1"];Ez [flu-III 1‘3? 1“»; ‘4}; “b ’r A”xx-“"1“... “OH \f.‘ #4"? hm 53$“ u..- 1+‘£~‘~t. O I;In A I|\ \'IE+J‘L' J: 1:5" % £3 “1'" “Mi 533:? £955..“ #- a; 5"” :'-"II9 “:3. ' “‘3' P\ .1 .- _: ‘. :3,“ ..~ A N} 9:797 . ._ 1: x ”. J_ I.' 0 II E“ : .\\! "4." ~.| I I ‘1‘ I I"\7:I~\‘ VI‘ II‘:' . It} «U‘dkf'i‘g‘q’ 2.3:? ~1an 3535“." h' , ' KI ,.‘ I «_“ - 3‘5“; 2:." “f -3333. J 1 .C‘ I. . l‘ ' "‘ ' 1 £1 '“ .1539: I" '.'_‘.“1"~ ’ I ~‘ ¢ Ii‘zi fif'h .‘ffl? ‘ (Phil 3" '21' gum. ' .'v".£i ”It“ I‘ ‘ II: -‘f.‘:‘ ‘l L. I‘vvf... I 1L0... 1?.‘.$L\!L.:;. . I. | ' ‘- 3 . ‘.:¢7A;'5‘,‘ 31?}: “in J.’ ' I v v. - 'r .723:- A)? 15:53: ‘Vz‘qé3" :1" 0 ‘IV‘ .‘fif: ‘IV‘C‘ ‘ It: :1 O "l“ “VHS V “#7“? v" ' I- I'. ' ‘2. #5:" “'..I a." ”ER, (3.. " . ‘ {Iv‘gs ' M Al‘s-”RV I 'ul- ' .I N" "I I‘ .51? '1I:(1'T:6'."RV 15,21, “NM ." .‘fi ,.._ '5‘ . .::, ‘V Wv<~..','.c. I'M I I 9:» II”. ""‘.I.«“"'1 ”1.53; LI: I‘g'J‘n Ir“ 1W .. {"412 M I...“ II ' “ L } :l 3" .II'..L “Pb . H II .; :d.hi""-.|Bfi‘}l W "V“ I 4‘4 9‘:“ ,gm VI ”W“. '53: ‘gfiyg’iwr- » I |.,.:.:‘|'I': ISM)". a II I IL'I'ZL”. .Wq "' .M '. in“ y ‘ I I' ." l! U, L 5 - a. -. F“ * IGAN STATE NIVER Illzlllllllll will LIBR will I l 1582 3473 will LIBRARY Michigan State University m ‘ This is to certify that the thesis entitled Maze/as J (0759'867):14n nus/USU 0/: Ms [Hie/«fame 775179.071 0f Hafw/ 10777775193 presented by JOHN BAKITA has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PhD degree in History Major professor Date February 22. 1978 0-7 639 Nil NICHOLAS I (858-867)! AN ANALYSIS OF HIS INTERPRETATION OF PAPAL PRIMACY by John Bakita A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of History 1978 pon Hit} The Nick Sent thes or p eCcl Prep that did 1 {\ ')/?_; ABSTRACT NICHOLAS I (858-867): AN ANALYSIS OF HIS INTERPRETATION OF PAPAL PRIMACI By John Bakita The purpose of this study is to investigate the pontificate of Nicholas I with a view toward determining how he perceived his own position within Christendom. Emphasis is placed upon determining what rights or responsibilities Nicholas thought that the Roman pontiff had which would set him apart from other bishops and monarchs within the Christian community. That is. an analysis of Nicholas' thoughts on the pope's prerogatives (primacy) is the subject of this investigation. This paper will examine specific critical cases with which Nicholas was concerned during his pontificate. The cases studied do not cover all the affairs with which Nicholas became involved, but were selected for their repre- sentativeness of Nicholas' thoughts. Nicholas' actions in these cases were exemplary of his responses to various types of problems and concerns. For example. the cases involving ecclesiastics indicate that Nicholas believed he must be prepared to respond to a request to intervene in any instance that could not be settled locally according to canon law. He did not hesitate to react to a request from the Christian CO! 1821 con to : con‘ dlv< Pic: tot John Bakita community in the territory of Emilia, which complained of the manner in which their archbishop. John of Ravenna, was admin- istering his see. Nicholas found John negligent and abusive. and, consequently, he censured and finally even excommunicated him for breaking canon law. Nicholas also censured the archbishops Gunther of Cologne and Theutgard of Trier for what he. as pontiff, considered an abuse of their offices by allowing a local synod to sanction a divorce for King Lothar II, an act which he contended canon law would not allow. In connection with this divorce case, he also censured Zachary of Portua and John of Ficolo, his envoys to the Council of Metz (863) for agreeing to this divorce without first reporting back to Home. In a similar vein Nicholas excommunicated the two legates to Constantinople, Bodoald of Porto and Zachary of Anagni. for accepting. in his name, the deposition of Ignatius as Patriarch of Constantinople and approving the elevation of Photius to this post. Nicholas insisted that these legates had been sent to the Council of Constantinople (861) only to ascertain the facts and then they were to report back to him for his decision. Further, Nicholas insisted upon trying to control directly the missionary activity in Bulgaria and Moravia. It was especially apparent in his exchange with Khan Boris of Bulgaria that Nicholas thought, as supreme pontiff of Christendom. he had Juris- dictional responsibility for the establishment of the Bulgarian hierarchy, irrespective of the expressed wishes of the khan. 2 NO co in 001 of to: 801 did lev John Bakita Although Nicholas avoided clashes with secular monarchs over civic affairs wherever possible. still the pontiff did not waver from censuring Lothar II for what he considered immoral actions in setting aside Queen Theutberga in favor of his mistress Naldrada. Nbr did he shrink from condemning Lothar II's allowance of the see of Cambrai to pass illegally, according to canon law, to Hilduin. This ecclesi- astical property was under the Jurisdiction of Hincmar of Bheims. Nevertheless, in spite of his very strong defence of Hincmar's canonical prerogatives in Cambrai, Nicholas took Hincmar to task for denying his suffragan, Rothad of Soissons, his right of appeal to the Roman See when Bothad did not receive the decision he wanted at the provincial level from Bincmar. In summary, these cases point to actions on Nicholas' part which indicated his belief in the principle that the pope was selected by God to serve as Peter's successor on earth and that this selection carried with it heavy responsibilities, including the right to reach final decisions in ecclesiastical and moral issues that confronted Christendom. for my mother 11 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am deeply indebted to the following people for helping to bring this work to its fruition. First my wife Patricia, who was so understanding throughout and also did the typing, next my mother who helped me so much during my graduate studies and also kindly proofread my copy and made many helpful suggestions for clarification. Also I would like to thank my colleague, Dr. James B. Sasser, for graciously taking time from his busy schedule to read my final draft. To two Canadian Jesuit linguists. the late Fr. Eric Smith, S.J. and Fr. George Topp, S.J., I am most appreciative for their assistance in helping translate Nicholas' ecclesiastical Latin. In addition, I am most appreciative of the guidance and friendship extended to me by the humane Michigan State University History Department; Professors Stanley'Chanacki, Marjorie Gesner, Madison Kuhn. and Donald Lammers. and others. come immediately to mind. Lastly. I would like to thank my doctoral committees Professor Arthur Adams for pushing me at Just the right times Professor Alan Fisher for his friendship and help as I began my new careers and Professor Richard E. Sullivan for his in- spirational guidance throughout my protracted doctoral program. 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 0 I I O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 Chapter I. CHARACTERISTIC RELATIONSHIPS WITH WESTERN ECCLES IASTICS O O O O O I O I O O O O O 8 John of Ravenna Rothad of Soissons Gunther and Theutgard Hilduin of Cambrai II. RELATIONS WITH PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE 62 III. NICHOLAS‘ INVOLVEMENT WITH THE MISSIONARY ACTIVITY IN ILLIRICUM . . . . . . . . . 109 Nicholas' Action in the Bulgarian Mission Nicholas' interest in the Moravian mission IV. NICHOLAS' RELATIONSHIP WITH TEMPORAL LEADERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 The divorce case of King Lothar II Judith and Baldwin of Flanders v 0 CONCLUSION O O O U C O O C C O O O 0 O O O O 158 APPENDICES O O O I C O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O 166 Appendix A: Preface to Translation Appendix Bl Life of Nicholas I (858-867) BImlIOGRAPfl O O O I O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 207 iv pox vie on he ies P01: We?! 10:: int no] or1 Vam “nus INTRODUCTION An absorbing issue of the ninth century is the position of the bishop of Rome in Christendom, especially vis-i-vis other ecclesiastical leaders and secular lords. With Charlemagne's coronation as Holy Roman Emperor on Christmas Day. 800. it is clear that Charlemagne believed he had responsibility for the total Christian community in Western Europe, which was the basis for much of his overall political program. However. when Charlemagne's successors were unable to exercise a similar control over society, other lords--especially important ecclesiastical hierarchs--stepped in to claim control. By the mid-ninth century the Carolingian rulers were no longer able to dominate Western Christendom in the manner or their great predecessor. Several popes moved into this vacuum and assumed the role of chief unifying agent in Europe. This was especially true of Nicholas I (858-867) who had an unusually lofty perception of the role of Roman pontiff in society.1 Therefore it seems advisable to see Just what Nicholas thought the role of the pope should be in Christendom. 1He is referred to as the Roman see's ”ablest and most assertive occupant between Gregory the Great and Hildebrand.” by Williston Walker, A Histo of the Christian Church (3rd ed. revised. New York: CEarles ScriEner's Sons. 1975’. Do 193- 1 CO! Ch] 30: 1'82 Nit pa; f0} be: be me: bel re: f1; 5 ( This role can be viewed from three maJor per- spectivess Nicholas' interpretation of the Jurisdictional rights of the Roman See within Christendom; his perception of the theological prerogatives that were Rome's; and his conception of the moral responSibilities of the pope. An analysis of these three views of the pope's role in Christendom provides insight into Nicholas' perception of Roman primacy. A review of historical literature reveals a wide range of divergent opinions regarding the pontificate of Nicholas I. Johannes Haller indicates in his work Egg gapsttums Idee und Wirklichkeit2 that Nicholas moved the papacy from a relatively weak position and tried to make it, for all practical purposes. the dominant force in Europe. Haller states that Nicholas' historical significance can best be understood from the fact that the Roman See was to be the immediate authority over all bishops and all Christians. the Judge over all in all cases. the absolute master and ruler of the whole church and of all true believers.3 Haller also indicates that some writers have referred to Nicholas as the ”first pope.” since he was the first pope to clash willingly with other powers--both 2Johannes Haller. Das Pa sttum: Idee und Wirklichkefi: (Basel: B. Schwabe, 1950) II, pp. 3-117. 31bid., p. 90. ecci inhl soc! Hall it 1 what inst lhei les: he 1 a 11 con: of 1 anti flea 130p. Dom ecclesiastical and temporal--for what he considered to be his inherent right of Jurisdictional control over Christian society.“ Emile Amann, on the other hand, takes exception to Haller's analysis of Nicholas I's pontificate. Amann says it is incorrect to interpret Nicholas as a theoretician of what might be called a ”medieval theocracy.” In fact, Amann insists that Nicholas intervened in secular matters only when his advice was requested as an arbitrator.5 Neverthe- less, Amann does state that Nicholas believed that as pope he had the right to control the entire Christian Church in a Juridical sense.6 In addition. Amann says that Nicholas considered moral matters such as marriage a responsibility of the church and believed that the pope should be the final 7 Amann summarizes Nicholas' ponti- authority in this area. ficate by stating that to make him a despot. as some do. is to misunderstand him. Rather Nicholas was merely a strong pope, one who raised the papacy to new heights during his 8 pontificate. “Ibid.. p. 68. 5Emile Amann. L'épogue carolingienne, Vol. VI: Histoire de l'église depuis les origines Jusgu'a nos Jours. pu liee sous la direction de Augustin Fliche et Victor Martin. (Paris: Bloud & Gay, 1937). p. 369. 6Ibid.. p. 380. 71bid. 81bid., p. 395. Two prominent contemporary authors, Walter Ullmann and Karl Morrison, also hold divergent opinions concerning Nicholas' perception of the pope's powers in Christian society. Ullmann9 argues that Nicholas thought, as Roman pontiff, he had a principatus in Christendom which extended over the sggigtas omnium fidelium. or the entire Christian society, of his time. This principatus, or primacy, applied to all aspects of Christian life--including secular as well as Christian concerns. Ullmann also interprets Nicholas' writings to indicate that the pope had the legal. theolo- gical and moral responsibility for controlling virtually all aspects of Christian society. Karl Morrison, who earlier agreed with Ullmann's position,10 indicates that he has changed his mind from his former position--that Nicholas I was a ”thorough-going papal monist. who understood order and temporal government as parts of a unitary system under the command of the papacy."11 Morrison now states that a more correct analysis is that Nicholas held the conventional view that the Church and the civil power were institutionally discrete and that his 9See especially Chapter VII of his The Growth of Pagal Government in the Middle Ages (London: Methuen & 00.. t o. 19 ’ pp. 190- 90 1°In his The Two Kin domsa Ecclesiolo in Carolingian Political Thougfit EPrinceton, N.J.: Princeton niversity Press. 19 . pp. 258-263. 11Karl F. Morrison, Tradition and Authority in the Western Church OO-llho (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1939), Appendix A, p. 363. cor. ven- and sep exc HOT? par; in l tha‘ concept of tradition led him to consider any temporal inter- vention in Church affairs as a threat to authentic faith and discipline. In others words, Nicholas perceived a clean separation of powers between the laity and the clergy which excluded each from interference in the other's affairs. Morrison states that Nicholas summarized his position by paraphrasing the dualistic thought set forth by Gelasius I in his De Anathematis Vinculo.12 Gelasius' position was that there were two distinct powers in the governance of the Christian world: the priesthood, which was charged with the administration of spiritual matters: and the royal power, which had responsibility for civic affairs. The priestly role was to takerrecedence in any clash with the royalty, since it had greater dignity.13 Morrison states that Nicholas merely protested when temporal authorities acted contrary to a manner which he approved. AS Morrison explains it, ”the functional division which Gelasius described allowed no institutional means of reconciling disputes between the Church and civil powers: Nicholas' thought did not supply that deficiency.”14 121bid.. pp. 363-365. 13Brian Tierney & Sidney Painter, Western Europe in the Middle Ages 300-;425 (New York: Alfred A.Knopf. 1970), p. e luuonison' OE. Cite. pe 3660 0P Nb be: whl 88 Nic roy res: Vest thec Nich Date a D1 have edit: Well Thus it is apparent that Ullmann and Morrison have opposite opinions as to what rights or prerogatives Pope Nicholas I held in Christendom. Ullmann insists that Nicholas believed as Peter's successor he had principatus (primacy) which encompassed both secular and religious matters, where- as Morrison states that Nicholas thought that his privileges in Christendom extended only to ecclesiastical matters and Nicholas left civic matters to their proper authorities-- royal power. Since the authorities have difficulty agreeing in their analyses of what prerogatives or privileges Nicholas reserved for Rome, it is the purpose of this paper to in- vestigate a series of representative cases in which legal. theological and moral issues arose in order to determine Nicholas' position in each case. It is the aim of this study to provide a clear perception of Nicholas' role as pope within Christendom and a plausible interpretation of his view of papal primacy. To assist in this interpretation primary souces have been utilized which include: Nicholas' letters in various editions, conciliar decrees, a biography, Vita Nicolai, as well as selected letters written to him.15 There are also a 15This primary documentation is included in an annotated biography in the appendix of this work. ml 08 rash number of secondary sources that provide insights into the cases examined in this paper.16 16These sources are also listed in an annotated fashion in the appendix. Dre: tior ch31 into CHAPTER I CHARACTERISTIC RELATIONSHIPS WITH WESTERN ECCLESIASTICS (The purpose of this chapter is to investigate Nicholas' relationships with five Western hierarchs to deter- mine from his actions his concept of papal responsibility within the Western Church. Nicholas' actions in administer- ing these cases should provide a representative sampling of his position on the question of primacy in relationships to the Western Church. The four cases presented offer a variety of situa- tions in which Nicholas clashed with Western bishops over the question of papal rights. They are: John of Ravenna, the appeal of Rothad of Soissons, the censure of Gunther of Cologne and Theutgard of Trier, and Nicholas' insistence that Hilduin leave the see of Cambrai. Each one of these cases was selected to reveal a precise insight into Nicholas' concept of the Pope's posi- tion within the Western Church. His specific responses to challenges by Western bishops will provide a unique insight into his ideas on papal primacy. tc Ni W8 du of 1'0: Ee dei brc Pa; John of Ravenna "Have mercy on me, have mercy on me and beseech the mercy of the pope to have pity on me, since you see I am ready to do whatever he orders."1 With these words Arch- bishop John of Ravenna, after realizing that he had been deserted even by his protector the Emperor Louis II, turned to anyone who would listen and begged them to beseech Pope Nicholas to give him another chance. Why in mid-year 861 was John doing this? A brief summary of the events which brought him to this position would seem helpful at this time. John had been elected Archbishop of Ravenna in 850 during the pontificate of Leo IV (847-855): he was a member of one of Ravenna's leading families and was the head of the antipapal faction of Emilia that looked to the archbishop for protection from Rome. John was aided by his brother, Duke Gregory, who ruled Emilia as a bandit: and the new archbishop began to shake his archdiocese free from Home. He denied his suffragan bishops contact with Home and hin- dered them in their ad limina visits. With his disreputable brother he began systematically to despoil the property of papal supporters: together they dispossessed papal tenants throughout Emilia. Duke Gregory even went so far as to Join I'Miseremini mei, miseremini mei, et clementiam summi presulis, ut mei miseretur exposcite, quia ecce paratan sum ad omnia quae preceperit peragenda.” L Duchesne (ed.), Le Liber Pontificalis (2nd ed. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1955), Vol. II, No. 395: P. 156. Hereafter this work will be re- ferred to as L.P. with appropriate number and page citation. This will be our essential source in this case study, especially pages 155-158 and 160 and the notes 17-32 on pages 168-169. See remark by Amann, op. cit., p. 381, fn. h. 9 10 with two of Louis' envoys in an attack upon a papal agent, Regimbald, whom they killed. When Benedict III (855-858) succeeded Pope Leo in 855 there were serious disorders in Home. John, during the ensuing confusion, extended his control over Emilia, even to the point of adding some diocesan and monastic lands, formerly under papal protecting to the archiepiscopal fisc. Suffragans' tenants were forced to cultivate the archbishop's lands. To solidify his contrdh John took the administration of Justice directly into his own hands.2 Historically Ravenna had acted independently from its establishment as an autccephalous see by the Emperor Constans II in 666.3 This independent status was effected when Constans II gave to Maurus, Archbishop of Ravenna, a right to have the archbishops-elect of Ravenna elected by the clergy of their diocese. This election was to be approved in Constantinople (not in Home) with a subsequent consecration by three of Bavenna's own suffragan bishops].F This tie to Constantinople was severely weakened when the Lombard King, Liutprand, in 7&3 sent a delegation 2Peter Llewellyn, Home in the Dark es (London: Faber and Faber, 1971). pp. 2 ff. 3Morrison, op. cit., pp. lulrr. “See Lllewellyn, o . cit., especially pages 158, 253, 256, 267, and 289. tl tc lei est ced of tow 11 to Pope Zachary in Rome asking for his help. The pope was referred to as ”the shepherd who leaves his Sheep to rescue those that perish.” Zachary succeeded in getting Liutprand to return the cities he had taken in the province of Emilia (where Ravenna is located). In 744 Zachary continued strengthening papal control over Ravenna when he consecrated a married layman Sergius as its archbishop; in addition Zachary was seeking to extinguish Ravenna's independence. Llewellyn has stated that during the pontificate of Paul I (757-767) the papacy emerged as the recognized residuary legatee--the legal heir of the remainder of the personal estate--of imperial authority in central Italy.5 Nevertheless neither Archbishop Sergius nor his successor as archbishop of Ravenna, Leo, were content to allow the Roman pontiffs to control affairs in Ravenna. Pope Hadrian I (772-795) asked Charlemagne as ”protector of the Romans” to suppress Archbishop Leo from trying to control the province of Emilia. Leo had sent a certain Theophylact throughout the Territory announcing that Charlemagne had ceded Pentapolis to him and, after expelling representatives of the Roman Church, Leo managed to send his agents into the towns of that province. Hadrian told Charlemagne that Leo's actions were hurting both the prestige of the Roman Church as well as that of the Franks. 5Ibid.. p. 221. 5Ihid., p. 236. 12 Even after Charlemagne's visit to Italy in October 775, Archbishop Leo of Ravenna still continued to feud with Pope Hadrian over the control of Emilia. And, in fact this same situation continued until it broke out in a renewed confrontation between John of Ravenna and Nicholas I in 861.7 This behavior of John and Gregory finally brought a reaction that involved the papacy. As the papal bio- grapher relates in the Vita Nighgli, it provoked the people of Ravenna to come before the saintly Pope Nicholas and beg to be rescued from John's oppressions. Nicholas “listened to to their supplications and sent messengers and letters to the archbishop, warning him to mend his ways. John had become thoroughly confused in mind and reJected the warnings of the pious father and continued adding even more evil actions to his list of misdeeds."8 To make matters worse, “the more the kindly regard of the Supreme Pontiff warned him to repent the more he turned to more serious faults, and did not cease to add to his sinfulness.”9 7L.P., No. 587, p. 155 and p. 168, fn. 17. 8Ibid. "Quorum pie clamores audiens ipsum legatis suis et litteris sepius archiepiscopum quatinus talibus cederet actibus commonuit. Sed ills mente confuse monita pii patris obtendus peiora pricribus addere minime metuebat." 91bid. ”Quanta autem benigna inspectio summi praesulis illum ut resipisceret admonebat, tanto magis ad deteriora se divertebat et super iniquitatem iniquitatem addere non desinebat.” 13 It would seem that Nicholas became upset with John because he was truly concerned that this high ranking churchmen--an archbishop--was abusing the prerogativeaof his priestly office, and he wanted to persuade John to cease such actions of his own volition. However, the account of Anastasius (Nicholas' secretary and papal librarian) in- dicates that John paid Nicholas' admonitions no heed: rather he continued in his abuses: unjustly excommunicating some people, preventing others from visiting the Apostolic See, seizing the property of others without proper trials. Furthermore he stole from the Holy Roman Church, spurned its envoys and set at naught the glory of Blessed Peter the Apostle, in as much as it lay in his power. In addition, he not only deposed without canonical trials priests and deacons subject to him, but also did the same thing in Emilia, where the people were subject to the Holy Apostolic See. The list continues: he thrust some into prisons and others into foul-smelling workshops, he forced others to confess to crimes which they had not committed. In addition he suppressed decrees of the church such as canonical election to the episcopacy, without any consent from the Apostolic See and, when summoned to Home, he boasted that he 10 was not obliged to attend. loIbid. Also see Llewellyn o . cit., p. 273 and iHenri LeClercq in Karl J. Hefele (ed.$ His oire des conciles (Paris: Letouzey at And, 1911), ve1. IV, Part I, p. 5. 14 In light of these repeated violations of what he considered proper episcopal behavior Nicholas felt compelled to take stringent action. He summoned John to Home to answer these charges and when the archbishop refused Nicholas excommunicated him.11 John immediately went to Pavia where he sought the assistance of the Emperor Louis II, who sent envoys to accompany John to Home. Apparently John felt he could get help from the secular ruler of his province,12 but Nicholas, after receiving these envoys, reminded them charitably (according to Anastasius) that they were endanger- ing their own spiritual health by associating with an excom- municated person and they wept in repentance for their deed. They deserted John, and he fled from Home alone.13 The re- sponse of these clerics to Nicholas' admonitions indicated that his word carried great weight with them and they were especially willing to take his advice in an area which could hurt their spiritual life-~that is, their continued inter- course with an excommunicate. Apparently matters did not improve for the people in Ravenna and Emilia, since they sent representatives to Home to beseech Nicholas to come and see for himself how John and his brother Gregory were mistreating them. Finally 11See Duchesne's comments in L.P., No. 588, p. 168 tn. 21¢ 12.3ee Amann, op, cit., pp. 381-382. 13L.p., No. 588, p. 155. Ni ac ti 80 so in: 1th: at: he on '01: Per ing Pap rec J Oh man (Jo. 15 Nicholas decided to follow their suggestion and visit Ravenna. What he saw upset him so much that he immediately acted by restoring to the people what they had lost and con- firmed his actions with a papal decree.1u When reading the account of these events as recorded by Anastasius, one can- not help but be struck by the swiftness with which Nicholas acted nor can one overlook the fact that his actions seem to indicate that he‘dnught he had the right as judge to correct what he considered improper actions by a fellow ecclesiastic the archbishop of Ravenna. While Nicholas was in Ravenna settling these affairs John, quite understandably returned to Pavia where he again besought the intervention of the Emperor Louis 11 on his behalf. John no doubt believed that the emperor would support him in his desire to control Ravenna as he pleased, something which he had been denied by the pope. Perhaps John thought that Emperor Louis' designs of controll- ing central Italy would make him a natural ally against the papacy.15 But this time John received an entirely different reception in Pavia: the bishop Liutard warned others of John's excommunication and refused to see him. In like manner the emperor sent word to John, by messenger, that he (John) should ”lay aside his excessive pride and go and do lulbideg NO. 589’ Do 1560 15See Llewellyn, op. cit., pp. 274-275. 16 humble obeisance to the pontiff to whom we and the whole church in general show reverence, and submit to the yoke of obedience and subjection, because the archbishop will never ”16 If Anastasius in any other way accomplish what he wants. is quoting Louis correctly, one can surmise that the emperor felt the pontiff deserved special reverence and obedience in Christendom.l7 ‘ Once John of Ravenna, at the onset of the Roman Synod (November 861), realized that he would not get help from either the secular or ecclesiastical leaders he begged for mercy-~as was noted at the beginning of this chapter. Of course one could ask what other choice he had: he had been deserted on all sides and in fact stood to lose every- thing by his continued recalcitrance. When Nicholas heard of John's ”expressed” sorrow, he acted as a.merciful father and decided to hear his case again.18 When John heard of 16Ibid. ”vadat, et fastu elationis deposito, tanto humilietur pontifici, cui et nos et omnis Ecclesiae generalitas inclinatur et obedientiae ac subiectionis colla submittat, quia quod cupit aliter minime consequi poterit.P 17Perhaps it is well to keep in mind Haller's warning in which he speaks of the unusual zeal with which Anastasius put forth statements which tend to give the papacy more importance than it might rightly deserve. Still, as Haller points out, if Anastasius is really Nicholas' mouth- piece, this strong statement attributed to a secular monarch gives an idea in what a fashion Nicholas held the papacy. See Haller, op. cit., p. 88. 18This Roman synod met in November of 861 moving back and forth between the Leonine palace to the Lateran basilica and back for its final session to the place where the original session had taken place. See Hefele, op. cit., p. 287 and L.P., Nos. 590-591, pp. 156-157. 17 the papal decision, he immediately seized a piece of paper and drew up an oath which, in essence, said that he was will- ing to carry out his episcopal promises “according to the custom of his predecessors."19 The following day he cleansed himself of a charge of heresy which had earlier been brought against him by Nandecisus, Bishop of Pola. Apparently John had maintained that Christ's death was not equally effica- cious for all Christians because His divine will had taken over while He was on the cross.2 At the closing session of the synod on November 18, 861, Nicholas agreed to lift the bann of excommunication against John only after the archbishop accepted the synod's decrees which included these provisions that he report annually to Home, unless his health prevented him from com- ing: that he cease the consecration of any bishops in Emilia until they had been canonically selected by the clergy and people, and then only after he received Nicholas' written permission to do so: that he refrain from forbidding any bishop from approaching the Holy See: that he cease demand- ing any donations from his flock which were not provided for 192;§;l No. 590. p. 157. ”iuxta consuetudinem antecessorum suorum composuit." 2OIn this regard see particularly J.P. Migne, Patrolo ia Latina (Paris: Garnier Brothers, 1880), Vol. 119, Ep. 15, Su lementum Consilii Homani Anni DCCCLXII, pp. 79#— 795. Hereafter this work will be referred to as P.L. with the appropriate volume and page numbers. Also see In refer- ence to this charge of heresy Duchesne in L.P. No. 590, p.157 and fns. 21 and 28, PP. 168 and 169. 811.” re: We tn 18 in the canons: that he no longer lay claim to any property of anyone unless this was agreed to by the pope or his] legato.21 Thus Nicholas was successful in having the Roman synod enunciate some very specific strictures upon John of Havenna. A letter by Nicholas at the meeting of this Roman Synod (861) provides substantial insight into his rationale for influencing the Council to take a strong stand against John of Ravenna.22 The pontiff began by indicating that Rome bears the solicitude over all the churches and there- fore it is fitting for her to take thought for the needs of all and also to apply salutary remedies for their wounds. He continues with reference to the Petrine theory: “We are surely the shepherds of the Lord's sheep, but their care rests especially on us more so than on others in as much as we take the place of him to whom these very sheep were en- trusted by the words of God Himself. For the Lord said 21Ibid., No. 591, p. 157. These restrictions summarized by Anastasius are found in more detail in Acts of Roman Council P.L., vol. 106, pp. 787-790. 22See his epistle number 105 written to Peter and his fellow bishops in Emilia during November 861 found in G.H. Pertz et al. Monuments Germaniae Historica. Vol VI: Epistolae. Section IV: Epistolae Karolini Aevi (Berlin: eidmannos, 1925), pp. 13- 17. ereafter this work will be referred to by abbreviation MGH,‘§pp., VI with appropriate number and pages. 19 to Peter by way of personnal command: 'And you, once you are converted, strengthen your brothers.”23 Here one can observe not only reference to the Petrine theory but also an expression of the responsibility that Nicholas thought he had to help each and every member of the Christian flock who appeared to be troubled; in this case, Nicholas is directly concerned for the welfare of the clergy and laity of Emilia. In this same letter Nicholas continues that he had an obligation to stretch forth to the people of Ravenna, in their time of distress, the helping hand of the Apostolic See. For it was necessary for the pope to save his brothers from abuses as St. Peter had strengthened his episcopal brethren after his own conver- sion.2 Nicholas then reviews the abuses that John has heaped upon Emilia, most of which have been mentioned above. He indicates the action he had taken in the Roman Council which condemned the archbishop's actions; he states 23Ibid., p. 61h. "dominicarum quippe ovium pastons sumus. Sed tanto nobis prae ceteris specialiter pro eis cure maior incumbit, quanto vicem illius gerimus, cui divino oraculo ipsae oves specialiter commendantur, cui etiam Dmunus praecipiens ait: 'Et tu aliquando conversus confirms fratres 131108." 2""Ibid. ”Et ideo quia sanctitas tua a Iohanne archiepiscopo Havennate multis inpulsionibus queritur agitari, debemus manus apostolatus nostri tibi quamtotius porrigere et, quia unus ex illis fratribus esse dinosceris, quos sanctus Petrus conversus iussus est confirmare, necesse est, ut a tantis inpulsionibus fraternitatem tuam eruentes in petra, quam.ipse confessus est, ne ulterius mergi valeas, statuamus.” 20 reassuringly ”we ordered him [John] by our apostolic author- ity concerning each and every presumptive act of his, as stated in the capitula and in the sentences passed there, that neither he nor any of his successors should ever again presume to commit any such crimes.”25 It is clear that Nicholas meant for his judgment to be lasting, and also he stated it in such a fashion that he expected it to be obeyed. If now or in the future any Archbishop of Ravenna tries to go against the precept of our apostolic authority, or contrary to the tenor of this decree, either in whole or in part, and forces on you or your successors any matters we have forbidden, or if he takes away any of your rights and imposes on you any of the aforementioned burdens, and if he does not obey every detail of this document, let him be bound by chains of the judgment of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, the princes of the apostles, and by the anathema of our apostflic authority. Furthermore let him forever be deprived of all sacerdotal functions, since he is a stubborn violator pg sacred canons and of apostolic institutions. 251bid., p. 616. ”interdiximus et de unaquaque prae- sumptione pronuntiatis capitulis promulgatisque sententia apostolica auctoriatate praecepimus, videlicet ut tale quid ulterius nequaquam nec ipse nec eius successores agere prae- sumerent.” 26Ibid., p. 617. 'Quicumque autem archiepiscopus Havennas amodo et deinceps contra nostra nostrae apostolicae auctoritatis praeceptum vel contra huius decreti tenorem in toto vel in parte venire temptaverit et tibi tuisque suc- cessoribus episcopis superius prohibits injuncxerit vel intulerit vobisque aliquod de praesignatis oneribus imposu- erit et non in omnibus huius paginae textui oboedierit, sit sententia Dei omnipotentis et beati Petri et Pauli apostol- orum principum et apostolica auctoritate anathematis in- nodatus vinculis et tamquam contumax sacrorum canonum et apostolicarum violator institutionum ab omni sacerdoti alienus in perpetuum existat officio.” 21 It seems clear that one can conclude from this statement by Nicholas that he felt he-as Peter's suc- cessor--had the perfect right to state what is considered to be proper behavior for an archbishop of Ravenna and if John or any future archbishop should choose to go against his precepts he is to be anathematized. In fact, perhaps Nicholas feared that he had to eradicate such unacceptable practices from Ravenna ”lest perchance an opportunity might remain for other archbishops to act in a similar fashion."27 Subiquent developments strongly suggest that John did not intend to follow the restrictions placed upon him at Home. He violated an important provision of the Roman synod which restricted him from consecrating any bishops in Emilia until they had been canonically elected by the clergy and people, and then only after he had received the pontiff's permission to do so. A letter sent by Nicholas to John of Ravenna,28 indicates that the bishop of Gravelle, Oleoberuna had been murdered and Nicholas understood that John intended to consecrate his successor without following canonical procedure. This potential consecration upset Nicholas be- cause John intended to illicitly select and consecrate his 27Ibid., p. 616. ”no aliis metropolitanis episcopis talia praesumendi occasio remaneret.” 28mm, Epp” VI, 152, p. 667. 22 own choice, even to the extent of possibly consecrating a murderer.29 Nicholas, therefore instructed John to find and prosecute the murderer. A successor would be canonically elected and approved by Home. He could be consecrated only after selection and approval in Home.30 John was finally excommunicated by the Lateran Council of 863 along with his brother Gregory and Haganon, Bishop of Bergamo, for committing many crimes against the holy pontiff and the people subject to him.31 In summation it is apparent from this study of Nicholas' relatitnshp with John of Ravenna that Nicholas be- lieved that the pontiff's wishes must not be disobeyed by an archbishop. Nicholas thought such disobedience was an in- fringement upon his rights as pope. This is well illustrated 291bid. ”ne forte, nisi digna examinatio prae- venerit, manus super caput sanguine plenum posuisse, quod absit, inveniamini.” 30Ibid. "Cum autem detectis reis atque punitis qui dignus sit apparuerit et cleri plebisque et ducis nostri nostram habentis auctoritatem, qui utique unus e plebe eadem esse dinoscitur, concordia effecta fuerit, celebretur electio, sicque demum, sicut in syndo deliberatum.est atque constitutum, nobis hoc innotescite. Et, cum de electo nostra apostolatui nunciatum fuerit, adiuvante Domino sanctions praemissa episccpus a vestra beatitudine consecretur.” 31L.P., No. 599, pp. 160-161. "Haganone scilicet et Iohanne Havennate episcopo atque Gregorio fratre eius, contra sedem Homanam, immo specialiter contra summum ponti- ficem et populum illi subdihnr. . . multa nefanda, multa contraria multaque sacrilega et christianitas modum exce- dentia palam et clam, . . . quia et quod singillatim utrisque prohibitum et synodice secundum qualitatem sceleris interdictum fuerat, audacter contingere presumpserunt, et quae nunc intentando memini, Deo contempto, eheu, pro dolor, peregerunt.“ 23 by his reaction to a case where an archbishop, Hincmar of Hheims, tried to prevent a suffragan, Rothad of Soissons, from appealing to the Roman See. Rothad of Soissons Rothad had been at variance with his archbishop, Hincmar of Hheims, for some time before he was deposed at a provincial council convoked by Hincmar in 862. Rothad was unwilling to accept this deposition:instead he insisted that he had the right to appeal his case to Home where supreme authority (according to Rothad) existed: To the supreme authority of the My Seleppeal un- ceasingly--to that See, the authority of which no one can gainsay to that See which through Blessed Peter has merited such power (principatpp) from Our Lord Jesus Christ. I wait the decision of that See to which I have appealed, nor do I consent to be judged elsewhere than at Home. It is preposterous that the gpferior should be preferred before the superior. What provoked this appeal to Home by Rothad, whose deposition as bishop of Soissons had just been reconfirmed by a second provincial synod in Soissons (862)? Why did Rothad feel he had the prerogative to go beyond a judgment 32'Ad illam summam auctoritatem sine intermissione appello, cui nullus potest contradicere, quae a Domino Jesu Christo per beatum Petrum apostulum tantum meruit principatmm Judicium ergo illius ad quam proclamavi expeto, nec alibi nisi Homae judicari consentio, quia praeposterus ordo est in- feriorem superiori anteferri.” From Hothad's Libellus Proclamationis in J.D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova st Amplissima Collectio (Graz: Akademische Druck V. Verlagsan- stalt, 1965), Vol. 15, col. 683 as translated in Horace K Mann, The Lives of the Po es in the Earl Middle Ages, Vo1. III: 858-891 (2nd ed.: London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd., 19251 pp. 85-86 cf :11 53/55 sf 24 rendered by a provincial council convoked by his archbishop, Hincmar of Hheims? These are the questions dealt with and from them a better insight can be gained into how Nicholas viewed his role in the universal church. Bad blood had existed between Rothad and Hincmar dating as far back as 845. On May 845, Hincmar was installed as Archbishop of Hheims replacing Ebbo.33 Ebbo had been de- posed as archbishop of Hheims (835) because he had supported the rebellion against Louis the Pious in 833. Rothad clashed with Hincmar particularly over the issue of what authority a metropolitan could exert over his suffragans. Rothad believed it was very little whereas Hincmar felt the metropolitan was charged with the adminis- tration of his provincial church. Rothad continued to take actions which displeased Hincmar and, finally, Hincmar felt an obligation to take stringent action. This action took the form of calling a synod at Soissons (861) which deposed Rothad: this deposition was confirmed by a synod at Pistres convoked by Charles the Bald on June 1, 862.31+ The deciding factor which brought on this action by Hincmar was the charge that Rothad had unfairly excommuniennd a priest: Hincmar's wish was to reinstate this priest after 33See Amann, op. cit., pp. 383ff. 3II’Ibid” p. 384 also see H. Haines Brown III, "Archbishop Hincmar of Hheims (circa 806-882): His Idea of Ministerium in Theory and Praxis” (unpublished Ph.D. disser- tation, fiept of History, Michigan State University), p. 170. It! 'U 25 he had performed suitable penance.35 The metropolitan went on to reinstate the excommunicated priest, then in turn de- posed the priest Hothad had named as his replacement. It is interesting to note that Hothad claimed to have excommuni- cated this priest only after calling a council of thirty- three bishops: this seems highly unlikely since it would have taken a.metrOpolitan and not a simple suffragan bishop to convoke a council of such size. After Rothad was deposed at Pistres he was disposed to go to Home and appeal to the pops in person. But apparent- ly he changed his mind and decided to be retried by certain select judges (judicestlgppi) in Soissons.37 This second Council of Soissons (862) again confirmed Hothad's deposrmon and he was relegated to a monastery. Hincmar subsequently consecrated a replacement as bishop of Soissons.38 Rothad then decided to go ahead with his appeal to Home in the manner quoted_above.39 When Odo, Bishop of Beauvais, informed Nicholas of the decisions of these synods, the pontiff was upset, since he was now officially cognizant of Hothad's deposition and his replacement by another bishop upon his see. Nicholas 35mm, 020 Cite; p. 38“ fn. 20 36This is the conclusion reached by LeClercq in Hefele, op, cit., p. 297, fn. l and also on p. 302. 37See Hefele, o cit., pp. 305rr, Boy, op. cit., p. 87: Mann, op. cit., p. 85;and Brown, op. cit., p. 170. BBBoy, 020 35%., Pp. 87-88. 39See p. 23 above. 26 was upset because Hincmar had not consulted Home before allowing the provincial synods to depose Hothad especially since Rothad had indicated an earlier desire to appeal to Home. Nicholas immediately wrote several letters by which he hoped to effect a change.. To Hincmar he wrote a letter severely reprimanding him because he had allowed the deposition to stand in face of the fact that Rothad was in the process of appealing to Home and the pontiff had not yet rendered a decision. Nicholas even wondered how such a sudden darkness was able to extinguish the serenity of Hincmar's mind to the extent that he held in contempt the priviliges of the Apostolic See, which Nicholas claims are guarded inviolable by the universal church of Christ. In the letter he indicates that he does not understand by what authority Hincmar rides roughshod over the canons laid down by the Fathers, but that he as pontiff cannot allow this action to go unpunished lest others also learn to despise the decrees of the holy Fathers.“o At the conclusion of this letter Nicholas gives Hincmar “OMG , §pp., VI, 55, p. 354. "Unde valde miramur ac vehementissime obstupescimus, quomodo luminam vestrorum serenitatem tam repentina potuerit obtenebrare caligo, adeo ut privilegia apostolicae sedis, quae intemerata a tota Christi universali servantur ecclesia, contempla despexer- itis atque ipsos paternos canones nescimus qua auctoritate disruperitis. Quod omnino inultum manere non patimur, ut qui prohibita praesumpsit minime quae sit censura canonica experiatur: ita ut omnibus manifestum faciamus, quod nullum membororum nostrorum nos aliquod patiamur sui sustinere disuendium neque sanctorum patrwm statuta vilescere permit- tamus," th. the sup 4. Q1, V03 res: e815 Vest 2? thirty days either to restore Rothad to his former dignity, or, if he thinks he has acted rightly to allow Rothad to come to Home with Hincmar's own representative so that Nicholas can hear both sides of the case. Nicholas tells Hincmar that if he does not act in one way or the other within the allotted time he will be forbidden from solemnly celebrating mass.”1 In a shorter letter to Charles the Bald the pontifc after complimenting the king for his constant and diligent rapport with churchmen and his zeal in dealing with learned men in the interests of the church of God, beseeches the king to see that Rothad is restored to his rightful position as bishop of Soissons. Furthermore, he informs the monarch that he has written Hincmar giving him thirty days to rein- state Bothad or be excommunicated.)+2 Nicholas begins his rather lengthy response to the bishops who had participated in the synods of Soissons by stating that, according to the custom of their ancestors, they have done the correct thing by consulting with the supreme episcopal power, i.e., the See of Peter, concerning ulIbid. "Hoc autem expresse decernimus, ut post triginta dies, postquam haec nostra apostolicaepistola apud vos delata fuerit, aut praefatum virum Hothadum omnino restituatis pristinae dignitati aut, si iuste vos in eum egisse putatis, Roman cum eodem vos vel vester legatus vestram vicem in omnibus ferens, ut utriusque partis causam ad liquidum sciamus, adveniat." “2:463, gppu VI. 57. pp. 354-355- 28 not only all matters which admit of some doubt or which contain questionable material, but also certain other grave ecclesiastical matter.”3 There is no doubt that in his mind Nicholas categorizes the Rothad case as one involving ques- tionable matter. He states: ”Besides you have canonically and zealously asked to refer the condemnation of Rothad to the Apostolic See, in order that there it may be settled even by our authority whatever you claim to have been enacted concerning him by you in council. We firmly refuse to do this [1.e. support the deposition of Rothad], since, to quote the very words used by Saint Leo to Flavian: We want the judgments of the priests of the Lord to be mature, and we cannot define anything in favor of anyone unless we have understood the facts on both sides of the case, and until we hear a truthful account of all that has been done.“A4 “3MGH,‘§pp., VI, 57, p. 356. ”quoniam ex more secundum constitutionem maiorum, ut eadem ipsa verba ponamus, non solum de omnibus, quae possunt aliquam recipere dubita- tionem vel quamcumque incurrere quaestionem, verum de certis atque maioribus negotiis ecclesiasticis exequendis, ad apicsn episcopatus, id est ad magni Petri sedem, debere vos re- ferre cognoscitis: . . .“ halbid. 'Praeterea de Hothadi damnatione aposto- licae sedi referre iure studentes petistis, ut nostra etiam auctoritate rata esse probarentur, quae do so apud vos in concilio acta fuisse perhibuistis. Quod agere penitus recusamus, quoniam nos, ut eadem ad Flavianum sancti Leonis dicta ponamus, qui sacerdotum Domini matura volumus esse iudicia, nichil possumus incognitis rebus in cuiusquam partis praeiudicium diffinire, priusquam universe quae gesta sunt veraciter audiamus.“ 29 Further on Nicholas informs the bishops that his heart has been deeply hurt by their deposition of Rothad and his subsequent confinement in a monastery especially at the time he was trying to appeal his case to the Apostolic See. He states: “If this was done out of contempt for Blessed Peter the Apostle, it will incur his judgment. There is no doubt that it was done in contempt for the sacrai canons“,5 rashly undertaken and presumed.”#6 He refuses to accept their contention that civil law would allow their actions, stating ”it is clear that worldly laws must not be allowed in ecclesiastical disputes§47 It is quite apparent that he does not want even to consider mixing ecclesiastical and civil laws, sharply stating that they must be kept separate. Continuing in the same vein, he cites two chapters, the fourth and eighth, from the Council of Sardica. In the “5see editor's reference to Sardic. can. 3 (Mansi III, 23) as found on p. 357 in footnote 3 of ibid. uéIbid. ”Ignorare autem fraternitatem vestram non patimur animum nostrum non mediocriter laesum, eo quod secundum.gestorum tenorem et vestrarum suggestionum, quas ad sedem apostolicam direxistis, cognitionem, appellantem eunden Hothadum apostolicam sedem deposueritis ac in monasterio retruderitis: quod nonnisi in contemptu beati Petri apostoli, cuius iudicium expetivit, et in contumelia sacrorum canonum et ecclesiasticarum traditionum praesumptum ac temere admissum minime dubitatur.” “72219. ". . . constet in ius mundanum legum et imperatorum non omnibus ecclesiasticis controversiis utendum esse, . . ." 30 latter Bishop Osius said: It is fitting that if a bishop has been accused, and the assembled bishops of that same region have passed judgment, and have deprived him of his rank, if he who was deprived has appealed and has fled to the bishop of the Roman Church, and wanted himself to be heard, and if it is considered just, it may reopen the examination, and may deign to write to those churches which are in the neighboring region in order that they may diligently and thoroughly make new investigations and pronounce judgments that are according to faith and charity. But if the one who is asking that his case be reopened, so moves the Roman Bishop by his protestation, should send a priest from his side it will be in the power of the bishop to express what he wants and thinks. If he decides that those are to be sent who at present judge with the bishop have the authority of him who sent him, this will be in his power. But, if he thinks the bishops are adequate put an end to the business, let him fig what he thinks fitting with very wise council. He continues to argue that the clouds of uncer- tainty will persist until both sides have been examined by the Apostolic See. And he reminds these bishops that they are not unaware of the fact that in an earlier letter to L, Hincmar, 9 he had stated that Rothad was to be restored to ”81mm, p. 358. "Placuit autem, ut, si episcopus accusatus fuerit et iudicaverint congregati episcopi regionhs ipsius et de gradu suo eum deiecerint, si appellaverit qui deiectus est et confugerit ad episcopum Homanae ecclesiae et voluerit se audiri, si iustum putaverit, ut renovetur examen; scribere his ecclesiis dignetur, quae in finitima.et proxima provincia sunt, ut ipsi diligenter omnino requirant et iuxta fidem caritatis diffiniant. Quodsi is, qui rogat causam suan iterum audiri, deprecatione sua moverit episcopum Homanum, ut e latere suo presbyterum mittat, erit in potestate epis- copi, quid velit et quid aestimet. Et si decreverit mit- tendos esse, qui praesentes cum episcopis iudicent, habentes eius auctoritatem, a quo destinati sunt, erit in suo arbitflo. Si vero crediderit episcopos sufficere, ut negotio terminum imponant, faciat quod sapientissimo consilio iudicaverit.” “914611. 222.. VI. 55. pp. 353-39». 31 his former dignity within thirty days or, if Hincmar still felt justified in what he had done, that he was to have sent Rothad and his representatives to Home for Nicholas' decision on the case. Clearly Nicholas is repeating over and over again that he thinks Home is the rightful place of appeal for a bishop who believes he has been misjudged by his metropolitan or by a provincial synod. Nicholas continues that his legate, Odo, Bishop of Beauvais, has reported that none of his request regard- ing Hothad's case has been acted upon: in fact, Rothad is pp;11,(italics mine) imprisoned in a monastery. He indicates that he cannot adequately express how reprehensible this conduct is to him and commands that these bishops recall Rothad from exile soon. Further he ties to this command a threat that he will excommunicate them if they refuse to do what he orders. His justification is that he has the righttodo this because Almighty God has given this prerogative to the Holy Roman Catholic Church over which he, because of God's 50 divine providence, rules. He concludes his comments on Hothad's case by stating that the bishops should be thankful that there is 5°Ibid., p. 360. 'Quod si postposito nostro iudicio quae auctoritate apostolica promulgavimus atque decrevimus occurrere contempseritis, Dei omnipotentis et beatorum Petri et Pauli apostolorum principum, quorum glorino agone sancta haec Bomana ecclesia, cui divina dispositions praesumus, est Domino consecrate, atque sanctorum canonum, quorum vos contemptores scriptis propriis ostendistis, necnon et nostrae mediocritatis auctoritate a missarum sol- lemniis celebrandis estote prorsus, quousque nostris dif- finitionibus oboediatis." 32 the option of appealing to Home ”since the privileges of the Apostolic See are for the protective armor so to speak of the universal church. . . . For what happened to Rothad today, how do you know that it may not happen to any one of you tomorrow? As the Apostle [Paul] warns us when he says: 'Let anyone who thinks he is standing upright watch out lest he 51 if this happens 'to whom will you flee for help,“52 fallt: to quote the words of the Prophet [Isaiah]."53 At this time he wrote Hincmar of Hheims another strongly-worded letter regarding the case of Hothad,5u in which he again laments that Rothad was deposed from his episcopal office while he was appealing to the Apostolic See. This letter alternately compliments Hincmar for his virtues, which Odo has assured him are considerable, and scolds him for not sending Rothad to Home. At the close he reminds Hincmar that this is the second £222 (italics mine) he has written urging Hincmar to send Rothad to Home. 511 Cor. 10:12. 5218a. 10:3. 531bid. ”Sed et vos illa, quatinus illibata utpote totius ecclesiae Dei remedia custo diantur, toto conamine et omnibus votis operari ac desudare debetis: quoniam privilegia sedis apostolicae tegmina sunt, ut ita dicamus, totius ecclesiae catholicae, . . . . Nam.quod Hothado hodie con- tigit, unde scitis, quod cras cuilibet non eveniat vestrum? Sicut apostolus ammonet dicens: 'Qui se putat stare, videat ne cadat.‘ Quod se contigerit, ut verbis dicamus prophetkns, 'ad cuius', rogo, 'confugietis auxilius'?" 5uMGH, Epp,, VI, 58, pp. 362-364. 4| IVA‘II. 33 He says: ”You must act with foresight, for if we are obliged to write to your reverence a third time in behalf of this man we may pass definitive and final sentence upon you as one guilty of contempt for the sacred canons, much as we do not want to do so.'55 Of course, the refer- ence here is to the possible excommunication of Hincmar, which Nicholas had referred to in the earlier letter,56 and again with this threat it appears clear that Nicholas be- lieves that as Bishop of Home, he has the right to hear appeals from the universal church even when a decision has been rendered at the provincial level. In another letter-'57 Nicholas reconfirms the grant- ing of the pallium to Hincmar to preside over the city of Hheims. Furthermore, Nicholas states that no one is ever to oppress Hincmar nor strip him of the church entrusted to him nor dare to judge or condemn him without first giving 58 Hincmar a chance for a hearing before the Roman pontiff. 55Ibid., p. 364. ”Quod providendum est, si tertio dilectioni tuae dirigere pro hoc ipso coacti fuerimus, ne in contemptorem sacrorum canonum diffinitivam ac per- emptoriam, quod non optamus, sententiam proferamus.” 56,463: m': VI! 55! PP. 353-351"- 571163, £22.. VI. 59. pp. ash-367. 58Ibid., p. 366. ’Et hoc promulgpmus atque apos- tolica auctoritate statuimus, ut te, quem primatem ipsius provintiae sanctae memoriae praesules praedecessores nostri, Leo scilicet in largitione usus pallii et Benedictus pri- vilegio suae corroborationis, ut et antecessores eorum tuos praedecessores, canonica auctoritate et antique consuetudine pro metropolis ecclesiae Hemensis genio confirmaverunt et 34 "If you are summoned by anyone so that you may be judged, we declare pp our own authority and by the W of m Peter the Apostle [italics mine] that you are reserved to the apostolic judgment of the Pope and that you are not sub- ject to the jurisdiction or judgment of anyone else except thexnwer of the Roman pontiff, and we command that you cannot be summoned by the synod of any other primate unless by mutual agreement. This we decree to the extent that you are not found to be disobedient to the commands of the Apostolic Roman See in any manner."59 This type of state- ment by Nicholas, one which in essence says the pontiff is reconfirming his privileges in Hheims and will protect them as long as Hinmmar is obedient to Nicholas' commands, is particularly important coming as it does at a time of con- troversy regarding the disposition of Rothad. Nicholas is emphasizing to Hincmar that he has the jurisdictional right to take away Hincmar's special Privileges in Hheims if nos primatu beati Petri Dei voce percepto pariter con- firmamus, nullius umquam infestatio contra canonica apos- tolicaque decreta sive iudicia opprimat aut ab ecclesia tibi commissa virtute vel facultate nudare aut ante audientiam Bomani pontificis, quia nec regulae hoc permittunt ecclesi- asticae, iudicare te vel condemnare praeswmat.” 59Ibid. "Sed, si a quocumque vel undecumque fueris compellatus, ut debeas iudicari, apostolici papae iudicio te reservari nostra, immo beati Petri apostoli auctoritate decernimus nec alterius cuiuscumque iuri vel iudicio te subici, excepta potestate sedis Homanae pontificis, nec ad alterius primatis provintiae synodum, nis ex communi placito, posse convocari mandamus: ita tamen, si in nullo negotio apos- tolicae Homanae sedis iussionibus inventus fueris ino‘coedims." 35 Hincmar is disobedient to him. Nicholas repeats this point bluntly later in this same letter: ”We grant these rights to you as your own for the rest of your life. . . as long as you as you do not violate in any way the precepts of the Apostolic See. But if at any time you are found in