Church bells were silent until 1214 (BL, Royal 14 C VIII, f.94) |
On 23 March 1208, English bishops under orders from Pope
Innocent III laid a general interdict on England and Wales. The sacraments were
forbidden to the entire kingdom: no-one was allowed to attend Mass, receive
extreme unction or bury their deceased relatives in consecrated ground with religious
ceremony. Only the baptism of infants and the confession of the dying were
permitted. This state lasted for over six years, until the interdict was lifted,
on 2 July 1214.
The pope resorted to this drastic measure because King John
had refused to accept the pope’s candidate for the post of archbishop of
Canterbury, Stephen Langton. Langton was a famed scholar of the Bible, who had
spent some years at the schools of Paris studying theology. Innocent, who had also
studied at Paris, had known Langton for twenty years and the two shared an
attachment to St Thomas Becket. When a dispute arose between King John and the
monks of Canterbury, in 1206, about who should succeed to the most senior Church
office in England, Innocent took the opportunity to establish his own candidate
in the see. But a university professor, who had been living abroad for years in
the kingdom of John’s rival, was not the sort of archbishop that the king of
England had in mind, nor was John impressed by how the pope had undermined the
royal right to influence the election. John refused to budge, forcing Innocent’s
hand.
What impact did the interdict have on the people of England?
The account of Ralph of Coggeshall, the Cistercian chronicler who recorded the
results of an interdict placed on France in 1200, suggests that the effects
would have been deeply felt:
‘O what a horrible and miserable spectacle it was to see in every city the sealed doors of the churches, Christians shut out from entry as though they were dogs, the cessation of divine office, the withholding of the sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord, the people no longer flocking to the famous celebrations of saints days, the bodies of the dead not given to burial according to Christian rites, of whom the stink infected the air and the horrible sight filled with horror the minds of the living’
Indeed, Ralph’s response to the interdict laid on England
was so extreme that, after John’s settlement with the pope, he removed it from
his chronicle.
The punishment did little, though, to sway King John. With
senior churchmen forced into exile, the king was able to take the profits from
Church lands. John pocketed the tidy sum of £100,000 – less than half of which
he was ever to pay back. In the end, it was the threat of rebellion at home and
invasion from France that forced John to bow to the pope and accept Langton as
archbishop of Canterbury. And the interdict had
done nothing to soften John’s reputation for impiety, nor to
discourage the king’s subjects from joking, ‘How far that stag has grown
without ever attending Mass!’
Thank you. This has answered the question raised by a book I am reading. My education goes on!
ReplyDeleteIs thinly a connection between that event and Covid-19 lockdown?
ReplyDelete