Lably
Skip to content

Investiture Controversy

Medieval dispute between secular rulers and the papacy (1076–1122)

  • 26 min read
  • 8 chapters
Medieval king investing a bishop with the symbols of his episcopate ( crozier etc.)
Original by Philip Van Ness Myers (d. 1937) Derivative version by ReneeWrites · CC BY 4.0

Related on Lably

Through Monarchy

It began as a power struggle between Pope Gregory VII and Henry IV (then King, later Holy Roman Emperor) in 1076. The conflict ended in 1122, when Pope Callixtus II and Emperor Henry V agreed on the Concordat of Worms. The agreement required bishops to swear an oath of fealty to the secular monarch, who held authority "by the lance" but left selection to the church. It affirmed the right of the church to invest bishops with sacred authority, symbolized by a ring and staff. In Germany (but not Italy and Burgundy), the Emperor also retained the right to preside over elections of abbots and bishops by church authorities, and to arbitrate disputes. Holy Roman Emperors renounced the right to choose the Pope.

In the meantime, there was also a brief but significant investiture struggle between Pope Paschal II and King Henry I of England from 1103 to 1107. The earlier resolution to that conflict, the Concordat of London, was very similar to the Concordat of Worms.

Background

Practical problems

After the decline of the Western Roman Empire, investiture was performed by members of the ruling nobility (and was known as lay investiture) despite theoretically being a task of the church. Many bishops and abbots were themselves part of the ruling nobility. Given that most members of the European nobility practiced primogeniture, and willed their titles of nobility to the eldest surviving male heir, surplus male siblings often sought careers in the upper levels of the church hierarchy. This was particularly true where the family may have established a proprietary church or abbey on their estate. Since a substantial amount of wealth and land was usually associated with the office of a bishop or abbot, the sale of church offices—a practice known as simony—was an important source of income for leaders among the nobility, who themselves owned the land and by charity allowed the building of churches. Emperors had been heavily relying on bishops for their secular administration, as they were not hereditary or quasi-hereditary nobility with family interests. The imperial rulers justified their power by the theory of the divine right of kings.

Political antagonisms and the transformation of authority

Apart from the desire to improve the literacy and piety of personnel appointed to the administration of parishes and estates, the investiture controversy was sparked when the (German) Holy Roman Emperor Henry III appointed and dismissed three popes in quick succession within a few years during the mid-11th century.

Pope Gregory VII's policy of resistance to this kind of administrative disruption—best expressed in his excommunication of Emperor Henry IV, temporarily disabling his military regime—elides the geopolitical stakes involved in the controversy: The German episcopate composed the effective cabinet of counselors to the Emperor, and the soldiers which these dioceses provided to the lists were the main source of the Empire's military might.

The Carolingian emperors (succeeded by the Ottonians and Salians) rose to power partly by aligning themselves with the Western papacy, who partnered in the usurpation (and/or reinstatement) of certain authorities and rights that had previously belonged to absentee institutions and figures in the Byzantine Empire by the Western church in Rome and by the western Emperor when this role was (re)created when Charlemagne was anointed as ruler. But by the eleventh century, when the investiture controversy broke out, the German bishoprics had much greater power than the Pope in Rome in practice. The shift in Papal policy during the investiture controversy represents an assertion (or recovery) of centralized power in Rome within the Western church.

Trajectory and cycle

Many of the papal selections before 1059 were influenced politically and militarily by European powers, often with a king or emperor announcing a choice which would be rubber-stamped by church electors. The Holy Roman Emperors of the Ottonian dynasty believed they should have the power to appoint the pope. Since the ascendance of the first of that line, Otto the Great (936–972), the bishops had been princes of the empire, had secured many privileges, and had become to a great extent feudal lords over great districts of the imperial territory. The control of these great units of economic and military power was for the king a question of primary importance due to its effect on imperial authority. It was essential for a ruler or nobleman to appoint (or sell the office to) someone who would remain loyal.

Simony became particularly unpopular as Pope Benedict IX was accused of selling the papacy in 1045. From 1046 to 1056, Henry III settled the papal schism, and named several popes, the last emperor to successfully dominate the selection process. Six-year-old Henry IV became King of the Germans in 1056.

Sign in to keep reading

7 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in Post-classical