The word “God” during the middle ages had a very strong presence, but it would not have been that strong if it was not for the Church. The Church was a very dominant force in the middle ages and over the years it developed an even stronger system of governance, regulation, and economy. Yet historians disagree over who should have had the actual power of the church of England the pope or the king. The power struggle between the king and the church of England was one of the biggest conflict. An example is John R. H. Moorman author of A History of The Church in England Who uses more of a social history approach and says that “the pope was the head of the church of England, but the king and archbishop opposed it in 1095 in the council of Rockingham.”
…show more content…
The invasion was the starting point for the reformation of the Church where everything was changed from the building structure of the church to the language used even then there was a little power struggle between the church and the king. In 1103 it was the beginning of the major power struggle between Pope Paschal the second and Henry the first of England. This power struggle was called “investiture controversy” not only was this a power struggle between the King and the church this was also one of the most significant conflicts between the church and the state. This outcome brought many controversies between why one should have control this controversy led to the Charter of Liberties in 1100 and the Magna Carta in …show more content…
S. Bruno who wrote The Investiture Contest in Norman England focus more on economical, social, and political approach. Bruno talks about why was there so many controversies to begin with; he starts with the practice of “lay investiture”, which meant in the middle ages a monarch or a sovereign of a place invested in bishops and abbots with a ceremonial ring and staff. “This ceremonial was extremely important both social and economically in the hierarchy because the appoint would also be a feudal lord.” This indicates the power that king gives the bishop or abbot that was chosen not only as a spiritual leader, but a feudal lord as well. Which means for the citizens of that land that the bishop or abbot has authority over other people just alike a royal appointee. The economical approach we see Bruno use is “the selection of bishop or abbot often led to corruption and manipulation by the secular leaders who instead of appointing strong leaders for the church sought to preserve their own economic interest and political authority.” This shows that even the appoint in the church were going to be corrupt due to the people that had control over them. This also tells us that the appointee had no control over the saying of what should be done in the economic and social aspects. Bruno also points out the Gregorian reform in which “directly opposed secular influence on the church and sought to purify the corruption
The invasion was the starting point for the reformation of the Church where everything was changed from the building structure of the church to the language used even then there was a little power struggle between the church and the king. In 1103 it was the beginning of the major power struggle between Pope Paschal the second and Henry the first of England. This power struggle was called “investiture controversy” not only was this a power struggle between the King and the church this was also one of the most significant conflicts between the church and the state. This outcome brought many controversies between why one should have control this controversy led to the Charter of Liberties in 1100 and the Magna Carta in …show more content…
S. Bruno who wrote The Investiture Contest in Norman England focus more on economical, social, and political approach. Bruno talks about why was there so many controversies to begin with; he starts with the practice of “lay investiture”, which meant in the middle ages a monarch or a sovereign of a place invested in bishops and abbots with a ceremonial ring and staff. “This ceremonial was extremely important both social and economically in the hierarchy because the appoint would also be a feudal lord.” This indicates the power that king gives the bishop or abbot that was chosen not only as a spiritual leader, but a feudal lord as well. Which means for the citizens of that land that the bishop or abbot has authority over other people just alike a royal appointee. The economical approach we see Bruno use is “the selection of bishop or abbot often led to corruption and manipulation by the secular leaders who instead of appointing strong leaders for the church sought to preserve their own economic interest and political authority.” This shows that even the appoint in the church were going to be corrupt due to the people that had control over them. This also tells us that the appointee had no control over the saying of what should be done in the economic and social aspects. Bruno also points out the Gregorian reform in which “directly opposed secular influence on the church and sought to purify the corruption