What Was The Reason For Canon Thirteen
Canon thirteen was constructed and written in the fourth Lateran Council in 1215, in which there were three sessions on the eleventh, twentieth and thirtieth of November. Pope Innocent III preached to over four hundred Bishops and eight hundred abbots, deans and others in this event . Canon thirteen can be suggested to have been proposed by Pope Innocent III and approved by the council, thus higher individuals in the church could arguably had responsibility for the manufacture of canon thirteen. Canon thirteen’s most decisive point is that the council wanted to “strictly forbid anyone henceforth to found a new religious order”. Thus the fundamental understanding that can be acquired from this canon thirteen is in relation to the church forbidding
…show more content…
the creation of new monastic orders and people should instead “enter one of the already approved orders”.
The argument displayed in canon thirteen is based on the reasoning that too many monastic orders would divide the church and leave it weak, as it writes “lest too great variety of religious orders leads to grave confusion in God’s church”. The use of the language in the writing highlights the authority and demand for co-operation with canon thirteen, with the use of language such as ‘strictly’ and ‘forbid’. This could be associated with the situation by 1215 for the church with the rise of monastic orders across Europe. Such orders as the Friars Minor or more known as the Franciscans which were founded in 1209, established equality between laymen and the clergy were gaining support and momentum in Europe in the beginning of the thirteenth century . Thus it can be suggested that another point canon thirteen highlights was the threat to the centralisation of the church in the early thirteenth century, which is hinted in the last sentence of the canon law. “We forbid, moreover, anyone to attempt to have a place as a monk in more than one monastery or abbot to preside over than one monastery”. The rise of freedom of laymen in these new orders could of have been a decisive factor in the reasoning of the last statement of canon thirteen.
There is however another potential factor in the reasoning for canon thirteen was the recent failures of the 3rd and 4th crusades before the beginning of the Lateran council in 1215.
The requirement of a united church was fundamental to the future success of a Holy War in the thirteenth century and this is argued to be a motivating factor for Pope Innocent III and the Lateran Council in the production of canon thirteen . Moreover, the Lateran Council’s fear of too much “variety” can be analysed further by suggesting that this was anti-reform in essence, although it is brief and lacks sufficient detail, it is suggested that principles of laymen and clergy being brought closer in terms of equality pose a threat to the church’s hierarchy and episcopal control It can be said that there are motivating factors that are based on politics and expanding power in the example of the crusades as well as factors focused on the integrity of the church with the rise of monastic orders that contradict the central system of administration of the church. Therefore many issues can be identified in the albeit small text of canon thirteen involving internal as well as external political unification in the case of future crusades in the thirteenth …show more content…
century.
The analysis of the canon thirteen’s meaning and effect on the development of monastic orders in the early stages of the thirteenth century gives forth a historiographic discussion on its origin and significance. “’Rescue us o Lord Pope from barbaric power and subjugation to laymen’ was the cry of despair from the clerics of Grandmont” . There can be thus a suggestion that the growth of monastic orders divided the Church internally. H. Daniel-Rops in context of canon thirteen with new orders argues that “the bishops frankly mistrusted man whom they suspected as agents, if not as spies, of the Holy See, and whose centralised organisation was exempt from episcopal control” . Brenda Bolton agrees with this suggestion and further highlights the confrontation between the Holy See and new monastic orders, “the papacy, in seeking to exercise its increased jurisdiction in both spiritual and temporal matters, forced mounting problems because of the vast complex of religious orders which had come into being in the twelfth century” . In light of this there seems to be an acknowledgment that canon thirteen was a reaction to control the monastic orders, however it was not a reform of the church itself but a blunt action to prevent monastic orders from surfacing and gaining popular momentum. On this particular point Geoffrey Barraclough argues that lack of “adaptation to the requirements of a new social environment – namely, the rising towns with their urban proletariat which the parochial organisation…barely touched” .Thus there is a suggestion that a large motivating factor of canon thirteen in 1215 was to stamp out divisions in church and avoiding reform through observation of the success of such orders like the Friar Minor in urbanised areas.
On the other hand there is suggestion that the canon thirteen had origins in relation to external matters.
There is inference that the impact of failed crusades including the third and fourth Crusade before the Lateran Council in 1215 had an impact on canon thirteen’s development. In this case Jessalynn Bird suggests that the Church had a desire for “authority to combine the Crusade with an insistence upon a reformed church and a pastorally guided laity” . Thus there is an argument that external matters had links to canon thirteen in the form of the Crusades, which required the Church to remain unified and strong to influence matters in the Palestine. The surge of monastic orders was believed to be a threat to this need of strength. Therefore canon thirteen can be suggested to be a reaction to this according to Jessalynn Bird. Moreover, Colin Morris reaches a similar conclusion, in regards to canon thirteen and even the Lateran Council in 1215 as a whole. Morris argues that it was an “ambitious programme for…the recovery of the Holy Land, the reform of the church and the further prosecution of heresy” . It is interesting to note that Colin Morris mentions reform whereas Barraclough and Bolton argue reform was not on the agenda especially in the case of canon thirteen. Yet there is interpretation that canon thirteen was an attempt to maintain control internally to continue to get involved in external matters and interests of the Church and Pope Innocent III. Linda Seidal
suggests that canon thirteen was an example of the Church and Pope Innocent III “increasing social and religious sophistication of the knightly class, a radical change in the official Christian ethic of war, and the strains and stresses set up by within society by the church’s penitential system” . Therefore there can be a formidable argument that canon thirteen represents the church’s intentions of keeping their foreign interests and mounting further campaigns in Palestine through maintaining a centralised control of The Holy See and preventing monastic orders causing division and friction within the Church. As Geoffrey Barraclough argues, the canon thirteen was a “method…proposed, was the centralisation and central control” of the Church on the rising monastic orders.
In a different point, there seems to be inference that Pope Innocent III had influence and contributed largely to the writing of canon thirteen. Daniel-Rops notes that Pope “Innocent III brought canon law under Papal supervision by appointing a commission of notaries to revise Gratian” . On this note James M. Powell argues that canon thirteen “maintained that the pope tailored his policies to fit political realities rather than doctrinaire positions” . Yet Bolton argues that canon thirteen was a blunt reaction to avoid reforming of the church in reaction to the monastic orders. However, Barraclough admits that it was a move forward that the Pope even allowed monastic orders such as that of the Franciscans to continue . He suggests that “it may truly be said that his action in opening up a place in the Church for the popular movements on rigorous conditions, including absolute obedience to The Holy See was the greatest merit of a great pope” . Barraclough goes further, arguing that the “outstanding evidence of his breadth of vision was the understanding he showed for St. Francis” , albeit the aggressive tone of canon thirteen to monastic orders such as St. Francis’ Order of Friars Minor. Daniel-Rops suggests a similar argument in that “despite the famous thirteenth canon of the Lateran Council, which forbade the introduction of new rules, the first half of the thirteenth century reaped a veritable harvest of religious orders” . There is therefore an inference that canon thirteen was less aggressive and forthright than it looks, and although Pope Innocent III died in July 1216 witnessing only a year of canon thirteen’s effects, his motivation and doctrine towards monastic orders was not that of a belligerent one according to Daniel-Rops, Barraclough and Powell points of view.
Thus in conclusion it is debated whether canon thirteen was intrinsically hostile to the development of monastic orders within the Church, however in context of Pope Innocent III, there seems to be inferences by many that in fact it is more antagonistic than it is in relation to St. Francis’ relations to the church and the obedience to The Holy See. Thus it can be suggested it was a measure of control to maintain a centralised organisation of the church to which loyalty to the Holy See was fundamental. Conversely there is suggestions, although limited in depth, of a relation between canon thirteen and the Church’s foreign interests which according to Seidal and Jessalynn Bird was apparent in the context of the crusades which required a strong backing in Europe to be successful. Such a link is made with the unsuccessful Third and Fourth Crusades which’s failure can account for disputes of leadership such as the disagreement between King Richard and King Philip Augustus .
the creation of new monastic orders and people should instead “enter one of the already approved orders”.
The argument displayed in canon thirteen is based on the reasoning that too many monastic orders would divide the church and leave it weak, as it writes “lest too great variety of religious orders leads to grave confusion in God’s church”. The use of the language in the writing highlights the authority and demand for co-operation with canon thirteen, with the use of language such as ‘strictly’ and ‘forbid’. This could be associated with the situation by 1215 for the church with the rise of monastic orders across Europe. Such orders as the Friars Minor or more known as the Franciscans which were founded in 1209, established equality between laymen and the clergy were gaining support and momentum in Europe in the beginning of the thirteenth century . Thus it can be suggested that another point canon thirteen highlights was the threat to the centralisation of the church in the early thirteenth century, which is hinted in the last sentence of the canon law. “We forbid, moreover, anyone to attempt to have a place as a monk in more than one monastery or abbot to preside over than one monastery”. The rise of freedom of laymen in these new orders could of have been a decisive factor in the reasoning of the last statement of canon thirteen.
There is however another potential factor in the reasoning for canon thirteen was the recent failures of the 3rd and 4th crusades before the beginning of the Lateran council in 1215.
The requirement of a united church was fundamental to the future success of a Holy War in the thirteenth century and this is argued to be a motivating factor for Pope Innocent III and the Lateran Council in the production of canon thirteen . Moreover, the Lateran Council’s fear of too much “variety” can be analysed further by suggesting that this was anti-reform in essence, although it is brief and lacks sufficient detail, it is suggested that principles of laymen and clergy being brought closer in terms of equality pose a threat to the church’s hierarchy and episcopal control It can be said that there are motivating factors that are based on politics and expanding power in the example of the crusades as well as factors focused on the integrity of the church with the rise of monastic orders that contradict the central system of administration of the church. Therefore many issues can be identified in the albeit small text of canon thirteen involving internal as well as external political unification in the case of future crusades in the thirteenth …show more content…
century.
The analysis of the canon thirteen’s meaning and effect on the development of monastic orders in the early stages of the thirteenth century gives forth a historiographic discussion on its origin and significance. “’Rescue us o Lord Pope from barbaric power and subjugation to laymen’ was the cry of despair from the clerics of Grandmont” . There can be thus a suggestion that the growth of monastic orders divided the Church internally. H. Daniel-Rops in context of canon thirteen with new orders argues that “the bishops frankly mistrusted man whom they suspected as agents, if not as spies, of the Holy See, and whose centralised organisation was exempt from episcopal control” . Brenda Bolton agrees with this suggestion and further highlights the confrontation between the Holy See and new monastic orders, “the papacy, in seeking to exercise its increased jurisdiction in both spiritual and temporal matters, forced mounting problems because of the vast complex of religious orders which had come into being in the twelfth century” . In light of this there seems to be an acknowledgment that canon thirteen was a reaction to control the monastic orders, however it was not a reform of the church itself but a blunt action to prevent monastic orders from surfacing and gaining popular momentum. On this particular point Geoffrey Barraclough argues that lack of “adaptation to the requirements of a new social environment – namely, the rising towns with their urban proletariat which the parochial organisation…barely touched” .Thus there is a suggestion that a large motivating factor of canon thirteen in 1215 was to stamp out divisions in church and avoiding reform through observation of the success of such orders like the Friar Minor in urbanised areas.
On the other hand there is suggestion that the canon thirteen had origins in relation to external matters.
There is inference that the impact of failed crusades including the third and fourth Crusade before the Lateran Council in 1215 had an impact on canon thirteen’s development. In this case Jessalynn Bird suggests that the Church had a desire for “authority to combine the Crusade with an insistence upon a reformed church and a pastorally guided laity” . Thus there is an argument that external matters had links to canon thirteen in the form of the Crusades, which required the Church to remain unified and strong to influence matters in the Palestine. The surge of monastic orders was believed to be a threat to this need of strength. Therefore canon thirteen can be suggested to be a reaction to this according to Jessalynn Bird. Moreover, Colin Morris reaches a similar conclusion, in regards to canon thirteen and even the Lateran Council in 1215 as a whole. Morris argues that it was an “ambitious programme for…the recovery of the Holy Land, the reform of the church and the further prosecution of heresy” . It is interesting to note that Colin Morris mentions reform whereas Barraclough and Bolton argue reform was not on the agenda especially in the case of canon thirteen. Yet there is interpretation that canon thirteen was an attempt to maintain control internally to continue to get involved in external matters and interests of the Church and Pope Innocent III. Linda Seidal
suggests that canon thirteen was an example of the Church and Pope Innocent III “increasing social and religious sophistication of the knightly class, a radical change in the official Christian ethic of war, and the strains and stresses set up by within society by the church’s penitential system” . Therefore there can be a formidable argument that canon thirteen represents the church’s intentions of keeping their foreign interests and mounting further campaigns in Palestine through maintaining a centralised control of The Holy See and preventing monastic orders causing division and friction within the Church. As Geoffrey Barraclough argues, the canon thirteen was a “method…proposed, was the centralisation and central control” of the Church on the rising monastic orders.
In a different point, there seems to be inference that Pope Innocent III had influence and contributed largely to the writing of canon thirteen. Daniel-Rops notes that Pope “Innocent III brought canon law under Papal supervision by appointing a commission of notaries to revise Gratian” . On this note James M. Powell argues that canon thirteen “maintained that the pope tailored his policies to fit political realities rather than doctrinaire positions” . Yet Bolton argues that canon thirteen was a blunt reaction to avoid reforming of the church in reaction to the monastic orders. However, Barraclough admits that it was a move forward that the Pope even allowed monastic orders such as that of the Franciscans to continue . He suggests that “it may truly be said that his action in opening up a place in the Church for the popular movements on rigorous conditions, including absolute obedience to The Holy See was the greatest merit of a great pope” . Barraclough goes further, arguing that the “outstanding evidence of his breadth of vision was the understanding he showed for St. Francis” , albeit the aggressive tone of canon thirteen to monastic orders such as St. Francis’ Order of Friars Minor. Daniel-Rops suggests a similar argument in that “despite the famous thirteenth canon of the Lateran Council, which forbade the introduction of new rules, the first half of the thirteenth century reaped a veritable harvest of religious orders” . There is therefore an inference that canon thirteen was less aggressive and forthright than it looks, and although Pope Innocent III died in July 1216 witnessing only a year of canon thirteen’s effects, his motivation and doctrine towards monastic orders was not that of a belligerent one according to Daniel-Rops, Barraclough and Powell points of view.
Thus in conclusion it is debated whether canon thirteen was intrinsically hostile to the development of monastic orders within the Church, however in context of Pope Innocent III, there seems to be inferences by many that in fact it is more antagonistic than it is in relation to St. Francis’ relations to the church and the obedience to The Holy See. Thus it can be suggested it was a measure of control to maintain a centralised organisation of the church to which loyalty to the Holy See was fundamental. Conversely there is suggestions, although limited in depth, of a relation between canon thirteen and the Church’s foreign interests which according to Seidal and Jessalynn Bird was apparent in the context of the crusades which required a strong backing in Europe to be successful. Such a link is made with the unsuccessful Third and Fourth Crusades which’s failure can account for disputes of leadership such as the disagreement between King Richard and King Philip Augustus .