popetrivia

I wanted to write about Pope Pius IX, also known as Pio Nono. But as I was desperate to write about a mellow tidbit in the turbulent history of our papal friends, I discovered that the tale of Pio Nono wasn't mellow at all. His was a controversial character. He did good in the eyes of many and just as bad in the eyes of just as many. So I stopped writing the piece. I couldn't do it. At this time I'm really fed up with polarity. Even in history! It's a shame but I'm confident that my fascination for these specific historic events will return. But for now I'm going to let it rest.

I will however still write on my blog mytrivia and post pictures on my photo blog but this will only be pieces which give me joy, calm, peace, energy, happiness or excitement. I'm sure I will continue with the popetrivia because it was a delight to write the pieces.

Of course I listened to some music while writing this piece. This time it was Philip Glass, specifically the album The Hours (Music from the Motion Picture Soundtrack) The music on this album is hauntingly beautiful.

On August 29th 1799, Pope Pius VI died. Never before did a pope die under such humiliating circumstances. When he died he was a prisoner of the French revolutionary government, who wanted to put him away so he could do 'no more harm'. His death certificate read: civilian Giovanni Angelo Braschi, occupation: high priest. This government didn't give permission to bury the pope so his body remained above ground for six months. Napoleon finally gave permission to bury him. Pius's death marked ten years of turmoil that even the most radical reformers couldn't have thought possible. Everyone was convinced that the papacy was doomed. But rarely was an institute rehabilitated as fast as the papacy did.

The French Revolution seemed like a good idea to make sure that there would be more freedom and equality for all. The King and Queen of France lost their heads, as did 15.000 others, and everything would be better for everyone. Not! It was a chaotic mess. For the Catholics it was a nightmare. The French government, with Robespierre as one of the leaders, were in favor of freedom of religion. Robespierre wanted a state religion, a religion of reason instead of, in his mind, the 'old religion'. After the French Republic was formed, a number of Catholic celebrations were canceled and municipalities had the right to abolish Catholicism all together.

So, hold on. Developments like his didn't seem a big improvement for the French people. They got rid of one usurper and seemingly gained another. But, slowly other opinions were formed and earlier views of the Middle Ages were changed. Was this period previously seen as dark, dirty and a far cry from the more sophisticated old world (ancient Greece), now more and more it was seen as a time were things were orderly and clear. During the Middle Ages there was always the Pope who was seen of the father of all who ensured Christians a trusted environment, or so it seemed in post Revolution France.

The romantic generation in 1800 preferred the pope to the Emperor as a symbol of peace, order, and harmony. Medieval Rome and the Pope were immensely popular. After all, the whole of Europe was converted to Christianity from Rome. And so the young nations learned to look up to the Pope as the source of all culture and authority. Friedrich von Schlegel (1772 - 1829) considered Medieval Germany as a shining example of a balance between rights and freedom. It was the only European country where a happy fusion had taken place of the two major cultural forces which had formed Europe: the German and the Roman spirit. Schlegel also thought it very fortunate that there had been a second leader next to the Emperor: the Pope. The authority of both lay in the will of the people, but the Emperor represented power and the Pope the right. For Schlegel (and Joseph de Maistre 1753 - 1821) it was clear that Europe owed it to the Catholic Church and the Pope that it once had a taste of freedom, and this could only happen again when the Church and the Pope would be restored in their former grandeur. It is clear that a sense of freedom in the old Medieval ways was a major part of the idealistic view of the Middle Ages and the Pope.

So, in the beginning of the 1800's the Popes status was that his political power was substantially diminished. But, like a phoenix from the flames, his prestige resurrected significantly. This was mainly supported by young intellectuals who thought that a powerful papacy could turn the emptiness of the Enlightenment and the chaos of the Revolution and restore order, authority and peace in Europe. Their idolizing of the papacy didn't click with the Popes until after 1848. From 1850 the Pope initiated the reconstruction of the Church as seen through the eyes of the Romanticists and he began to see himself as his Medieval predecessors. Never before were the Popes so powerful and important in the lives of all believers. The Church and the papacy reinvented themselves. Again. And better than ever before.

Thank you French Revolution for showing that radical change is not always the best answer in order to improve the lives of ordinary people. And that's not just in the perspective of Christianity or papacy. I wish more people would learn from our history.

Wanderer above the Sea of Fog by Caspar David Friedrich.

The responsible one

Who was responsible for that misery? Well that was the King of France Philip IV or Philip the Fair (1268 - 1314) and Bertrand de Goth, also known as Clement V (1264 - 1314). I mentioned Clement earlier when I wrote about the Avignon period. Clement was Philips puppet, but I'm not sure that excuses him from his responsibility for his actions and the following atrocities against the Knights. But why eradicate them? The answer to that question is quite trivial: for their money!

Who were the Knights?

The Knights were very popular for a while, being champions of the crusades in the middle-east (the Holy Land). The order was founded in Jerusalem. So here was a religious order with a license to kill. Monks and murder; contradiction right? Not according to Bernard of Clairvaux (famous Benedictine monk), he was clear about this: monks could be knights and were entitled to receive absolution for their sins. They were soldiers of God. The Knights became rich because of the rights pope Honorius III gave them in 1129 to collect 10 percent of their possessions (i.e. land and harvest thereof). Their privileges, gifts and tax-reductions were also acknowledged by pope Innocent II in 1139. They became skilled bankers who provided loans to influential people like the pope himself, i.e. Alexander III was the first one who used them for financial support.

What went before

The misery actually started with Pope Boniface VIII (Benedetto Caetani) [1294–1303] who became involved in a power struggle with Philip IV. They were squabbling about taxes: secular leaders couldn't ask clergymen to pay taxes, according to the pope, well Philip was not amused by that. Philip was fed up and became very aggressive towards the pope who fled his wrath and ultimately died because of the aggression towards him. This marked the end of the leading position of the pope in the world. Philip showed who was boss; the secular leaders of the world, the kings!

The inquisition

During the 13th century the inquisition was brought to life. This was an institution where both church and state played a part; the church needed to convict suspects of heresy and the state imposed penalties for the crime. The inquisition was a very dangerous phenomena. The church was always right, if you were a suspect you didn't stand a chance. You were on your own and the only way to escape punishment was to acknowledge the crimes of which you were accused. Usually this was forced by torture. When the heretic recanted his earlier confession there was only one appropriate punishment: the stake.

Beginning of the End

So Philip had momentum to do as he pleased, including the persecution of a religious order like the Knights Templar. He was always in need of money as a consequence of high military expenditure and a inherited debt from his father. And he thought that if he could persecute the pope, he could also persecute a religious order where there was a lot of money to be gained. And so, on September 14th in the year 1307 Philip ordered the arrest of the French Knights, which took place on Friday the 13th (probably the source of the superstition for that date). About 2000 members were arrested, including the Knights Grand Master Jacques de Molay. The foundation for this arrest was based on the information that he got from reliable sources about the order which, according to these sources, was in fact a heretic organisation. It was said that the members renounced Christ, spit on his image, and kissed each other on several body parts. They also had intercourse with each other and worshiped an idol. Well! In this way, he was preparing his case against the Knights.

Clement

Where is Clement in all this? Well he was furious about the shenanigans of the King and he let him know that he was totally out of line. In 1308 Clement considered the allegations as being rumors and told Philip he didn't believe it. Clement and Jacques de Molay must have thought that the whole thing would fade out. But Philip was in a hurry for he needed money. He wanted to move fast and he didn't trust Clement to do his bidding. But he needed a clergyman on the case because heresy was church business. He got a minister (William d'Imbert) who was a member of the Dominican order to execute the arrest. Later he became the French inquisitor. Clement feared Philip but he assumed a leading role in the proceedings and tried do defy him as much as possible by dragging the process. Still he summoned all European leaders to arrest the Knights and to make all their possessions available to the church. His reluctance to assist in the convictions was diminished by the acknowledgment of the accusations by the Grand Master in front of a large audience. He himself was still not convinced of their guilt.

The tortures

Philip knew that they had very little evidence to substantiate the allegations and therefore the prisoners were threatened and tortured in advance of the Inquisition hearings. The order members were to be explained that a confession would lead to forgiveness, while denying would have the death penalty as a consequence. Most prisoners pleaded guilty. It is irrefutable that the majority was tortured, physically and mentally. Fatigue, threatening, fire held under feet or legs, hanging weights on testicles were commonly used so that 'justice was served in a clean and orderly way'. There were numerous reports that prisoners were killed by torture. Most Templar prisoners were priests, servants, warriors. Most knights were still fighting abroad. It made it somewhat easier to extract confessions, knights would possibly put up more of a resistance. The confessions of the Grand Master Jacques de Molay and other leaders broke all resistance and it looked like Philip got his way quite easily.

Resistance

In 1307 Jacques de Molay recanted his confession. Said he confessed out of fear for torture. So did a lot of the other members. In 1308 Clement suspended the activities of the French Inquisition. He took over all responsibilities. The church again gained power and it started to look grim for Philips case, but he pressed on in using propaganda to create support for his allegations. The next card he played was getting a group of Templars to confess by choice. This started a series of events which eventually made the Pope give permission to the French Inquisition to resume their work. in August 1308 the Pope presented his accusation against the Knights Templar order. It existed of 127 articles of heretic practices. It included the denying of Christ, new members were obliged to spit on the cross, the Templars worshiped a cat, the members were stimulated to perform homosexual acts, they hardly gave anything to the poor... and more of this. The Pope gave the whole thing a formal stature and hearings were to be started in Lyon.

The Council and the End of the Knights Templars

In 1310 approximately 550 imprisoned Templars were assisted by a great number of colleagues as defenders for their trials. They actually prepared a good case. But Philip put a stop to their efforts when he ordered 54 members to be burned at the stake for recanting their earlier confessions. This and other events scared the remaining defenders off and they fled the scene, further efforts were nipped in the bud. On Saturday the 16th of October 1311 Clement opened the council in the basilica of Vienne in Lyon. The attendants discussed what to do with the possessions of the order and Philip wanted to form a new order. When Philip in 1312 appeared with a large army, the Pope caved and on April 3rd he announced to the council that he had decided to dissolve the order of the Knights Templar, this was stated in the Vox in excelso . He would consider later what to do with the members and their possessions. Ultimately possessions were divided. And the leaders of the order were subjected to a papal court. On March the 18th 1314 in Paris Jacques de Molay and Godfried of Charnay declared that the order was completely innocent and to the horror of the audience they recanted publicly their confessions. Philip sentenced the two men to death immediately and they would to be burnt at the stake. Legend tells us that just before the fire got to him, Jacques de Molay cursed the King and the Pope. He predicted that they would have to stand trial in heaven within a year and would have to take responsibility for their actions. And indeed, both died that same year.

And that's a wrap! I know Tumblr is supposed to be a mini blog platform. This piece is not a mini blog, I guess. But I don't think I really care. When I want to tell a story like this one, I have to use all the words to tell it as I want or need to. And I used as little as I could ;-).

Not only the Popes suffered from the heat and fled to palaces in cooler places. Roman summer was a notorious enemy of several armies. For instance Frederick Barbarossa's army fell in 1167 in one week. Rapidly following on his earlier triumph, heavy rain began to fall, followed by a still and oppressive heat on which pestilence erupted. Within a matter of days it was no longer possible to bury all the dead and the rising piles of corpses, swollen and decomposing in the merciless heat of a Roman August, made their own awful contribution to the sickness and the horror.

Innocent III (1198-1216) loathed the Roman summer and tried to avoid it when he could. In 1202 however he couldn't escape it. The sun was murderous, the flies an additional torture. So much so that no one in the papal party tried to venture to a nearby lake to cool down because it took too much effort. Innocent did though and splashed the cool water on his face. This bit of trivia is especially nice and gives a little more insight in this pope under which leadership the medieval papacy rose to extraordinary heights.

However when Innocent died, his body was stolen from the house in which he had died. His body was found naked and rapidly decomposing in the summer heat. The disrespectful burial of one of the greatest medieval popes was later rectified by Leo XIII at the end of the 19th century. His bones returned to the Lateran in a suitcase of a priest, travelling by rail.

In 1691 Alexander VIII (1689–91) died. The ensuing conclave lasted 5 months, the longest since 1305. It would have lasted longer had it not been for the summer heat, which was exceptional even for Roman standards, which raised the temperature in the Sistine Chapel to incredible heights.

Nowadays the Roman summer temperatures are still noteworthy. A quick Google search led me to: 'Honestly? Rome's climate in summer is relentlessly hot. Most people who live and work in the city get out as fast as they can when summer comes, and head for the coast. Temperatures can reach as high as 45° C, 113°F, and there is often little or no breeze. It's hot, it's sweaty and it's very, very tiring'. The Popes weren't nagging it seems. Luckily for them airconditioning is now an option so they are much more comfortable in their long robes during Roman summer heat.

Alright, but what is it then? To begin with, the empire was founded in 800 and was dissolved in 1806. It started with the coronation of Charles the Great or Charlemagne (King of the Frankish Kingdom, later German Kingdom) by Pope Leo III. This marked a slow transition point from the Roman Empire into something new. The exact term "Holy Roman Empire" was not used until the 13th century, before which the empire was referred to by various other terms as Christian empire, or Roman empire. The dynastic office of Holy Roman Emperor was traditionally elective through the mostly German prince-electors, the highest-ranking noblemen of the empire; they would elect one of their peers as "King of the Romans" to be crowned emperor by the Pope, although the tradition of papal coronations was discontinued in the 16th century. Napoleon Bonaparte broke this streak, but that is a different story.

The connection between the German rulers and the Popes was forged through the assistance of Pepin, Charles' father, when Pope Zachary (741 - 52) asked for protection against the threat of the Lombard Kings. For his help Pepin was anointed protector of the Romans and of the Roman Church. A title many a King desired.

Leo III was instrumental in the recognition of Charles as Emperor. For the Byzantine rulers still saw themselves as Emperor. And when Leo crowned Charles as Emperor, they refused to acknowledge him as such. What mattered in the west was that Leo’s action implied that he, the pope, held ultimate power. This question was to become central to the relationship between the emperors and the papacy until the 13th century.

Charles interfered in church affairs. He promoted church reform and the establishment of monasteries, where the scribes copied ancient texts so that now 90 percent of all ancient texts known to us derived from the work of these scribes.

Charlemagne as imagined by Albrecht Dürer, 1514.

The link between the papacy and the empire loosened after the 14th century and was severely undermined by the Reformation. Until then the connection between was a firm one. Their stories interlinked.

There were several dynasties along the way who produced heirs to the Imperial throne. Some were good (Otto I the Great) some were less impressive. To see a complete list of all the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire, check this out.

The story of the Holy Roman Empire ended in 1806 when Napoleon elevated Bavaria and Württemberg into kingdoms and formed the Confederation of the Rhine. In response to an ultimatum from Napoleon, Francis II agreed to dissolve the Holy Roman Empire.

I guess for me the Holy Roman Empire is this; a continuation of the Western Roman Empire blessed upon by the Holy Pope. Just to keep it simple :-).

While writing this I listened to my favorite entries for the Eurovision Songcontest which takes place tonight in Rotterdam, my hometown. I believe this is highly appropriate while writing about the Holy Roman Empire ;-).

In 1305 the Frenchman Bertrand de Got, Archbishop of Bordeaux, who took the name of Clement V was elected as the new Pope. The King of France, Philip IV (or Philip the Fair) pressured Clement to do as he pleased. To begin with he insisted that the new Pope would be crowned in France. Maybe Clement had every intention to move to Rome eventually but decided to stay in France in order to help calm things down between England and France so that they could combine their forces for another Crusade to the Holy Land. We all know that the appeasement between the countries didn't happen for a long, long time (Hundred Years' War). In any case, Clement decided to settle in Avignon on the east bank of the Rhone. He was a puppet of the French King and he was forced to play a big part in the disgusting plan of the King to get rid of the Knights Templar, but that's another story.

Avignon, in 1309 a village with 5,000 inhabitants, would be the home of 6 popes after Clement and be the seat of the Popes for 68 years. The poet Petrarch described it as a disgusting city, ‘a sewer where all the filth of the universe is collected’. Sounds delightable. Then again Petrarch was also not a fan of Rome. I presume that most cities during that time were disgusting with shit and piss running down the streets given the fact there was no plumbing or proper sanitation. By the way, Petrarch wasn't solely talking about sanitation.

Pope John XXII (1316-34) came after Clement. When he died Avignon was no longer a stinking village but a wealthy city where whole districts were swept away for mansions and palaces to be build for the cardinals and for the rich and famous. Avignon was booming. Upon seeing the debauchery that took place The Wolf of Wall Street would pale in comparison ;-). John founded the vineyards of Châteauneuf-du-Pape and a surviving record of provisions he ordered for a banquet to celebrate the marriage of his great-niece included the astounding list of:

9 oxen, 55 sheep, 8 pigs, 4 wild boars, 200 capons, 690 chickens, 3,000 eggs, 580 partridges, 270 rabbits, 4 plovers, 36 ducks, 58 pigeons, 4 cranes, 2 pheasants, 2 peacocks, 292 small birds, three hundredweight of cheese, 2,000 apples and other fruit, and 11 barrels of wine.

I can't even relate... and it only got more extravagant with Clement VI.

In 1335 work had begun on the Palais du Papes (Palace of the Popes) and there was no longer any doubt that the papacy was to remain in Avignon.

In 1348 the Black Death had reached Avignon. When I read about it now it reminds me of our current struggle with the covid-19 pandemic. They didn't know what caused the plague or how it could be cured. And the death rate was staggering. After Europe awakened from the nightmare they searched for a scapegoat and found it in the Jews (again). The Pope, Clement VI, condemned the subsequent massacres and threatened with excommunication for all who threatened the Jews. He was the first Pope who actively defended the Jews. But I digress, again.

In the mean time: after half a century without a pope, Rome had become a sad city. Pilgrims arriving in Rome were shocked by the ruins and decay. Rome needed it's Bishop, and the wealth therewith, back. Pope Urban V tried to return in 1367, but again the animosity between England and France that hindered a potential successful crusade (that crusade again!) messed it up. He returned to Avignon in 1370. By then Avignon was a fine and prosperous city with a population of 30,000. It was a religious and intellectual centre and a focus of banking and international trade. With churches and monasteries, palaces and mansions.

In the end it was Gregory XI who moved the papacy back to Rome. He believed that despite the obvious advantages of Avignon, the papacy belonged in Rome. And well, it did, didn't it. So he set sail to Rome and in 1377 he arrived. The papacy was back in Rome, for good this time.

I can understand that by that time a whole generation grew up not knowing any better than to believe the Pope belonged in Avignon. What I believe to be the most fascinating part of this episode is to see what a papacy can do in regard of wealth and prosperity. Nowadays Avignon is just a city and best known for the period of time when the Pope resided there. And Rome. After the Pope returned, Rome resurrected again as the true seat of the papacy and regained its splendor bit by bit.

Palais du Papes, Avignon

Pope Joan (?855-57) disguised herself as a man and was chosen as Pope John VII or VIII. The most notable legend goes that she became pregnant by her companion. And while in procession from St Peter to the cathedral of the pope, St John of Lateran, she delivered her baby on the street. Another telling of this tale has her giving birth while mounting her horse. By Roman justice she was then tied to the horse's tail and dragged and stoned by the people. Ugh!

After her death some precautions were taken to prevent making the same mistake. The Welsh priest Adam of Usk (1352 - 1430) is the first to tell us the 'fun' fact that at the election of the pope he is seated on a chair which is pierced beneath so that one of the younger cardinals can feel the proof that the pope-elect is indeed of the male gender. This so-called chaisse percée could be one of the two 'sedia curules' which were used for 400 years in papal enthronements. The chair stands in the Cabinet of Masks and has indeed a hole in the seat.

So you can believe it or not. For me, I'm not sure if I even want to believe it. There is so much disgust and disdain about the whole story. I sincerely hope it didn't happen for I get so sad for the woman (and her child) who had to get through the whole thing. And even though it is now many centuries later, I still can't see it happening. Unfortunately there hasn't been enough progress in that regard. A female pope... One can only imagine. For now.

Pope Joan Movie Poster

Since Constantine proclaimed Christianity as the official religion in the Roman Empire this was forged by law, the so called constitutio. Emperor Justinian I called it the codex in 529. This codex was the basis for the source of law and was being used till 1946! Anyway, I digress (again - but there's so much history here and it's tempting to tell it all ;-). What I was building up to is the fact that because of the Imperial law, the constitutio, the Pope and the Emperor of Rome were stuck with each other.

Who was the Christian equivalent of the Emperor? Well, in 691 the ecumenical council stated that there were five prime bishops: of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. They were equals. But, because the Bishop of Rome was the first and the successor of St Peter himself, he was the primus inter pares. The Pope ruled! Try to imagine, things (regarding the Catholic Church) would have been really different if this wouldn't have been the case. I say this because the institute was build and forged on a golden Empire, the great Roman Empire. In a city which was known for its splendor. But by now there was not much left of the splendor and it would get much, much, worse. Constantinople was the center now, the main capitol. But the attraction of Rome for new rulers remained and not in the least because of the Bishop of Rome, the Pope.

This Pope had to fend for himself against his enemies. His colleague in Constantinople had the help of the Emperors army. Because of this, our Popes became autonomous and sought out help on their own. For example, when the Byzantine powers were deteriorating half way through the eighth century, the Pope sought patronage with the Franks. Until this time the permission of the Byzantine Emperor was needed when choosing a new Pope. This rule was largely abandoned when Charlemagne ascended to the throne in 741 and the subsequent coronation to Emperor by the Pope. This introduced a whole new chapter in the history of our Papal friends.

Justinian I

For example John VIII (872–82) was assassinated by his own priests, they poisoned him and when that didn't work they hammered in his skull. Formosus (891–6) died in his bed but his successor Stephen VI (896–7), exhumed the body of Formosus, eight months after his death, clothed in pontifical clothing, propped up on a throne and subjected to a mock trial (this picture was stuck in my head for quite a while) finally his body (minus the three fingers of his right hand that he had used to give blessings) was tossed into the Tiber. Stephen himself was thrown in prison and strangled, call it karma. Sergius III (904–11) had a mistress of 15 years old, Marozia, Senatrix of Rome, their son would become Pope John XI. John XII (955–64), grandson of Marozia) was in his teens when he became Pope and he was the most abominable of them all in this time period. He lived in open adultery, his rapes of widows and virgins scaring off female pilgrims.

Later on in history we see fine examples such as Rodrigo Borgia, Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), who bribed his way into the papacy. Though he was not a terrible Pope politically, he was indifferent to religion, a womanizer, had multiple children, and was not opposed to assassination of his enemies. His nemesis Giuliano della Rovere, Pope Julius II (1503–13) was a soldier, literally with little regard of honor, (probably) had a homosexual relationship with Cardinal Francesco Alidosi, was worldly ambitious, unscrupulous, died of syphilis. But, we owe to him Michelangelo's paintings in the sixteenth chapel, the rebuilding of St Peter by Bramante, fresco's by Raphael.

There were many more examples of Popes who had trouble with celibacy, spending money, gambling, simony, nepotism, indulgence, among other things. It stands next to acts of greatness, love and kindness. It's like they are human after all.

Julius II (Giuliano della Rovere) [1503–13] (cover of the graphic novel 'The Horrendous Pope by Alexandro Jodorowsky and Theo)

Constantine was named Emperor in 306. He is now known as Constantine the Great and is considered one of the most influential man who ever lived. He made two decisions that changed the course of history. The first one was religious: he adopted Christianity both personally and imperially. Resulting in the fact that Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. The second one was political: he build a new city on the shores of the Bosphorus on the site of the old Greek city of Byzantium. The new city was called Constantinople (now known as Istanbul), the Roman Empire became the Byzantine Empire, nevertheless it remained the Roman Empire for all its subjects.

He was the first Christian Emperor. He gathered the first ecclesiastical council (Nicaea). When Constantine died in 337 Christianity was the official religion in the Roman Empire. He initiated builds for great basilica like St Peter on the Vatican Hill, Saint John Lateran, St Helen's, St Sebastian. And let's not forget the magnificent St Sophia in Constantinople (now known as Hagia Sophia).

Constantine actually dwarfed the Pope himself (Sylvester I (314-335) but I think of him as a great enabler of what the papacy is today.

When I first read about him I was eager to find out what he did to earn such a magnificent title. Well, at first it was kind of disappointing what I found out. I don't know what I expected but not a 'Servant of the Servants of God', as he called himself, who thought it was high time the people should be made more aware of their religious consciousness for the end of times were near! Bit of a gloom-and-doom character. Don't get me wrong, I like gloom-and-doom, it's practically my middle-name. But I don't like the fear evoking kind.

Also, in 594 he sent forty monks across the North Sea to convert England to Catholicism. Their leader was August of Canterbury, who became the first archbishop of England. In England, August found colonies of Christians who had hardly ever heard of the Pope and priests who were almost all of them married. Gregory thought that they had to choose between the altar or the marital bed. Any form of sex in his eyes was detestable, every man was born in grave sin, every infant who died without being baptized went straight to hell. Gregory sounded like a lovely fellow.

To avert a plague epidemic he held penitential processions and when he saw the archangel Michael shed his sword on the castle walls of the Castel Sant'Angelo he knew the danger was averted. Reeks a bit of superstition but in his case it was a show of his deep religious belief in mystical signs.

Gregory was well versed in the classics but he was also well aware that the refined Latin language which spoke of mythical figures was slowly being transformed in something more primitive: a kind of bastard language, not Latin and not completely Italian yet and a popular belief, loaded with stories of magic and miracles.

Most clergyman were preaching to people who didn't relate, didn't understand. Gregory thought that this had to change. The preaching of the new Pope spoke to all people, young and old, and was full of angels, devils, apparitions and miracles in plain language that anybody could understand. Religion became a magic box and in that regard Gregory introduced the Middle Ages with this new approach to bring religion to the people. Now I'm getting more excited about this Pope.

He was also an excellent politician. By exploiting the properties of the Church (the Church was by now the largest single landowner in the West) he took care of the Roman citizens by providing them with grain and oil supplies. It seemed that Gregory was a social person after all, especially for that time. The world of Gregory was a world where the Byzantine Emperor Justinian was constantly trying to reverse the clock and regain the western part of the Byzantine Empire. Gregory wasn't a fan of the Empire. Just two years before the start of Gregory’s pontificate, the Patriarch of Constantinople, John the Faster, took it upon himself to adopt the title of ‘Ecumenical’ – thereby implying universal supremacy over all other prelates, including the Pope himself. That didn't sit well with Gregory.

Emperors who used to reside in Rome, were now seated in Constantinople - the center of the Roman Empire. The Pope however was, as always, resided in Rome. Gregory had a lot of contacts with Western rulers but his political agenda was mostly dictated by the Roman Empire. In this capacity he extended the truce with the Langobards, who were a threat for the Roman structure. And when that truce ended and they still marched unto Rome, he bought them of with a yearly estimation, and so he insured the safety of the Roman citizens for a while longer.

As the greatest Pope of the early Middle Ages, Gregory’s most important achievement was to implant lasting in men’s minds the idea that the Roman Catholic Church was the most important institution in the world, and that the papacy was the supreme authority within it. He made important changes in the liturgy and showed a particular interest in church music: traditional plainsong is commonly known today as ‘Gregorian chant’ – even though in his time it remained largely undeveloped – and the Roman Schola Cantorum, probably the first body of trained singers to take over from the clergy and congregation and, as such, the ancestor of the modern cathedral choir school, was his personal creation. Then there were the Dialogues, dealing with the lives and miracles of Italian saints – including of course Benedict – a series of sermons on the gospels and a critical essay on the book of Job.

All in all, when you consider the context a.k.a. the historical perspective of the time in which Gregory lived, he really did great things. The liturgy, marking the beginning of the Middle Ages through his mystical telling during his sermons in a common language, the early beginning of Gregorian Chant, of Church music, his political talent and his care for the Roman citizens. It was a lot. He was also genuinely loved, so much so that immediately after his death his people demanded that he should be made a saint. The title of ‘the Great’ came later.

I'm convinced, he was great.

On 13 April 1059 Pope Nicholas held a synod at the Lateran; and there, in the presence of 113 bishops he announced the decree which, with one or two later amendments, continues to regulate papal elections to the present day. For the first time the responsibility for electing a new pope was placed squarely on the cardinals, effectively the senior clergy in Rome. Only after a pontiff had been elected was the agreement of the rest of the clergy and people to be sought.

Even then the elections tended to be hit-and-miss affairs, their rules never formally laid down. Until Pope Alexander convoked the Third Lateran Council in 1179, the most important result of which was the decree governing papal elections. At last Alexander ordained that the right to elect a new pope was to be restricted to the College of Cardinals, with a two-thirds majority required before any candidate could be elected. Apart from the fact that since the pontificate of John Paul II the right to vote has been restricted to those cardinals aged under eighty (kind of discriminatory), virtually the same rules apply today.

Later we will see that this procedure is still not as neat as you might think. Rodrigo Borgia (Pope Alexander VI) has shown this in a spectacular way. But still, just think, this process was first laid down 962 years ago. And it's been used in the same way for 842 years. I find this amazing!

Whether Jesus meant that he was to establish a church in Rome where infinite successors would follow and reside in that same city is unproven and seems quite unlikely. The city of Jerusalem would surely be a more preferred city by Jesus for such a holy function.

It is unclear what happened to Peter later in life. An early tradition states that St Paul and St Peter were both in Rome in 64 A.D. The historian Tacitus writes that they were one of the victims of a raging fire in the city. A fire presumably caused by the Emperor Nero, it wouldn’t surprise me if he did. However in The Acts of the Apostles by St Luke we see stories of St Paul which took place after the time of the fire. And it is sure that St Peter was with him at that time. It is all very vague. Was Peter really in Rome? He certainly had good reason to, simply because he was entrusted the mission to the Jews, and – with some 30,000–40,000 Jews living in Rome at that time – the early Roman Church would have been very largely Jewish. In any case, Paul met his fate through beheading and Peter was said to be crucified upside down.

In the second century it was generally accepted that Paul and Peter had both been martyred in Rome. There were two cemeteries that were associated with their martyrdom: one outside the walls on the road to Ostia, the other on the Vatican Hill. When, in about A.D. 320, the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great decided to build a basilica dedicated to St Peter on the Vatican Hill, he was clearly determined to build it on that precise spot and nowhere else. Right on top of the cemetery. Kind of creepy and disrespectful indeed, but ok. Constantine believed that the bones of St Peter were buried here and that was enough reason to forego all other arguments against building right there.

The thing is, Peter’s function was to be a foundation stone for the Church. And though the doctrine of the Apostolic Succession, which is accepted by both the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches, holds that bishops represent a direct, uninterrupted line of spiritual descent from the Apostles, it doesn’t say anywhere in the New Testament that they may inherit the distinctive commission that was given to Peter alone.

So, in the end. You could say that Peter was the first Pope but actually he was not. He didn’t really build the Roman church. The only thing that links him to the institute that it now is, are those 24 words from Matthew XVI 18-19. It is centuries after the death of Peter that the institute starts to build. Starting with Constantine and his basilica which very fitting would bare the name of the man on whose bones it was built: St Peter.

"Petrus in de gevangenis" (St. Peter in prison) (1631) by Rembrandt van Rijn