WI Early Church Divestment?

During the tenure of Pope Paschal II, he presented the idea of church divestment as a strategy for ending the Investiture Controversy. Obviously the clergy did not approve of this, since it entailed a significant loss of influence on their part. As a result the planned divestment of the church was not followed upon.

But what if, for some reason, Paschal II strategy gets put into action. This is really two questions; firstly how can the clergy be prevented from stopping Paschal II. Secondly, what possible effects would this have on the development of the Papacy and Europe as a whole?

What do you think?
 
What do you mean by church divestment?
As you surely know, the Investiture Controversy in the Middle Ages was a conflict over who got to appoint Bishops and Archbishops, the Pope or the the local Ruler, the most visible theatre of this was between the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor. Paschal II, rather idealistically, proposed that the church would no longer be involved with matters other than clerical, yet have the Pope as the one who selects new bishops. To put it simply, modern style bishops who do not control any territory or rule over people, but in the Middle Ages.

Contemporary bishops rejected the proposal since it entailed that they would loose control over their territory. If the plan would have been carried out the many historic Bishoprics of Europe, such as Liege, Cologne and Mainz, as well as the Papal States themselves would not exist.

Is that a bit clearer now?
 
As you surely know, the Investiture Controversy in the Middle Ages was a conflict over who got to appoint Bishops and Archbishops, the Pope or the the local Ruler[...]

As a Catholic child, I thought that "lay" (state) investitute was a product of the Reformation. In this (erroneous) view the Protestant state churches that maintained the episcopal model of church governance (i.e. England, Scandinavia) "invented" the idea that bishops, and in turn the lower clergy, were integral products of state investiture and in turn public servants. Of course this is incorrect, as episcopal-national Protestantism is actually a continuation of the lay investitute gradually terminated through Trent. But this is old hat, I suppose.

A full divestiture of papal holdings would be inadvisable. The papacy would require a degree of temporal autonomy, including land holdings, to protect itself against the warring princes of a pre-nation-state Europe. In hindsight, Ottoman invasion would have been easier had the popes fully divested their Roman holdings. Selective divestitute of holdings and temporal power outside of central Italy might be possible. The success of a balance between ecclesiastical office and temporal office resides in the adjudication of wealth and landholdings. If the local hierarchy agrees to step out of politics, certain temporal-financial deals (and inevitable but attenuated state input without direct control) will be necessary to permit the Church a great deal of autonomy in ordination and consecration.

I do not think that papal divestiture would have stalled the theological developments of the Reformation. Reformation ecclesiology might have greatly influenced the spread of Reformation theology, however. Orthodox Calvinism, for example, does not rely on investiture or consecration in the least given its congregational-synodical model of governance. So certain Protestant ecclesiologies/theologies would easily take root where the political climate favored large-scale restructuring. However, papal divestiture might have stemmed theological and liturgical revolution in Scandinavia, given the relatively modest Lutheranization of Sweden (and to a lesser extent England, as the English quickly absorbed Reformed influences into their new liturgy while maintaining some Catholic influences.) If Henry VIII and Gustav Vasa inherited a political, temporal, and financial quid-quo-pro with Rome and her orders that harmonized the ecclesiastical and temporal realms, perhaps the royal tempation to seize monastic landholdings and align their states with Protestantism over Rome would abate. One might say that the Tridentine reforms arrived a bit late, but in general the Counter-Reformation mostly provided post-facto damage control.
 
Last edited:
During the tenure of Pope Paschal II, he presented the idea of church divestment as a strategy for ending the Investiture Controversy. Obviously the clergy did not approve of this, since it entailed a significant loss of influence on their part. As a result the planned divestment of the church was not followed upon.

Paschal's proposal was never a serious one, it was just a trick to gain time to stall Henry V and to cut down internal enemies. And everything ended in those strange and contraddictorial agreements of Sutri in 1111.

The proposal wasn't feasible because it wasn't anymore possible to tell the church allodia from the regalia. How distinguish from the rights heldby a bishop as a public official and those held as a member of the clergy? Consider that especially in north Italy this "confusion" dated back to before the creation of the Holy roman empire if not the late roman empire itself.
Not to mention that many bishops could support themselves and their large retinues (not only other clergy, but also knights, servants etc...) only through the exrcise of regalia.
Finally the emperor's goal was not to separate the church from the state, an idea absolutely outlandish for the times, but "only" to nominate the bishops.

Anyway, if we suppose that Paschal II manages to defeat his enemies, that Henry V accept the plan and finds enough administrators to substitute the bishops, that said bishops are funded to make up with their losses and all the protests are quelled down, you would definitly have a turning point for the western history.

The divestment would probably send the catholic church toward a more spiritual and less political evolution. Movements like the Cistercians and Franciscans could become far more successful than OTL, while the Lay powers would have free hand.
On the other hand the church could focus more on the pauperes rather the potentes and champion their cause against the nobles. The church, rather than acting to preserve social peace, like OTL, could become dominated by more radical istances and support a struggle to even the social disparities...
Of course if Paschal decision is not upturned by one of the following popes, something I would consider quite probable.
 
Top