Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T14:07:05.671Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pope Nicholas I and John of Ravenna: The Struggle for Ecclesiastical Rights in the Ninth Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Robert Joseph Belletzkie
Robert Joseph Belletzkie
Affiliation:
Doctoral candidate in Medieval History at Michigan State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On 24 February 861 Pope Nicholas I excommunicated and deposed one of Italy's most powerful prelates, John VIII, archbishop of Ravenna. This papal action, prompted by a number of transgressions on the archbishop's part, was taken with the consent of a council of bishops at Rome. John immediately turned for aid to Louis II, king of Italy and emperor in the West. A delegation from Louis, however, failed to deter Nicholas who insisted that John come to Rome for adjudication. Moreover, the pope journeyed to Ravenna at the invitation of its citizens, and there personally rectified the situation which John's abuses had created. As Nicholas advanced, John retreated to seek Louis's intercession at Pavia again, but this time his reception was less cordial. The Pavians, led by their bishop, shunned the excommunicate and his retinue and Louis, who would not even grant John an audience, advised him through an intermediary to “humble himself to such a pontiff to whom we and the entire Church bow.” When a second delegation, gained only by John's repeated pleas, was again unsuccessful in bargaining with the pope, the archbishop had no choice but to submit. At the Roman synod which met from 16 to 18 November 861, John acknowledged the charges against him and was restored to his see on conditions laid down by the synod. According to the Vita Nicolai, the proceedings concluded with a standing ovation for the pope from the bishops who proclaimed three times:

The correct judgement of the supreme pontiff, the just ordering of the pastor of the whole Church, the generous settlement of the disciple of Christ is pleasing to all. We are all of one voice, one mind, one judgement.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , September 1980 , pp. 262 - 272
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. For the dating of John's deposition, which had been uncertain for many years, see Fuhrmann, Horst, “Papst Nikolaus I und die Absetzung des Erzbischofs Johann von Ravenna,” Zeitschrift fur Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonische Abteilung 44 (1958): 353–358.Google Scholar For the events of the entire confrontation with John, see Vita Nicolai in Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, Louis, 2 vols. (Paris, 1886), 2: 155, 1. 11–p.158, 1. 3.Google Scholar Unless otherwise noted, all translations from the Latin are mine.

2. Vita, p. 156, II. 16–17Google Scholar: “tanto humilietur pontifici, cui et nos et omnis Ecclesiae generalitas inclinatur.…”

3. Vita, p. 157Google Scholar, I. 33–p.158, I. 2: “surrexit sancta synodus et tribus vicibus acclamavit: ‘Rectum iudicium summi presulis, iusta diffinitio totius pastoris Ecclesiae, salubris institutio Christi discipuli omnibus placet; omnes eadem dicimus, omnes eadem sapimus, omnes eadem iudicamus.’ “

4. See, for example, Ullmann, Walter, A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages (London, 1972), p. 103Google Scholar, which gives the episode very little attention; the same author's The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages, 2nd ed. (London, 1962)Google Scholar omits the episode completely. Haller, Johannes, Das Papsttum: Idee und Wirklichkeit, 5 vols. (Basel, 1951), 2: 94Google Scholar is also sparing. The best treatment, though not definitive, is in Amann, Emile, L'époque carolingienne, vol. 6, Histoire de l'Eglise (Paris, 1947), pp. 380–383.Google Scholar

5. The acts of the February synod are the seven which Mansi, Johannes Domenicus, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, 31 vols. (Florence and Venice, 1759–1798), 15:658–660Google Scholar, appended wrongly as acts six through twelve of the Roman synod of November 863. See Fuhrmann, “Papst Nikolaus I” and Duchesne's notes in Vita, p. 168, nos. 17, 21, 22 for discussion. The acts of the November 861 synod, and the manuscripts from which they derive, are best summarized by Kehr, Paul F., Regesta Pontificum Romanorum: Italia Pontificia, 8 vols. (Berlin, 1906), 5: 41, no. 108.Google ScholarSollicitudinem Omnium is Ep. 105 in Nicholas's letters edited by Ernest Perels in Monumenta Germaniae Historica Epistolae, vol. 6, (Berlin, 1925), pp. 613–617Google Scholar (hereafter this series is cited as MGH and Nicholas's letter as Ep. 105 with page and line numbers).

6. The full list of the charges can only be constructed by integrating all the sources. Generally, Mansi, , Collectio, 15: 658–659Google Scholar, caps. 6–9 deal with heresy; Ep. 105 is concerned with episcopal rights; and Vita p. 155, II. 11–26 treats Roman-Ravennate local jurisdictional difficulties.

7. See Jaffe, Philipp et al. , Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1885–1889), 1: 334–335Google Scholar, nos. 2627, 2628; see also Vita, p. 155, II. 13 and 27.

8. Ep. 105, p. 616, 11. 3–7; p.617,11.18–21.

9. Halphen, Louis, Charlemagne et l'empire carolingien (Paris, 1947), pp. 149–151.Google Scholar

10. Duchesne, , Liber Pontificalis, 1: cxxix.Google Scholar

11. See Guillou, André, Régionalisme et indépendance dans l'empire byzantin au VIIe siècle: L'exemple de l'Exarchat et de la Pentapole d'Italie (Rome, 1969)Google Scholar for developments in Ravenna and the surrounding area under the Byzantines; see especially pp. 206–208, 231–236.

12. The texts of the two documents which defined the relations between the Frankish government and the papal state, the Pactum Ludovicianum of 817 and the Constitutio Romana of 824 are found in MGH, Legum sectio II: Capitularia Regum Francorum, Boretius, Alfred, ed. (Hannover, 1883), pp.352–355 (no. 172)Google Scholar; 323–324 (no. 161). The second document unquestionably increased the rights of the Franks in the papal state. Halphen calls this “la volte-face du gouvernement imperial,” Charlemagne, pp. 233–236, 253–258.Google Scholar

13. Libellus de imperatoria potestate in urbe Roma, ed. Pertz, Georg in MGH, Scriptores, 31 vols. (Hannover, 1839), 3:721Google Scholar, points out Ravenna's strategic location and its use by Louis as a base against the Saracens. John is described as one “qui serviens imperatori familiarior erat” (“who serving the emperor was on more familiar terms with him”).

14. On this affair see Duchesne, Louis, The Beginnings of the Temporal Sovereignty of the Popes, AD 754–1073, trans. Mathew, Arnold (London, 1908), pp. 146–147Google Scholar; compare Jaffe, , Regesta, 1: 331, no. 2602; 332, no. 2610.Google Scholar

15. Duchesne, , Temporal Sovereignty, pp. 149–154.Google Scholar

16. Prudentius of Troyes, , Annales Bertinianenses, ed. Pertz, Georg in MGH, Scriptores (Hannover, 1826), 1: 440Google Scholar; “Nicolaus praesentia magis ac favore Ludoici regis et procerum eius quam cleri electione substituitur” (“Nicholas was selected more by the presence and favor of King Louis and his nobles than by clerical election”).

17. Mansi, , Collectio, 15: 658–659.Google Scholar

18. Compare the canon of the council held under Pope Stephen V in 816 (Mansi, , Collectio, 14: 147–148Google Scholar) with cap. xi (Mansi, , Collectio, 15: 659Google Scholar) issued by Nicholas's synod of February 861. The relevant passage of the former is as follows: “ut cum instituendus est pontifex, convenientibus episcopis et universo clero eligatur, praesente senatu et populo, qui ordinandus est. Et sic ab omnibus electus, praesentibus legatis imperialibus consecretur” (“so that when a pope is to be designated, he who is to be ordained should be chosen by the assembled bishops and the whole clergy at the presence of the senate and the people. And thus elected by all [that is to say the clergy], he should be consecrated with imperial legates present”). The canon of Nicholas's synod runs thus: “Si quis Sacerdotibus, seu Primatibus, Nobilibus, seu cuncto Clero hujus sanctae Romanae ecclesiae electionem Romani Pontificis contradicere praesumpserit, sicut in Concilio Beatissimi Stephani Papae statutum est, anathema sit” (“If anyone from among the priests, higher clergy or secular nobility or from the entire clergy of this holy Roman church presumes to oppose the election of the Roman pontiff, let him be considered anathema, as was decreed in the council of the most blessed pope Stephen”). Nicholas's version omits any mention of imperial legates being necessary at the consecration of a new pope, thus eliminating the pretext in canonical law for imperial interference in papal elections.

19. Rocquain, Felix, La papauté au moyen age (Paris, 1881), pp. 55–57.Google Scholar

20. Duchesne, , Temporal Sovereignty, pp. 158–159.Google Scholar

21. Vita, p.156, II. 19–23Google Scholar: “Si dilectus filius noster domnus imperator istius Johannis archiepiscopi actus et bene mores cognosceret, ipse non solum pro illo nos minime flagitaret, sed etiam ut se corrigeret ad nos eum etiam eo nolente dirigeret.”

22. Fuhrmann, , “Papst Nikolaus I,” pp.354–355.Google Scholar

23. This assertion is based on the effusive cordiality shown by the two men at Nicholas's election to the pontificate in 858; see Vita, p. 152, II. 14–28.Google Scholar

24. Haller, , Das Papsttum, 2: 86.Google Scholar

25. Devos, Paul, “Anastase le Bibliothecaire,” Byzantion 32 (1962): 113Google Scholar, says Ep. 105, the letter written in November 861 in the wake of the Ravennate affair, already shows the librarian's hand.

26. Duchesne, , Temporal Sovereignty, p.151.Google Scholar

27. Vita, p.156Google Scholar, I. 7: “… et preceptionis suae decreto quae retradidit confirmavit.”

28. Duchesne, , Temporal Sovereignty, p. 159.Google Scholar

29. Kehr, , Italia Pontifica, 5: 41, no. 108, canons 1 and 2.Google Scholar

30. Schmidt, Hermann Josef, “Die Kirche von Ravenna im Frühmittelalter,” Historisches Jahrbuch 34 (1914): 763Google Scholar: “So stand diesmal—ein seltener Vorgang in der ravennatischen Bistumsgeschichte—neben dem Papste auch der Bürgerschaft von Ravenna gegen den eigenen Erzbischof im Kampfe.” (“So [it happened] this time—a rare occurrence in Ravennate episcopal history—that the townspeople of Ravenna stood with the pope in a struggle against their own archbishop.”)

31. However, see Jaffe, , Regesta, 1: 365, no. 2868Google Scholar, which indicates that John had nominated a successor to the see of Gabellum without permission from Rome.

32. See Jaffe, , Regesta, 1: 352Google Scholar for the sources on these events.

33. See Grumel, Venance, Les Regestes des Actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople (Istanbul, 1932–) vol. 1, fasc. 2, p.88Google Scholar, no. 479; p.90, no. 483; p.91, no. 484; see also Dvornik, Francis, The Photian Schism, History and Legend (Cambridge, 1948)Google Scholar, chap. 4 and Wieczynski, Joseph, “The Anti-Papal Conspiracy of the Patriarch Photius in 867,” Byzantine Studies 1, no. 2 (1974): 180–189.Google Scholar

34. Gay, Jules, L'Italie meridionale et l'empire byzantin depuis l'avènement de Basile ler jusqu'à la prise de Bari par les Normands, 867–1071 (Paris, 1904), p. 80Google Scholar, speaks of the strained relations between East and West. The rapprochement is even more surprising, especially on Louis's part, when it is recalled that a little over a decade earlier he feared a plot to restore Byzantine power in Italy; see Duchesne, , Temporal Sovereignty, pp.147–148.Google Scholar

35. Vita, p.160Google Scholar, I. 26-p.161, 1.9; p.170, nn. 49, 50. Grumel, , Actes du Patriarcat, pp.102–103Google Scholar (no. 514), attests to a letter written from Photius to John of Ravenna in late 878 or early 879 which indicates that the two prelates were in league against Nicholas. There is evidence that Nicholas suspected possible cooperation between East and West. When Rhadoald of Porto was deposed, he was forbidden under pain of anathema to communicate with Photius; see Nicholas's letter, no. 98 in MGH, Epistolae, 6: 562, II. 15–23.Google Scholar Compare Dvornik, , Photian Schism, pp. 119–120.Google Scholar

36. Epp. 39, 83 and 123 are among those which deal with various aspects of lay interference in ecclesiastical affairs. In the first, for example (MGH, Epistolae, 6: 314, 1. 4), Nicholas calls the proprietary church system “a venemous growth which must be excised” (“et tamquam venenatum elleborum amputari”). This system allowed laypeople who owned ecclesiastical property to exercise rights over the clergy attached to the property.

37. Ep. 105, p.616, II. 5–6: “ne aliis metropolitanis episcopis talia praesumendi occasio remaneret.…”

38. Amann, , L'époque carolingienne, pp.380–383Google Scholar, discusses this and recognizes the significance of Nicholas's words quoted in the preceding note.

39. Wickberg, Paul (“The Eighth-Century Archbishops of Ravenna: An Ineffectual Alternative to Papalism,” Studies in Medieval Culture 12 [1978]: 30–31)Google Scholar recently has pointed out that archbishop Sergius of Ravenna was tried at Rome in 755. Sergius's threatened deposition did not, however, take place. Moreover, larger issues, like archiepiscopal abuses, which marked Nicholas's struggle with John, were not present in the earlier episode.

40. Nicholas's most famous subsequent affirmation of episcopal rights was the case of Rothad, bishop of Soissons; see Amann, , L'époque carolingienne, pp. 383–388.Google Scholar

41. See Jaffe's references to the canonical collections on which Nicholas's conflict with Ravenna had an impact: Regesta, 1: 362–363, nos. 2841, 2842, 2843; 365: no. 2868; also see Brandi, Karl, “Ravenna und Rom,” Archiv für Urkundenforschung 9 (1924): 32–33Google Scholar and, for Nicholas's effect on Rome's relationship with archbishops in later centuries, see Rocquain, , La papauté, pp. 27–30.Google Scholar