are under empire. Those in the west are under smaller polities guided by the pope.

There’s a difference in the number of patriarchs. Constantinople is one of several patriarchs in the east, whereas in the west there’s only one patriarch in Rome.

These differences were already creating a sense of division between the two main sections of Christianity. But we can add more.

“These differences were already creating a sense of division between the two main sections of Christianity.”

You may recall from the 101 course there was a certain iconoclastic controversy surrounding the Council of Nicaea II in the 700s. Initially, certain zealous Byzantine emperors instructed western Christians and the western pope to get rid of all religious paintings and statues that were being used for worship.

This command met spirited resistance and hostility toward the east, even the revolt of some Byzantine territories.

Now, even though the east eventually repented of this command and reembraced icon veneration, the years of hostility were still a wound to east-west relations. Furthermore, Eastern and Western clergy sometimes came into conflict about the border congregations.

The Filioque Controversy

For instance, whether Sicily should be under Rome’s jurisdiction since it’s in the west or Constantinople since it was under Byzantine control. Then there is the Filioque controversy. Does anybody know what the term Filioque means?

Mark, I don’t know what the term means, but I know what the controversy is.

Okay. Does anybody know what the term means? It’s just three words, Gwen.

You’re on the right track. It just means “and the son.” “Filio” just means “and the son.” The phrase appears in various places in the west as an addition to the expanded Nicene Creed written after the Council of Constantinople, written at the Council of Constantinople in 381. So when we think about the Nicene Creed today, it’s really the Constantinopolitan Creed modeled after the Nicene Creed in 381.

Now that creed said the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but western clergy added later: the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Why are the addition of these three words such a big deal? Well, part of the contention has to do with theological emphasis and understanding the Trinity.

The east desired to emphasize the persons of the Trinity and their distinct order within God. Thus, the Father as the fountain of the divine essence eternally breathes out the Spirit through the eternally generated Son. So each member of the Godhead has a clear role. The Spirit, in other words, proceeds from the Father. Don’t add to that. He proceeds from the Father as John 15:26 says directly.

Meanwhile, the west felt the need to emphasize the equality of the Trinity in their one essence. Thus, the Spirit is sent or breathed out by both the Father and the Son. They’re both God. They both breathe out the Spirit. For Jesus speaks of sending the Spirit in John 16:7 and he symbolically breathed out the Spirit in John 20:22.

The west felt that the east in their explanation of the Trinity was making the Father superior in essence to the Son and Spirit, violating the doctrine of the Trinity. Whereas the east felt that the west in their explanation was erasing any distinctiveness within the order of the Godhead, also violating the doctrine of the Trinity. So these three words meant a lot.

But there’s another reason why this Filioque addition really ticked off church leaders in the east. Can anyone guess what the other reason is? It was added without consulting or getting the agreement of the eastern leaders. Creeds were considered especially sacred to the eastern clergy.

“It was added without consulting or getting the agreement of the eastern leaders.”

This is why after the Council of Constantinople in 381, you actually don’t see creeds produced by councils anymore, only confessions. It’s because creeds are serious. In fact, even today, the Eastern Orthodox Church regards the decisions of the church councils and the resulting creeds as inspired on the same level as the Bible. These are breathed out by God.

So while the western clergy may have added this phrase “and the Son” to be clearer, for instance in evangelistic efforts, the east felt like the west was practically messing with the scriptures, and that is high-handedness not to be tolerated.

The Schism of 1054

The most important strain on east-west relations was the western patriarch’s claim to universal supremacy according to Petrine succession. It was this issue, along with the others, that caused an official and symbolic rupture between the eastern and western churches in 1054.

Leo the Ninth brought order back to the papacy. In the middle of trying to reestablish the prominence and legitimacy of the Roman papacy after 200 years of moral anarchy, he sent a papal legate to the patriarch of Constantinople, a man named Michael Cerularius, with several demands. Among the demands was for the eastern patriarch to accept the filioque addition to the church creed and acknowledge the pope as the supreme church authority.

Cerularius refused. The frustrated papal legate pronounced on behalf of Leo the Ninth that the patriarch and his church were excommunicated and anathema. Rome now officially considered the church of Constantinople as heretical, and both its leaders and adherents were justly given over to God’s judgment.

“Rome now officially considered the church of Constantinople as heretical.”

The patriarch responded in kind by excommunicating and anathematizing the papal ambassadors and, by implication, the pope in Rome. Thus after 1054, we can no longer talk about a single Catholic—that is, universal—or Orthodox—that is, rightly believing—church. Rather, you have the Roman Catholic Church in the west and the Eastern Orthodox Church. That fundamental divide still exists today.

For more information on differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches, take a look later at two comparison slides I made. They look at both a superficial set of differences and some core differences between the two churches. In many ways they’re similar, but there are some differences you can check out later in the slides, which will be posted, Lord willing, by tomorrow.

Don’t think that 1054 was the end of east-west Christian relations. There were actually many reconciliatory efforts after this official schism, and they have continued into modern times. It wasn’t like the east and west suddenly totally hated each other, even if these pronouncements were made against one another. Really, the crusades were in part a reconciliation effort between Eastern and Western Christians.

The Rise of Sacramentalism

But sadly, the fourth crusade ended up doing far more damage to the relationship than even the 1054 schism did. We’ll talk more about the fourth crusade later.

We’ve seen the first great schism of the Middle Ages. But before we talk about the other one, we need to back up a bit and talk about the rise of sacramentalism.

Sacramentalism has much to do with increasing papal power and corruption. Now what is sacramentalism?

You hear the word sacrament in it.

“Sacramentalism: belief in the importance and efficacy of the sacraments for achieving salvation.”

Dictionary.com defines it in this way.

Lateran IV and Full Sacramental Corruption

It is a belief or emphasis on the importance and efficacy of the sacraments for achieving salvation and conferring grace. Sacraments are the rites or rituals that are done in the church. These are important and efficacious for achieving salvation and conferring grace. That’s sacramentalism.

In the time of the apostolic fathers, first to mid-second century, it was clear that salvation was by faith alone through grace alone and not through any sacrament work or ritual. We even saw in the 101 class that one of the first bishops of Rome, a man named Clement, whom the Catholics claim is the fourth pope, articulates salvation apart from works and apart from sacraments in his letter, First Clement. It’s quite clear.

But by the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, convened in the Pope’s palace in Rome, the church’s understanding was far different. Let me quote from that pronouncement. Here’s Lateran 4:

There is indeed one universal church of the faithful outside of which nobody at all is saved in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice. His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been changed in substance by God’s power into his body and blood. So that in order to achieve this mystery of unity, we receive from God what he received from us. Nobody can affect this sacrament except a priest who has been properly ordained according to the church’s keys, which Jesus Christ himself gave to the apostles and their successors. But the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided trinity, namely father, son, and holy spirit, and brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the church. If someone falls into sin after having received baptism, he or she can always be restored through true penitence. For not only virgins and the continent, that is the celibate, but also married persons find favor with God by right faith and good actions and deserve to attain to eternal blessedness.

There are several parts of this statement that should stand out to you as plainly unbiblical. Transubstantiation, the power of sacraments and the priests administering those sacraments, baptism for salvation, a kind of semi-Pelagianism—Pelagian kind of thinking that faith and deeds will cause one to deserve eternal blessedness. This is a long distance from Clement in the second century.

How did we get here?

“There are several parts of this statement that should stand out to you as plainly unbiblical.”

Well, you already know, as I’ve tried to emphasize in the first few classes, that change in the Middle Ages was gradual. This corruption, this drifting, it was gradual. It was punctuated by various efforts to realign the church with what Scripture actually says.

Early Church Confusion Over Baptism

But if I may very briefly sketch factors that contributed to this arrival of the western church—and a similar thing happens in the east, but specifically the Catholic church’s arrival to an apostate sacramental perspective—believe it or not, the seeds of sacramentalism were planted in the early church. Even in the second century of Christianity, there was already confusion and debate about the role and power of the sacraments.

You see, the early church was very good at articulating the gospel. But when it came to understanding the ordinances of baptism and what Justin Martyr called the eucharist, there was not unity.

First, with baptism, the questions were: What exactly is baptism? What does it do? And who is it for?

Is it only a sign of what God has already done in salvation for believers, or does it have some sanctifying power which is necessary for all if they are going to be saved, including children?

Origin, for example, took the latter view, arguing that baptism was necessary to cleanse away sins and also asserting that people were already baptizing infants accordingly in his time in the third century. Now, there’s an excerpt that shows that, but you can read that later.

Tertullian, however, Origin’s contemporary, argued that baptism is only for those who have already come to know Jesus and thus should not be rashly given to children. This is a sign of salvation, not something that saves you.

“Tertullian argued that baptism is only for those who have already come to know Jesus.”

And there are some excerpts from Tertullian as well which you can read later. So there was debate over what baptism really did and who should receive it, not just among Tertullian and Origin but also others.

Later on, there was the problem of people waiting longer and longer to get baptized, and this was also from misunderstanding. If baptism is for the forgiveness of my sins, then I should wait till I have more sins to be forgiven—get them all cleared out at once. Or if baptism doesn’t do anything for me in terms of spiritual cleansing, then what’s the rush? There’s no rush to get it done.

Even today, you have some of those thoughts about baptism. It still remains a subject of confusion.

The view that comes to dominate the medieval position, though, is that baptism is necessary in some way for cleansing sin and is to be applied as early as possible, even to infants.

Infant baptism for the cleansing of sin dominates the entire medieval period.

Early Church Confusion Over Communion

And this fits with an increasing sense of sacramentalism, a ritual administered by the church that supposedly carries divine power for salvation. Then there’s communion or the Lord’s table or the eucharist. What does it do?

The early church was pretty clear on the idea that the eucharist was only for believers. For the apostolic fathers going into the second century, unbelievers were not even allowed to be present when communion was being celebrated.

But what exactly happens in communion? This is another area in which Christians did not fully agree in the early church. There were two main viewpoints on the Lord’s Supper in that period.

The Lord’s Supper was either a declaration of belief in Jesus symbolized by memorial or a kind of sacrifice, but a very specific one—a kind of thank offering like the Old Testament thank offering providing opportunity for believers to express thanks to God for what he has done for them in salvation. By the way, that’s where the term Eucharist comes from.

It’s literally the Greek word for thanksgiving. Most in the early church said it was both of these things. It’s a memorial of what Jesus has already accomplished, but it’s also an opportunity for us to give a sacrifice of thanks, but they didn’t agree on which aspect was more important.

Furthermore, some took ideas about the Eucharist to extremes, either allegorizing the whole ceremony, like saying the bread is the Old Testament, the wine is the New Testament, or things like that, or making communion into not a sacrifice of thanksgiving, but a sacrifice for sin. And it’s this latter extreme, unfortunately, which becomes more popular in the Middle Ages.

The idea that you need the Eucharist to sustain you, that it’s a necessary sacrifice for your sins. Without the Eucharist, you will be left with sins uncovered. The Eucharist, later known as the Mass, becomes another important external ritual for a person’s salvation according to later medieval Christianity.

“The Eucharist becomes another important external ritual for a person’s salvation according to later medieval Christianity.”

Early church confusion over the sacraments contributes to increased medieval sacramentalism. Now again, it wasn’t that we ended the early church period and here’s sacramentalism in full force. No, it was a gradual drifting and slide into error, and that only got worse and worse as the medieval period went on.

Factors Contributing to Medieval Sacramentalism

Then when you combine this early church confusion with other factors, you get the statement of Ladin 4 and the full corruption of medieval sacramentalism. Combine the ambiguity of the early church with the paganization of the church under Constantine. When you have a bunch of people who are not really Christians bringing their old religious ideas into the church, you’re going to get a greater proclivity in the church toward belief in the power of external rituals because that’s what Roman pagan religion was.

Then the prevailing illiteracy of the Middle Ages also contributed to sacramentalism. We can understand why that would be the case, not simply because people can’t read the Bible for themselves—most people can’t—but because people are trusting in what they see: the rituals. Catholic clergy made an effort to make Christianity more real to people through visible grace.

Show them their sins being washed away in baptism. Show them actually being nourished and sustained by eating the bread and drinking the wine of communion. Now truly, the outward performance of these ordinances was designed by God to help us understand invisible realities, but these ordinances do not affect invisible realities. Baptism is a symbol of sins cleansed but does not actually cleanse sins.

“These ordinances do not affect invisible realities. Baptism is a symbol of sins cleansed but does not actually cleanse sins.”

Nevertheless, naive, illiterate parishioners made the false connection. They thought, “My sins are actually being washed away” or “I’m actually being sustained against my sins through communion.” Add to this monkish aestheticism both in the early church and in the medieval period, which placed an emphasis on external and visible righteousness.

Then finally add the claims of the Roman popes as special representatives of Christ on earth, being enabled to claim supernatural efficacy to the various external works and rituals of the church. So what you have in the high medieval church—we’re looking at the period of around 1000 to 1300 or so—is a very sacramental, works-oriented church.

Papal Power Through the Sacraments

Not only is this totally foreign to the biblical gospel, but it also enabled popes, bishops, and priests to wield an unnerving amount of power. Because if the church sacraments have spiritual power, if they’re necessary for the sustaining of your salvation, then those who preside over these sacraments have power, too.

“If the church sacraments have spiritual power, then those who preside over these sacraments have power, too.”

And not just in a spiritual sense.

Interdicts and Deposing Rulers

For when we consider the powers of the papacy in the high middle ages, not only could popes as Christ representatives on earth excommunicate people from the church, be placed outside of God’s salvation, be forbidden from celebrating the Eucharist on an individual basis. Popes could also pronounce interdicts on whole kingdoms or even depose rulers outright.

Now, can anyone tell me what an interdict is?

Punishment. It is a punishment, but what specifically?

From the church. It does involve being cut off from the church, but in a particular way. An interdict forbids the performance of church services or church sacraments in a kingdom in the entire kingdom or it forbids certain persons from taking part in church services.

And why would that be a big deal? No mass in the kingdom—everybody in their sins. That leaves everybody in their sins. Nobody’s getting that grace that they need to sustain themselves. No church service, no mass, no communion. We’re all in spiritual famine.

Thus, people under interdict, anyone in a kingdom under interdict would be highly motivated to pressure their sovereign to submit to the pope so that the pope might lift the interdict and the sacraments, those needed sacraments could be performed again.

“An interdict forbids the performance of church services or sacraments in an entire kingdom.”

Popes, as I said, could also depose rulers. They could declare a ruler’s rule invalid before God. Normally, according to the scriptures, subjects were commanded by God and the pope to submit to their reigning governments.

But if the ruler was doing something wicked in the mind of the pope, then the pope could loose subjects from their vows of loyalty to that ruler and even legalize rebellion.

The Investiture Controversy

And this power was not to be underestimated. It was particularly notable in the investiture controversy between Pope Gregory VII and Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV in 1075. These two leaders had been in conflict over something called investiture, which is the right to appoint someone to a church position.

Secular leaders wanted this power for themselves. The pope wanted to reserve it for himself. Now you can understand why the pope wouldn’t want that. He wants the ability to appoint church leaders in various kingdoms and various places because he didn’t want those leaders to be independent.

If local rulers, if secular rulers appointed who was going to be bishop over a certain place, well, those appointed bishops are going to be inclined to follow the secular ruler, essentially go along with whatever he wants, whatever he says. He won’t be independent. He won’t submit to the pope.

The pope wants to reserve the right of investiture for himself. But people like the Holy Roman Emperor insisted on the right of investiture for themselves because local bishops and sometimes abbots were quite powerful. How did this come about?

We saw something like this in a previous class, but medieval Christians out of piety were constantly giving land and money to different churches and monasteries. This was to help their own souls or to express their love for God.

But the result was the leaders of these churches and monasteries actually became very wealthy. And after a while some of them began to create their own aristocratic courts and maintain armies. A king or an emperor cannot afford to have such independent power in his domain. He needs to bring it under his control at least to some level.

“Medieval Christians out of piety constantly gave land and money to churches—their leaders actually became very wealthy.”

Thus the Holy Roman Emperor and others refused the right of the pope to invest; rather, they reserved investiture for themselves. Now this was a long conflict between this particular Holy Roman Emperor and the pope when it came to the German churches. As a result, the pope excommunicated Henry and deposed him and placed his land under interdict.

At first the emperor was ready to fight. He wanted to resist and was getting ready to bring armies down to Rome. But he suddenly found his supporters melting away. Many nobles already unhappy with Henry’s rule used the pope’s decree as an excuse to rebel. Others felt that standing with the emperor against the pope would lead to God cursing them.

So Henry IV ultimately was forced to travel to Canossa, Italy, where the pope was residing, and beg the pope for mercy. The pope famously made the emperor wait outside the pope’s castle for three days in the snow. Feeling that Henry had finally made a public enough show of penance, the pope then invited the emperor inside and granted him forgiveness.

The Height of Papal Power

This episode is just one of many in which the papacy showed its great power. It’s great accumulated power.

Popes excommunicated, pronounced crusades (which we’ll talk about later), pronounced interdicts, deposed rulers, legitimized new rulers, granted divorces and annulments, refused divorces, approved wars and rebellions, or condemned them. Frequently in the 1100s and 1200s, rulers who were resisting the pope eventually had to do the same as Henry IV. They had to submit to the pope and beg his forgiveness, even acknowledging that the pope is their ruler.

They would give him tribute as mere underrulers of the true ruler of all of Western Europe. They’re just taking care of the pope’s land for him.

“Popes excommunicated, pronounced crusades, interdicts, deposed rulers, legitimized new rulers, and granted divorces.”

Papal power had reached its height in 1300. Popes could do almost anything they wanted in the name of Christ and the Apostle Peter.

The Western Schism and the Babylonian Captivity

However, monarchs in France eventually became powerful enough that they didn’t have to listen to the pope anymore. They were going to force the pope to listen to them.

This will lead to our last topic of today: the Great Schism of 1378, also known as the Western Schism. Before the Western Schism, we have something called the Babylonian Captivity in the papacy.

Now, you remember the Babylonian Captivity in the Bible. How long did that captivity last?

Seventy years. Very good. We’re going to see another kind of captivity for the papacy that also lasts about seventy years.

By 1300, the relations between the kingdom of France and the papacy had rapidly deteriorated. The French king Philip IV was constantly resisting the pronouncements of the pope, and the pope was prepared to excommunicate Philip.

However, Philip’s supporters, the day before the pope was going to pronounce excommunication, kidnapped the pope, beat him, and humiliated him in front of the crowds in the city of Anagni in Italy. The pope lost his prestige and soon died.

The pope’s successor reigned for less than a year. Then the next pope to become pope made a deal with the French to help secure papal election.

The French king demanded that the pope reside in France under France’s watchful eye and control. If you do this, we’ll help you become pope. The new pope agreed.

“The French king demanded that the pope reside in France under France’s watchful eye and control.”

Strangely then, under this new pope’s reign, 23 of the 24 new cardinals appointed were created. Cardinals were church members responsible for electing a new pope since the 12th century. Twenty-three of the new 24 cardinals were French.

Coincidence? The next seven popes were also French and ruled from France, from the city of Avignon, not Rome. This Avignon papacy lasted from 1305 to 1377—a little more than seventy years. Hence the alternative title given by the Catholic Church: the Babylonian Captivity.

This papal rule from Avignon severely weakened papal power and prestige because other nations and even local church leaders throughout the west knew that the pope had just become a puppet of the French. It also made France’s enemies feel more distant from the papacy because they saw the pope not as the head of Christendom but as an ally of a hostile foreign power.

Corrupt Practices of the Avignon Papacy

Furthermore, the Avignon popes were involved in a series of costly wars and intrigues and thus promoted several unscrupulous money-making policies, including absenteeism, simony, and pluralism.

Absenteeism refers to the practice of leaving a church post vacant. There should be a bishop there, but the church is just not going to appoint one. Why would the Catholic Church want to do that?

It’s because if the post stays vacant, the money that would normally go to that bishop goes straight to the pope. Thus, popes began to leave more and more church posts empty for the sake of money.

Then there’s simony. Does anyone know what that is? It’s the sale of church posts, the sale of church positions. You want to be bishop? Give me enough money, show your piety to God, and I’ll let you become bishop.

This practice had appeared in the church before, and different reforming popes had worked to get rid of it. But it came back with a vengeance in the Avignon popes—not just selling one post, but even selling multiple posts to the same person. This is what is meant by the third term: pluralism.

Now you can have multiple churches supposedly being led by the same bishop, by the same person. Of course, that person can’t be in every church at once. He actually might not even be in any of them. But this would be a lucrative way to run the church.

Obviously, these policies greatly diminish the ability of church leaders to actually care for their flocks. Bishops either weren’t there, or they were there and didn’t care. They just wanted the land and the income that belonged to holding that church position.

Along with these, nepotism began to appear more and more in the church. What’s nepotism?

“You want to be bishop? Give me enough money and I’ll let you become bishop. This is simony.”

Yeah. Hiring friends and family, giving positions of power, giving privileges to them. This was practiced by the pope and practiced by various bishops. Again, this is not good for the health of God’s church. This is severely not good for the health of God’s church.

By the late 1300s, many were already calling for radical reformation. We need to clean up the church. Eventually, however, Christians, particularly Italians, were able to persuade the pope to move back to Rome. But then the pope died. So the papacy entered crisis once again.

Who would be the next pope?

The Election of Urban VI and Rival Popes

The cardinals, the gathering cardinals and other church leaders knew that whomever they chose to be the next pope, the papacy badly needed reform. The corrupt practices intended to gain money for the church had to be ended. But this could only happen if the pope stayed in Italy.

As the cardinals deliberated, a riot of Italians formed and broke into the papal election, making sure that the cardinals would choose an Italian pope who would not move back to Avignon.

Under the watchful eyes of angry Italians, the council elected Urban VI in 1378 who immediately began the work of reforming the papacy and clergy. He denounced bishops who were absent from their churches as well as those who had bought the positions. He even condemned the luxurious and ostentatious lifestyles of cardinals.

Those who had helped Urban VI get elected increasingly felt buyer’s remorse. He was coming after them. Thus, the cardinals started to look for a way to undo the election of this reformer pope.

“He condemned the luxurious lifestyles of cardinals. Those who helped him get elected increasingly felt buyer’s remorse.”

The same group of cardinals who elected Urban VI only a few months later snuck away and elected a rival pope, Clement III, justifying their new selection by saying Urban VI had been elected under coercion and was therefore invalid. This was a unique situation in the history of the papacy.

Even though rival popes had appeared before, called antipopes, never had two different popes been elected by the same group of cardinals. So who was the real pope? Suddenly all Catholic Europe had to take sides between Urban VI of Rome and Clement III, who went back to Avignon.

Both were elected. Both were maintaining papal courts. Both had their own college of cardinals and both were maintaining lines of Petrine succession. It was a tough choice. Even though Urban VI seemed to be more legitimate—he was elected first—he was not a savvy political leader and he did not discontinue the odious practice of nepotism.

Meanwhile, Clement III was controlled by France. So to support Clement was basically to support France.

The kingdoms of Europe became divided as you can see by this map. Purple supports one pope, green supports another, and yellow is undecided. The common people of Europe were extremely confused and becoming more and more disillusioned.

How can I submit to the Pope as Christ’s representative on earth if I don’t even know who the Pope is? And if the church doesn’t either?

What’s worse, these popes needed money for their conflict with one another. Simony again became rampant as an easy way to fill papal coffers. Catholic clergy and the kings of Europe knew the situation was becoming intolerable. They determined to settle the issue of the pope through council.

Three Popes and the Council of Constance

In 1409, after 30 years of this double pope nonsense, church leaders met in Pisa and determined that both current popes must resign and a new pope, Alexander V, would become pope. This solution would have worked very well except for one problem: the two popes refused to resign.

So now after this council you have not one, not two, but three popes in the Catholic Church, each anathematizing the other. You’ve got one pope in Avignon, one in Rome, and one in Florence. It would take another 10 years of this ridiculousness before the Council of Constance in 1414 to 1418 finally put an end to this embarrassing schism, this Western Schism.

The Council of Constance deposed all three popes as illegitimate and elected Martin V as the new pope.

“You have not one, not two, but three popes in the Catholic Church, each anathematizing the other.”

This time they made sure the other popes resigned. The Council of Constance, along with subsequent church councils, determined that ultimate authority in the church does not in fact reside with the pope but with the council of church leaders. Popes who previously called councils and bent clergy members to the pope’s will must now submit to the wider clergy.

This would be a power shift in the Catholic Church, though only temporary. Another pope in 1515 would eventually reestablish papal supremacy even over church councils, and that supremacy continues today. By the way, there’s a question from last time about papal infallibility, which was established as official doctrine in the 1800s as just another extension of the idea that the pope is supreme in the Roman Catholic Church.

The Need for Reformation

Now this council was successful in ending the schism, but great damage to the papacy and the church had already been done. The Babylonian captivity and the western schism had alienated many from the papacy and weakened the power of the pope.

Meanwhile, corrupt practices like simony had become more and more widespread in the church. You can understand why, as we get into the latter Middle Ages, you have the beginnings of reformation already beginning to stir.

It was not a vacuum that Martin Luther and the others stepped into in the early 1500s. This is what they were looking at. This was the recent experience of medieval Europe.

Papal power may have been temporarily reduced, but the corruption of the Catholic Church and this papacy was more prominent than ever in the late Middle Ages. Reformation was still greatly necessary, and the pre-reformation movements were already getting started across Europe.

“It was not a vacuum that Martin Luther stepped into. This was the recent experience of medieval Europe.”

Discussion and Q&A

That’s all for today’s class. Questions about what you’ve heard? Yeah, Tina.

Thanks for your teaching. That’s so interesting. I have two quick questions.

The popes were able to impose interdict. They have the power to reverse it if they wanted to. And the second question is, is there anything recorded that the apostles were baptized?

Okay, let me answer your first question. If popes could impose and rescind interdict, can they do the same with excommunication?

Absolutely. That is a power that they explicitly reserve for themselves, and one that they could even abuse at times. You might not actually deserve excommunication according to the Bible, but if you just got on the Pope’s bad side, he could excommunicate you. He often used it as a tool to push monarchs towards his will.

Now, your second question is: is there any record of the apostles being baptized?

Certainly, many of them were baptized with the baptism of John. Thinking right now, I am not remembering a section of scripture that says after Jesus resurrected and ascended that they got baptized again. But I’ve never really even thought about that.

Paul certainly was baptized as one who was not of the twelve. When he was converted, he was baptized. But I think those apostles had a special situation. Having experienced the baptism of John the Baptist and having been with Jesus, they were kind of a special case.

But to my knowledge, aside from Paul and any others who are outside the twelve, there’s no mention of them being baptized in the New Testament with the baptism of Jesus.

That is Mark.

So looking at the Donation of Constantine, it seemed like they were describing the pope in ways that we would say that language is only reserved for Christ. It’s really some of the same language like you would see in Ephesians 1. My question is, how did the church view Christ specifically compared with the popes? What did they see as the distinction? I know I’ve heard things like “vicar of Christ” and things like that.

How would you describe how they viewed the distinction of authority in those roles?

It’s a good question. How did the church view Christ and his leadership as compared to the pope and his leadership? I don’t know if I can answer that specifically. I don’t think that they somehow thought that Christ’s leadership was less or not what the Bible describes.

It’s just that they saw the pope as fulfilling a lot of what Christ’s leadership actually is. Yes, Christ is the leader. He has all authority. He’s the ultimate leader of the church, but he exercises his leadership through a man, the pope. That’s probably what they would say.

Of course, that’s not biblical. It is disturbing to see the titles and accolades that really should describe Jesus Christ being given to the pope instead.

Yeah, Mike.

The Danger of Departing from Scripture

So as you mentioned, Pastor Dave, we can look forward a little bit to Martin Luther’s time because we can see now it’s a secular book, but Fox’s Book of the Martyrs pretty much indicated that the people who were carrying out executions of Christians had no regard for Christ. They basically regarded man and his power over biblical teaching as the Bible became more widespread and able to be read.

I think that’s the real takeaway from these lessons. When people didn’t have the word of God, they resorted to their own power and to their own thoughts.

You’re making some valuable comments there. One thing that you’re seeing from this is that people in the name of Christ are not acting like Christians. They’ll even execute real Christians or go after real Christians and persecute real Christians when they are themselves showing themselves to be apart from Christ.

One of the things I think you’re also noticing from this is that when wealth and secular power got involved in the church, you just had a whole bunch of non-Christians suddenly invade the church and take over its top positions. Which is why in the Reformation you see a very strong desire to get secular power out of the church. Not only because it’s not biblical, but it’s not healthy. It’s not healthy for the church to have that kind of power. You just attract unbelievers into those top positions.

The other thing I was going to say is, as you said, Mike, this is partly a very strong result of the scriptures no longer being widely known, studied, or read. When we talk in our last lesson of this course about the pre-reformers, one of the main things they’re concerned about is getting the Bible back into the hands of the people.

When they do, the people do not start out by saying, “Let’s get rid of the pope.” But as they start saying, “Let’s get back to the scriptures,” and the pope comes against them, they’re forced to the conclusion that they shouldn’t be following him anymore because he’s not following scripture and they’re supposed to follow scripture. That’s basically the way that Martin Luther ends up going. And we’ll see it with the pre-reformers as well.

One question you might have in all this is, considering this obvious ugly history of the Catholic Church, how do they explain it? How do they explain it away and maintain that they are the one true church and that they have Petrine succession and all that kind of stuff?

Well, basically the way they regard this period is they will say, “Yes, that was a very dark time for the Catholic Church and the papacy, and we did have some really bad popes who were not legitimate.” But it’s kind of like the priesthood of the Old Testament.

“When wealth and secular power got involved in the church, a whole bunch of non-Christians invaded and took over its top positions.”

There were some bad high priests in Judaism, but that didn’t make the institution illegitimate. The priests were still in a position designated authoritatively by God, and in a broad sense the people of Israel were supposed to follow them. So the same thing is true of the papacy. There can have been some bad popes, but we’ve worked on that and the institution is still legitimate even if certain popes were not.

Which I don’t think is a satisfying answer at all. Especially because it means, even as I was just saying, well, if a pope can be bad and the only way I’m going to know if he’s bad is if I follow the scriptures, then why do I need the pope? Shouldn’t I just be following the scriptures?

I think Steve, I saw your hand.

That’s basically what I was thinking. It’s unfortunate that there was such a rise of power of one type of men in the church, and that is always bad.

But I was thinking the rise of that—they had to backfill, I would think, at a certain point. Because you don’t see the popularity or the promotion of a pope until later, and then they have to backfill saying, “Well, it did go all the way back to Peter,” and then they have to find all these other people. But if that was the case, then why have the Council of Nicaea? You could just have this pope that just says, “Okay, that’s what the answer is going to be to any problem that we have,” because they supposedly have that power to be able to make these decrees that are binding on every Christian.

I really like what you’re bringing out—that getting back to the scripture. I mean, there’s a lot of people out there on Facebook or YouTube who defend the pope and defend the councils, or not the councils, but the magisterium, so to speak. But how do you judge those people? You got to go against the word of God. And anything that says, “Has God said?”—you got to sit there. That’s all the way right back to the garden and the snake. You got to know your Bible.

Good point, Steve. Just to repeat two of those thoughts. I think what you do see with Roman Catholic apologetics is basically revisionist history. You have to backfill. You got to go back and say certain things happened in history or were assumed to be the case in history when they weren’t actually. You’re just reimposing a latter understanding, a more modern understanding at least in the Catholic Church, back on that early history.

But I think the second thing you said is actually—I know I’m forgetting it—but the idea that we do need to go back to scripture. It’s kind of really sad, but you see this with basically all types of false religion.

If you have a corrupt pope, you’re supposed to go back to the scriptures. But if you’re in the Roman Catholic system, who’s the one who’s supposed to tell you what the scriptures actually mean? The Pope. But if he’s corrupt, then how will you ever know what the scriptures mean? You’re kind of stuck in a system that won’t let you out.

That’s why we really have to, according to the scriptures, just say this system was never supposed to exist in the first place. This isn’t really Christ’s design for the church. It was a plurality of leaders—elders, pastors, overseers—all different terms for the same thing. And they were established in local congregations and together they shepherded the church and submitted themselves to the word of God.

That’s God’s real design. That’s his good design. We don’t improve upon it. And when we have tried historically, oh man, it’s been such a terrible, terrible mess.

Now, I’ve spoken very matter-of-factly about a lot of these things that happened, but let’s face it, this is a horror and a tragedy, and it was perpetuated by people who said they were doing it in the name of Christ. We need to take warning from that. It’s not just, “Okay, they were bad in the past, but we’re good now.” We need to guard ourselves and guard the church from the same kinds of temptation and error and corruption because it can happen to us too. Yes, even as Protestants.

That’s all the time we have for today. Next class, we’re going to talk about one of the papal powers we didn’t get to talk about today, and that is his ability to pronounce crusade. How this was used, what were the results? We’ll talk about that next time. Let me close in prayer.

“God’s design is plural leaders submitting to the word of God. We don’t improve upon it.”

Closing Prayer

Lord Jesus, you are the head of the church and your word is what we should submit to. Lord, we’re so glad how you have rescued your church from the bondage to this broken system. And Lord, we’re still aware that many today are still in bondage to it.

Not just in the Roman Catholic Church, but the Eastern Orthodox Church and many others, Lord, that claim the name of Christ but don’t actually know you. Oh Lord, I pray that you would bring out your people who may still be stuck in those systems.

But Lord, help us to hold fast to your truth, to proclaim it boldly and to be willing to suffer for it. Because Lord, that’s where our true joy and peace will be found, not in worldly comforts.

What a great error these popes had fallen into, thinking that life was in these worldly comforts and treasures. Oh no, Lord. It’s always in you, Lord. Let that be the true confession of our hearts in Jesus’ name.

Share this sermon:

More from Church History 102: The Medieval Church