Ottonian-Salian imperial church system

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The concept of the Ottonian-Salian imperial church system, which is controversial in historical research, denotes a phase of development of the imperial church at the time of the Ottonians and Salians , around the close institutional and personal connection of the secular power of the kingship ( Latin regnum ) of the Ottonians and Salians and the dioceses and imperial monasteries ( sacerdotium ) in the Holy Roman Empire on the basis of the individual church system.

Conceptual controversy in research

In the more recent Medieval studies it is mainly discussed whether the term “system” can be justified, since on the one hand no exact point in time can be set from which the imperial church system would have been re-practiced as a concept. Rather, it developed slowly and step-by-step from forerunners such as the Frankish imperial church around the residence centers of the kings, since their assertiveness was strongest there, to the “system” that older research recognized as Otto I's idea . In addition, the pillar of the sacred empire can be traced back to the Roman Empire under Constantine I. The monarch does not take a position directly within the ecclesiastical organization, but receives a special legitimation that the ordinary secular nobility does not have. Otto the Great followed this tradition as King of the East Franconian / German Empire and was anointed by one of the archbishops when he came to power in 936 . By winning the imperial crown in 962, he also assumed a unique position among Christian rulers in Western Europe.

Timothy Reuter , for example, expressed a sharp criticism of the term "imperial church system" in 1982. He denied that in the East Franconian Empire there had been a properly planned and systematic transfer of power to the church from the royal side. Rather, the endowment of the high churches with rulership rights is related to a royal patronage policy. Reuter also pointed out that in the Western European empires, the monarchs also relied on church organization, with church dignitaries actually playing a larger role there.

Historical practice

In any case, in return for their support of the king, the bishops gained more secular power. While bishops and abbots have enjoyed the traditional prerogative of immunity for centuries , regalia have been transferred to them since Otto I and count rights were granted in their residence and in the area dependent on it. In return, the bishops and imperial abbots, who have increasingly belonged to the imperial princes since the 11th century , had to perform the servitium regis , the imperial service, the scope of which cannot be precisely determined. He has definitely and primarily the temporary accommodation of the traveling royal court ( gas Tung ), the posting of quotas for the imperial army and the diplomatic service and administrative nature. The emperor was therefore very interested in gaining a decisive influence on the choice of candidates, which he concluded with the investiture with ring and staff.

Against the background of feudalism , this practice had a decisive advantage: if the secular vassals always tried to convert their fiefs into hereditary property , the question of inheritance did not arise with bishops and abbots as a result of celibacy : after their death the fief came back again returned the liege lord, who could again give it to a loyal vassal. The condition for this, however, was that the emperor actually had church sovereignty . This was by no means self-evident, as the example of the West Franconian Empire showed: Here the king could only dispose of a third of the dioceses in the 10th and 11th centuries. Control of the rest (along with numerous other sovereign rights) had fallen into the hands of his vassals.

Initially, this process ran similarly in Eastern Franconia: when King Henry I , father of Otto the Great, came to power in 919 , the tribal dukes of Bavaria, Swabia and Lorraine had, among other things, obtained the right to appoint bishops. This applies in particular to Heinrich himself, as he had previously transformed the bishoprics of his domain into a kind of ducal church as Duke of Saxony. In the following years he used his growing position to just pull the right to investiture back to the kingship. This is particularly noticeable against the background that he otherwise granted the dukes a certain autonomy. So he must have been aware of the importance of controlling the dioceses. However, it was only after the death of Duke Arnulf of Bavaria in 937 and the deposition of his son that the Ottonians had full power over all bishoprics in the empire.

In order to place the most suitable and trusted clergymen in the vacancies, the emperors often resorted to members of their own court orchestra . This practice goes back to the Carolingian rulers since Charlemagne ; as in the Holy Roman Empire, it was also practiced in other European kingdoms.

End of the investiture dispute

Through the "imperial church system" the clergy came into two spheres of influence: that of the emperor and that of the pope. In the Cluny Abbey outgoing church reform movement , the resistance grew against the secularization of ecclesiastical offices. The resulting investiture dispute , in which it was only superficially a matter of whether secular or spiritual power had the right to invest the bishops, could not entirely abolish the "imperial church system", but it could considerably limit the royal influence. The Worms Concordat of 1122 constitutes a turning point in that the spiritual power in the empire succeeded in emancipating from the secular; the bishops were able to suppress the king's direct power of disposal over them and gradually secure their own sovereign rights. This paved the way for the bishops to establish their own territorial states within the empire and the Ottonian-Salian imperial church system was effectively at an end.

literature

  • Tina Bode: King and Bishop in Ottonian times. Rule practice - scope for action - interactions (= historical studies. No. 506). Matthiesen, Husum 2015, ISBN 978-3-7868-1506-8 .
  • Josef Fleckenstein : The court chapel of the German kings . Volume 1: Foundation. The Carolingian court chapel. Hiersemann, Stuttgart 1959. Volume 2: The court chapel as part of the Ottonian-Salian imperial church. Hiersemann, Stuttgart 1966 (= Monumenta Germaniæ Historica . Schriften. Volumes XVI / 1 and XVI / 2).
  • Josef Fleckenstein: Problems and form of the Ottonian-Salic imperial church . In: Karl Schmid (Ed.): Empire and Church before the Investiture Controversy . Thorbecke, Sigmaringen 1985, pp. 83-98.
  • Oskar Köhler : The Ottonian Reich Church. A research report . In: Josef Fleckenstein u. a. (Ed.): Nobility and Church. Gerd Tellenbach for his 65th birthday presented by friends and students . Herder, Freiburg a. a. 1968, pp. 141-204.
  • Timothy Reuter : The 'Imperial Church System' of the Ottonian and Salian Rulers. A reconsideration . In: Journal of Ecclesiastical History 33 (1982), pp. 347-374.
  • Leo Santifaller : On the history of the Ottonian-Salic imperial church system . Hermann Böhlaus Nachf., Vienna 1964, pp. 27–49.
  • Rudolf Schieffer : The Ottonian imperial episcopate between royalty and nobility . In: Frühmittelalterliche Studien 23 (1989), pp. 291-301.
  • Rudolf Schieffer: Ottonian-Salian imperial church . In: Lexicon of the Middle Ages (LexMA). Volume 7, LexMA-Verlag, Munich 1995, ISBN 3-7608-8907-7 , Sp. 627 f.

Remarks

  1. ↑ Timothy Reuter: The "Imperial Church System" of the Orronian and Salian Rulers. A reconsideration. In: Journal of Ecclastiastical History , 33, 1982, pp. 347-374. Against: Josef Fleckenstein: Problem and form of the imperial church. In: Karl Schmid (Ed.): Empire and Church before the Investiture Controversy. Festschrift Gerd Tellenbach. Sigmaringen 1985, pp. 83-98.
  2. ↑ Jan Dhondt : The early Middle Ages (= Fischer Weltgeschichte . Volume 10). Fischer Taschenbuch, Frankfurt am Main 1968, p. 200 f.