Pope Innocent IV and Emperor Frederick II: Auctoritias and Potestas in Conflict

David G. Terrell
April 4, 2010

The seeds of a break between the Holy Roman Emperor and the Papacy had swirled about Europe

for many years before Pope Innocent IV, arrived at Lyons in early December, 1244, and early in 1245

summoned the Church‘s bishops and the secular princes of Europe to a general council, one of whose

stated mandates was to force Emperor Frederick II to submit his will to the Papacy.1 This paper intends to

describe the basis of the Papacy‘s claim to superiority over the Emperor and the immediate actions of the

Pope and Emperor immediately prior to the First Council of Lyons in 1245. Then, the paper will examine

the Council‘s events and decisions related to the Emperor before conjecturing upon the consequences for

later European governance.

The Council‘s purpose, as stated by the Pope, succinctly set out the basis of the conflict:

"That the Church, through the salutary counsel of the faithful and their fruitful help, may have
the dignity of its proper position; that assistance may speedily be brought to the unhappy crisis
in the Holy Land and the sufferings of the Eastern Empire; that a remedy may be found against
the Tartars and other enemies of the faith and persecutors of the Christian people; further, for the
issue between the Church and the Emperor; for these reasons we think that the kings of the earth,
the Prelates of the Church and other Princes of the world should be summoned". (emphasis
added)2

The first decades of the thirteenth century, with regard to Europe‘s developing structures of

governance, were shaped by an evolving balance between the clergy of the Church, exerting moral

authority (auctoritas) over humanity, and the Emperor, exerting physical force (potestas)—and the scope

and limits of each related to the other. The questions of import were: ―How much physical force could the

Church exert in the promotion of morality?‖ and ―How much spiritual authority was invested in the

Emperor‘s mandate to rule?‖ and, by implication, ―Whose ‗dignity‘ and ‗proper position‘ was greater than

the other‘s?‖

1
Georges Goyau, "First Council of Lyons (1245)." The Catholic Encyclopedia, (Edited by Kevin Knight. New
Advent. 1910. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09476b.htm (accessed February 15, 2010)) .
2
Eternal Word Television Network. "First Council of Lyons - 1245 A.D." ETWN Global Catholic Network,
(http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/LYONS1.HTM (accessed March 16, 2010)) .
 2
David G. Terrell

In medieval canon law, these questions were first raised in the early sixth century when Pope

Gelasius (492– 96), asserted to Emperor Anastasius I (491– 518) that the two authorities ruling the world

were the authority of the Priesthood (auctoritas) and that of the Imperium (potestas); and, that the secular

powers were subordinate to the spiritual powers. In the years following, the popes and doctors of cannon

law asserted that the health of Christendom depended on close cooperation between a superior Papacy

and a marginally inferior Imperium; and often used a biological analogy to exemplify their views, the

functioning of a living body being dependent upon the proper functioning of its various organs. The

canonical position that developed was that papal authority without potestas was empty religion—having

no ability to act in the world—while Imperium without auctoritas was the tyranny of Lucifer, full of

action but lacking a claim to the saving grace and sacraments of the Church. To the Papacy, the only

acceptable political order must reflect the celestial order and would only exist when these two powers

functioned as God intended—in hierarchical subordination, one to the other.3

The last half of the twelfth century saw the emergence of territorial states in England, the Norman

kingdom of Sicily and in France. The governance of these nascent countries was complicated by the

competing clerical and secular jurisdictions in their complex hierarchies of sovereignty. Their existence

was facilitated by the creation of bureaucracies consisting of an increasing population of lawyers

emerging from the new universities. The coexistence of the varied types of monarchical- and city-states

with the universalist claims of the Holy Roman Emperor posed difficulties in reconciling their various

political and legal roles between each other and with the Church.4

The most significant legal and governmental development of the period was the Roman Church‘s

adoption many of the attributes of a secular state—and within the papal patrimony, its de facto existence

as such from the reign of Pope Innocent III (1198– 1216). As the curia exercised increased temporal

powers in parallel with secular rulers, the opportunity for dissension between the Church and the Empire

3
Robert C Figuera, Plentitude of Power: The Doctrines and Exercise of Authority in the Middle Ages, (Abingdon,
Oxfordshire: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2006), 125-126.
4
Joseph Canning, A History of Medieval Political Thought: 300-1450, (New York: Routledge, 1996), 83.
 3
David G. Terrell

increased. Between the mid-eleventh and the mid-thirteenth centuries three major conflicts occurred

between empire and papacy including that under discussion here that lead to the First Council of Lyons.5

The two ideologies of papal and imperial governance were thus well established generations

before Frederick II but the battle lines of the particular conflict under discussion here were drawn in 1157.

In that year, Pope Hadrian IV asserted to Frederick II‘s grandfather—the then emperor, Frederick I

Barbarossa—that the Imperium was a beneficium, bestowed by the pope. As one sense of that word was

used to describe a feudal property granted by a lord to a vassal, the implication of subordination prove

unacceptable to the Emperor and began a intense dispute about the respective spheres of action and

interrelationship between the two offices.6

From Pope Hadrian IV‘s opening ideological shots, the popes were, in general, the aggressors.

The emperors had never completely wished to usurp spiritual power. Their actions in that sphere had

usually been limited to the use of patronage to fill religious positions and to the desire to tax church

properties. The popes, having become secular leaders themselves, through the spread of manorialism,

could be seen as having obtained a taste for secular rule.7 But the popes following Hadrian seemed

especially intent upon taking every opportunity to brand the emperors, especially Frederick II, as the

enemy of Christianity itself. For example, Fredrick promised, in youthful enthusiasm, to take the cross in

the footsteps of his grandfather. When later domestic issues in Sicily demanded his attention, and he

demurred from launching an immediate crusade, Pope Gregory IX (1227-1241), acted with extreme

measures. Frederick was first excommunicated for not going to the Holy Land in a timely manner, as

directed by the Pope. Later, he would be excommunicated a second time—for going on Crusade, but not

prosecuting it in a sufficiently violent manner as to be acceptable to the Pope. Though Frederick achieved

5
Canning, 83-84.
6
David Abulafia, Fredrick II: A Medieval Emperor, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 63-64.
7
Judith M Bennett, and C Warren Hollister, Medieval Europe A Short History, (10th Edition. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 2006), 162-163.
 4
David G. Terrell

much by even-handed negotiation and toleration, including the return of Jerusalem without the loss of a

soldier, he would be again excommunicated for returning to Europe without approval.8

The core of the Church‘s position vice Frederick II was based upon the concept of the ―liberty of

the church (libertas ecclesiae)‖ within which, the church was free from any control or influence by the

laity, which included the Emperor. Pope Gregory IX, who essentially preceded Innocent IV (but for the

two week reign of Celestine IV), sharply defined the issue by particularly stressing the hierarchical

superiority of the curia—and of papal monarchy within the Priesthood of the Church.9 Pope Gregory‘s

conception of the Papal-Imperial relationship was based on this definition of kings and the Emperor as

laymen; denying them any concept of sacerdotal kingship that underlay previous claims to royal or

imperial dignity. Gregory‘s position as head of the Church, his assertion that clergy were superior to laity

and the scripturally-defined apostolic power of binding and loosing provided him with the footing for

claiming the right to judge the suitability of sovereigns.10

Pope Gregory IX‘s efforts to consolidate papal control over the priesthood of the Church further

prepared the battlefield that would host later conflicts between the Empire and Papacy. Gregory

established monarchical control over a unified clerical environment by restricting dissent within the

priesthood, thus increasing the concentration of powers in papal hands and depriving the episcopacy of

much of the autonomy it enjoyed earlier in the church‘s history. Gregory also assumed the power to

depose bishops without due process of canon law; and gave clergy the right to appeal unfavorable

bishopric decisions directly to the Pope—two changes that extended direct papal control over the church,

while curtailing the power of its bishops. Gregory also asserted papal control over the canonicity of all

Church writings and over the summoning of Church synods and councils, thereby reducing the possibility

that independent sources of canonical law could arise in conflict with the Papacy. These last two

innovations meant that, contrary to the precedent of all previous ecumenical councils, their summoning,

8
Herbert B. Workman, The Church of the West in the Middle Ages, (Edited by Arthur E Gregory. Vol. II. London:
Charles H Kelly, 1900), 29-30.
9
Canning, 87-88.
10
Canning, 88-89.
 5
David G. Terrell

decrees and canonicity were now solely subject to prior papal approval. These measures also handicapped

any Imperial effort to assert sacerdotal privileges the Emperors previously enjoyed.11

In pursuit of the Church‘s dignity, Gregory IX conducted an extensive propaganda war against

Frederick II. The Emperor was equally determined not to submit his Imperial dignity to the Papacy and

only a lack of unity in the papal curia prevented the pope from acting decisively. Frederick appealed to

the English and French kings for support, with some success, by protesting about the papal tactics and by

suggestion the he would be the first of many to fall, if the papacy was unconstrained. Gregory replied by

invoking the Donation of Constantine, arguing the papacy retained ultimate suzerainty in things spiritual

and temporal.12 Frederick also had his second son, Conrad, raised to the crown—the princes in the

Germanic states recognizing Conrad as king of the Romans and as the successor to Frederick. This

precedent of choosing an imperial successor dated back to the early Holy Roman Empire, however its use

here struck a blow to Gregory‘s papal theory of empire, which insisted that the pope alone created an

Emperor through ritual acts of unction and coronation.13 Frederick also issued an encyclical letter

appealing to the rulers of Europe, condemning Gregory by casting him as an ―impure priest,‖ ―unjust

judge,‖ and ―unseeing prophet;‖ and warning the rulers that once imperial power was broken by the

Church, its further subjection to lesser dominions would be made easy. His language purposely cast the

Emperor in the role of God‘s earthly agent, implicitly assuming the role of Vicar of Christ from the

papacy.14 The invective mounted between Pope and Emperor but the Papacy clearly voiced more extreme

claims against the Emperor, whose on doctrine never extended beyond the coexistence of imperial and

priestly power, neither impinging on the other.

Gregory IX died in 1241, having not defeated Frederick II, but neither had the Emperor defeated

him. Gregory had obsessed over the imperial power—excessive in his eyes—manifested in his

11
Canning, 95-96.
12
Abulafia, 294-296, 312.
13
Abulafia, 300.
14
Abulafia, 317-318.
 6
David G. Terrell

monarchies in Germany and Sicily; his interference in the Papal States; his neglect of tribulations in the

Holy Land; and, his willful treatment of the Church.15

The prospect for reconciliation momentarily seemed to improve when Gregory IX died. While

there was no chance the Cardinals would submit the Church to the Imperium, there was dispute over the

tactics taken by recent popes in securing the Church‘s dignity. The question facing the Cardinals was

which tack to take: the diplomatic approach last embodied by Pope Honorius III, or to continue in the

path of confrontation used by Gregory. When the Emperor tried to use influence to affect the election in

his favor, there was a backlash against him in the curia.16 After the election of a compromise candidate

who lived only seventeen days after his coronation, Innocent IV was elected on June 25, 1243. Pope

Innocent IV was Sinbaldo Fieschi, a distinguished Genoese lawyer within the curia who had acted as one

of Gregory‘s closest advisors.17 There are contradictory interpretations as to Sinbaldo Fieschi‘s

ideological position before his election but once becoming pope, he proved strictly and inimically faithful

to securing the prerogatives and powers of the Papacy espoused by Gregory and using the full range of

information operations against the Emperor—speaking of Frederick II as ―the great dragon,‖ of the other

European kings as ―the little basilisks;‖ who both ―must be trampled under foot.‖18 Gregory‘s passionate

commitment to destroying Frederick was therefore continued by his successor, the intelligent, politically-

savvy organizer called Innocent.19

As both sides positioned themselves, leading up to the First Council of Lyons, two incidents seem

especially notable. The first was that both the Emperor and the Pope made significant appeals to public

opinion through the use of the encyclical. However, the Pope clearly had an upper hand in this early war

of words. Through attendance at Mass, the church had a monopolized, trusted, indeed sacred, channel of

communication to both common and noble. Proclamations from the Emperor, though they may be well

15
Abulafia, 349.
16
Workman, 39.
17
James McEvoy, Robert Grosseteste, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 32-33.
18
Workman, 28-29.
19
Abulafia, 320, 351-354.
 7
David G. Terrell

written and of superior logic, were not easily disseminated. One only has to compare the audience size

and emotional of an imperial proclamation quietly nailed to the door of a mostly-illiterate town with one

read aloud by the voice of God from the pulpits of the church; and spread abroad by wandering friars. The

papacy would keep the high ground in the information battlespace until the introduction of the printing

press and the increase in literacy eventually ends the Church‘s monopoly on news and opinion.20

The second incident was the intense desire on both sides to secure the approving cachet of

General Council. This foreshadowed future movements toward representative involvement in matters of

state, though neither Frederick II nor Innocent IV looked to this council for advice. They were both

interested in using such a gathering for their own purposes. Frederick began the effort in 1239, when he

sent messengers to the College of Cardinals enjoining them to summon a General Council. Pope Gregory

IX arrested the messengers. The next year, Gregory issued a summons for a Council. Frederick, realizing

the necessary outcome of a Council whose members were hand-picked by the pope, dispatched a letter

declaring his opposition and his intent to actively prevent, by force, the Council‘s assembly. The bishops

mostly stayed home, being torn between being deposed from office and being deprived of liberty.21

However, a group of French, Spanish and English prelates assembled at Nice, from where the Genoese

had agreed to give them sea passage to Rome. The transports left Nice, in the company of a fleet of thirty-

two armed galleys. The Genoese ships were intercepted by the even-larger imperial fleet. In the action

that followed, twenty-two galleys were captured and while the Spanish bishops escaped, the French

bishops were seized and ―naked and shoeless,‖ taken captive and eventually imprisoned at Naples.22 This

ended Gregory‘s attempts at holding a council and a stalemate continued into Innocent‘s reign.

Over the winter of 1243-4, papal and imperial representatives began serious negotiations to

attempt a resolution to the conflict. Innocent IV avoided open hostilities, trying to marshal resources for a

20
Workman, 31-32.
21
Workman, 32-34.
McEvoy, 32.
Abulafia, 345.
22
Workman, 32-34.
 8
David G. Terrell

crusade against the Holy Land, the struggle against Frederick II, and the rising threat of the Mongols

against the Christians living in the Balkans.23 Progress was made by the negotiators on either side and the

possibility of a settlement became real. The settlement centered on both sides restoring the status ante

bellum as of Palm Sunday 1239, the day Frederick was last excommunicated—a situation that would

slightly favor the papacy in terms of land and settlements of claims. Frederick would also be enjoined to

make acts of contrition (in charitable donations) and to forgive his enemies (through ceasing to press

claims against the pope‘s allies, particularly the Lombards rebelling against his authority). Additional

clauses of the potential agreement established the primacy of the church in spiritual matters and

committed the Emperor to support papal allies with men and money.24

However, there was a difference on the fundamental nature of the agreement. The Emperor

viewed the agreement as a gradual disengagement between papal and imperial forces, under which he

would withdraw from occupied territories, make restitution, and demonstrate visible devotion to the

Church in exchange for papal absolution and the restoration of peace. Innocent IV viewed the

negotiations as a virtual act of imperial submission. He expected the immediate return of disputed

territory and unconditional professions of faith through submissive devotion. For Frederick II, this was

too much to bear. He was being asked to acquiesce to papal demands with no promise of absolution at the

end of the process. For Innocent, this demand accurately expressed his view of the nature of papal power.

Frederick countered with a request for rapid absolution, which would precede further negotiations to

define papal and imperial rights in particular detail—a position that seemed to find favor in the factions

within the College of Cardinals and with other sovereigns, including Baldwin II, the Latin Emperor of

Constantinople. The Emperor, attempting to press his position, requested an audience with innocent Iv,

where he would almost certainly press his request for absolution.25

23
Abulafia, 359.
24
Abulafia, 359-362.
25
Abulafia, 359-363.
 9
David G. Terrell

In June 1244, the pope and emperor planned to meet. Innocent IV sent envoys to Frederick II

with additional demands that exceeded previously negotiated conditions. The Pope, changed his route

and, instead of proceeding north to meet the Emperor, he fled and, traveling surreptitiously through

Savoy, and came to Lyons (12 December 1244) where he lived until April 1251. Pope Innocent clearly

did not want to meet with Frederick but the reason of this flight is less clear. Frederick did not attack

Rome directly, when he had forces poised outside the walls a few years before. King Louis of France

denied him entry, not wanting to openly place himself in opposition to the Emperor and possibly not

wanting his own authority directly challenged. Innocent was on the verge of receiving a personal

commitment of the Emperor‘s allegiance and good faith, including the return of some of the disputed

lands.26

It is possible, based on subsequent events, that Innocent IV was alarmed at the prospect of a

peace that did not include unambiguous papal supremacy. It is possible that innocent feared becoming a

prisoner of the Emperor, as Frederick II had shown no qualms at taking prelates of the Church prisoner in

response to Gregory IX‘s attempt to hold a Council. However, Frederick had not touched Rome in the

past, nor had he openly rebelled against the papacy. It is most likely that the moderation of terms agreed

to by his mediators proved unacceptable to Innocent and he simply avoided the meeting in order to pursue

a more extreme course.27

Frederick II‘s response to the Pope‘s flight was low-key. He stood by his previous policies and

continued appealing to those Cardinals most likely to resist further attempts of condemn him. He offered

to guarantee the safety of delegates traveling to Lyons, which might have sounded hollow to the prelates,

given his behavior when Pope Gregory IX attempted to form a council. Significantly, Frederick continued

to insist that the agreement almost concluded several months before could still act as a framework upon

26
Abulafia, 364.
27
Abulafia, 364-365.
 10
David G. Terrell

which to settle the imperio-papal conflict; and there is some evidence that the Emperor was willing to

make additional concessions relative to actions in the Holy Lands.28

At the end of December 1244, Pope Innocent IV summoned a Council for 24 June 1245 (the

Feast of St John the Baptist) Notices went out to bishops, princes and cities on 3 January 1245.

Interestingly, the Emperor was described in the summons as merely a princeps or prince, using a word

that implicitly detracted from Frederick II‘s royal and imperial titles and dignity—and could only have

convinced Frederick that additional condemnation was unavoidable.29 Behind the scenes, Innocent was

already working towards securing a conviction against the Emperor. Shortly after issuing the summons

two German archbishops (from Mainz and Cologne) made a hasty trip to Lyons to meet with the pope.

While there, they agreed to support a papal call for Frederick‘s excommunication and disposition and

gave their promise to elect a new emperor.30

As if to confirm the predilection of the Pope, the papal propaganda apparatus issued a series of

letters whose invective described the Emperor in language that was apocalyptic (the fourth beast in the

Prophet Daniel‘s vision), terrifying (the iron-toothed, brazen-clawed devourer), and heretical (a new

Herod, a Sadducee). Frederick II was cast as a ―false Crusader, friend of Muslims, enemy of Christian

belief, capturer of Cardinals, foe to the death of Gregory IX, usurper of papal lands and rights.‖31

According to one chronicle, only two hundred and fifty prelates responded to the Pope‘s

summons—making Lyons a rather small gathering for a General Church Council. Another record

indicates the presence of three patriarchs (Albert Rezats of Antioch, Berthold of Aquileia, and Nicholas,

the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople), three hundred bishops, and numerous prelates. A third record

specifically names one hundred assistants, prelates or lords, including thirty-eight French, thirty Italians,

eleven Germans, eight English, five Spanish, and five from the Latin Empire of Constantinople. Nobles

28
Abulafia, 367.
29
McEvoy, 32-33.
Workman, 34-36.
Abulafia, 366, 368.
30
Figuera, 48.
31
Abulafia, 368.
 11
David G. Terrell

known to have attended include Emperor Baldwin II of Constantinople, Count Raymond VII of Toulouse,

and Count Raymond Bérenger IV of Provence.32

Frederick II sent Thaddeus of Suessia to Lyons as his ambassador. Thaddeus was a skilled lawyer

with several years experience attending to the Emperor‘s affairs. In spite of low attendance and the

obviously hostile gathering, several potential mediators would be present—notably the Counts of

Toulouse and Provence, who were subjects of both Louis of France and Frederick.

The council met in three formal sessions on 28 June, 5 July, and 17 July.33

The first session opened with a sermon, preached by Innocent IV. In it, he described ―five

wounds‖ to which the Church had been subjected and which were to be the subject of the Council‘s

deliberations. The ―wounds‖ were caused by 1) corrupt conduct and unethical practices of both clergy and

laity; 2) the ongoing ―insolence of the Saracens‖ demonstrated by their possession of the Holy Lands; 3)

the continuing schism with the Greek church in Asia Minor and the Balkans; 4) the cruelties inflicted on

the faithful by the Tatars, in Hungary; and 5) the ongoing persecution of papal authority the Emperor

Frederick II.34

The charges laid against the Emperor added nothing to the list of accusations already broadcast

by the curia. The priority given them by the Pope‘s presentation differed from earlier indictments.

Innocent IV placed much more emphasis on the Emperor‘s treatment of the Sicilian Church than he had

previously done; perhaps to focus attention on a long-standing issue rather than attempt to present newer,

perhaps less convincing, charges such as those related to Frederick‘s actions against Lombardy.35

Thaddeus of Suessia responded to the charges point by point, presenting a different picture of the

Emperor. The Council heard of Frederick II‘s desire to comply with the framework negotiated earlier,

with a clear expectation of absolution. Thaddeus also voiced the Emperor‘s willingness to take the field

32
Abulafia, 368-369.
Goyau.
33
McEvoy, 35.
34
Goyau.
35
Abulafia, 369-370.
 12
David G. Terrell

against the Mongols and Tartars, and fight to secure Jerusalem. Overall, Thaddeus emphasized the

partisan, unbending nature of the charges and asserted that their seriousness demanded that Frederick not

be prejudged—and that he have a proper chance to defend himself. Thaddeus addressed doubts as to

Frederick‘s good faith by offering to let the French and English kings act as guarantors. The quality of

Thaddeus‘ argument pushed Innocent IV into admitting that the Emperor must be summoned to Lyons

and that until the accusations could be settled in public, the case could not proceed. The next day, at the

request of representatives of the Kings of France and England, Innocent granted Thaddeus a delay of ten

days (until July 7), with the expectation that the Emperor would arrive in Lyons—essentially to stand

trial.36

In the interregnum, Innocent and his advisors seem to have wondered if Frederick II, Henry of

England and Louis of France were going to stand united against the curia. They had to be aware that were

Frederick to appear, he would gain an advantage in the very act of demonstrating submission to the

Council; making it harder to refuse to grant absolution and accept his terms for peace. As Frederick had

now tied his involvement in the Crusades to the agreement, Innocent could certainly see his potential

effect on the prelates. The Pope‘s only recourse was to condemn the Emperor before he could arrive to

plead his case before the Council.37

At the Council‘s second session on July 5, additional charges were made against the Emperor and

again, his ambassador spoke on his behalf, asking forbearance for the Emperor‘s absence. On July 9, in

spite of contrary advice from numerous prelates, Innocent IV postponed the Council‘s third session until

June 17. Frederick II was moving through Piedmont on his way to Lyons when the date arrived and in the

Emperor‘s absence, the Council convened. In spite of appeals for leniency on the Emperors behalf by

36
Goyau.
McEvoy, 33.
Abulafia, 369-371.
37
Abulafia, 371-372.
 13
David G. Terrell

Baldwin II, Raymond VII, and Berthold, Patriarch of Aquileia, the juridical process against Fredrick

proceeded.38

Pope Innocent IV pronounced the deposition of the already excommunicated Frederick II and

caused the document to be signed by one hundred and fifty bishops. Once signed the Pope charged the

Dominican and Franciscan friars with its universal dissemination.39 The Bull of Deposition announced

that, in accordance with his excommunication, Frederick‘s subjects no longer owed him allegiance and

was summarily deposed from his imperial and royal thrones and stripped from all titles and dignity—

essentially renewing a declaration of war with the Imperium.40 Frederick, waiting at Turin to cross the

Alps, was frustrated of his plan to clear himself at Lyons. He was placed in the unpleasant position of

challenging the papacy‘s extension of authority while the Church would portray him as a rebel against

God, unrepentant and reprobate. There would still be attempts at mediation but these would be sponsored

by Louis of France.41

The Pope was unable to enforce the deposition. A Papal army was dispatched but the Count of

Savoy refused to allow it to pass through his territory. For a time, there was a fear that that Frederick II

would attack Innocent IV at Lyons, in retaliation.42 For the next five years the tension would continue,

Pope Innocent working to build support for a crusade to force Frederick‘s deposition while the Emperor

maintained his position and remained open to continued overtures made by King Louis. Innocent

remained unwilling to compromise.43

The Council was meant to reaffirm the rights and privileges of the pope over the territories

granted under the ―Donation of Constantine.‖44 The Council that Innocent IV summoned fell in line with

his wishes and after a brief trial, in which he was convicted in absentia, Innocent confirmed his previous

38
Goyau.
39
Goyau.
40
Abulafia, 373.
41
Abulafia, 375.
42
Goyau.
43
Abulafia, 390-392.
44
McEvoy, 38.
 14
David G. Terrell

execution and deposed Frederick II as Emperor. The declaration ordered the Princes of Germany proceed

with the election of a new emperor. Innocent, employing the Church‘s wealth, including those recently

collected from England, began enlisting an army for a crusade against Frederick. Notwithstanding being

labeled ―the enemy of the Crucified,‖ the best efforts of the mendicant friars to spread the Pope‘s

message, losing the support of powerful German ecclesiastics, Innocent‘s best efforts at raising a rival to

the Imperium, Frederick continued in relative popularity until late 1250, when he died after a possible

bout of dysentery.45

Both Frederick II and Innocent IV claimed that they sought a unified Christendom and both

acknowledged that unity required the cooperation of the clergy and the laity. Each party also agreed that

the priesthood rightly exercised its sacramental and teaching roles. The heart of the dispute was defining

the difference between clergy and laity in jurisdictional matters.46

The legacy of the doctrine of papal supremacy changed the course of European governance. The

Church was set upon a course that sought power and protected its prerogatives with coercion. Until this

point, the spiritual mission was more important than the secular—no more was jurisdictional power only

used to facilitate the pastoral function. The notion that asserted the clergy was morally purer, and

therefore superior, than the laity helped separate the clergy from the laity—essentially forming them into

a separate caste. This Church became legalistic, centralized, and coercive.47 The resulting growth in

bureaucratic machinery concerned medieval religious authorities for years to come. Innocent IV, with his

extensive legal training, appeared to be less spiritually motivated because of his focus on juridical

controversy.48

Regardless of Pope Innocent IV‘s motives, the First Council of Lyons only served to solidify the

hostility between the Empire and the Papacy. The decrees of the Council were never accepted by most of

45
Workman, 34-36.
Abulafia, 400-407.
46
Canning, 98.
47
Canning, 97.
48
Figuera, 48.
 15
David G. Terrell

Christendom or by the great kingdoms.49 Pope Innocent was successful in achieving the aims he set for

the Council but, misjudging the opinions of nobility and commoner, the results damaged the esteem upon

which the papacy‘s real strength rested.50

When Innocent IV deposed Fredrick II, the kings of Europe refused to listen to the Emperor‘s

passionate appeals for support. In the short term, this proved wise as the Emperor‘s discommendation

only increased their independence and security. However, they failed to foresee the ―heritage of trouble‖

they were incurring in sustaining the dominance of Rome.51 Had the nobles and the burghers of the cities

supported the Emperor over the implacable and haughty Innocent, the structure and power of the

medieval church might have been shaken. The Pope‘s position had alienated many, including some high

in the clergy. The Pope‘s proposed replacement for Frederick, an obscure prince, revolted the Germanic

princes.52

The prosecution, if not persecution, of the Emperor Frederick II provided inspiration for a series

of revolutionaries opposed to a wealthy, hedonistic Church. On one hand, Frederick came to be seen, by

papal enthusiasts, as the Antichrist. On the other, those decrying the temporal excesses of the Church saw

him as the Scourge or God, directed at a wicked and ungodly Church. These differing views gave

countenance to continuing conflict, especially in Germany—eventually placed under interdict.

Nevertheless, the power of the Emperors waned and the lands of the Empire in southern Europe were

eventually lost. Frederick‘s dream of preserving intact his inheritance—the lands and titles he believed

God had called him to rule—was disappointed.53

David G. Terrell
Herndon, VA

49
Henry Hart Milman, History of Latin Christianity; Including That of the Popes to the Pontificate of Nicolas V,
(Vol. VI. VIII vols. New York: W.J. Widdleton, 1870), 129.
50
Workman, 29.
51
Workman, 40.
52
Milman, 15.
53
Abulafia, 430-439.
 16
David G. Terrell

Works Cited

Abulafia, David. Fredrick II: A Medieval Emperor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Bennett, Judith M, and C Warren Hollister. Medieval Europe A Short History. 10th Edition. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 2006.

Canning, Joseph. A History of Medieval Political Thought: 300-1450. New York: Routledge, 1996.

Eternal Word Television Network. "First Council of Lyons - 1245 A.D." ETWN Global Catholic
Network. http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/LYONS1.HTM (accessed March 16, 2010).

Figuera, Robert C. Plentitude of Power: The Doctrines and Exercise of Authority in the Middle Ages.
Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2006.

Goyau, Georges. "First Council of Lyons (1245)." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Edited by Kevin Knight.
New Advent. 1910. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09476b.htm (accessed February 15, 2010).

McEvoy, James. Robert Grosseteste. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Milman, Henry Hart. History of Latin Christianity; Including That of the Popes to the Pontificate of
Nicolas V . Vol. VI. VIII vols. New York: W.J. Widdleton, 1870.

Workman, Herbert B. The Church of the West in the Middle Ages. Edited by Arthur E Gregory. Vol. II.
London: Charles H Kelly, 1900.

© David G. Terrell, 2009-2010, except where otherwise noted, content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License. For permission to reprint under terms outside the license, contact
davidterrell80@hotmail.com.