O’Donovan, Oliver and Joan Lockward O’Donovan, Editors. From Irenaeus to Grotius: A Sourcebook in Christian Political Thought. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1999)

The comparison of the role and authority of priest and king identifies a unique distinction between the perspective of Gregory the VII and Norman Anonymous. This discussion, which bears larger import to the ramifications on church and state relations in todays political climate, is tempered by the viewpoint of Bernard of Clairvaux, who offers a more compelling account of the authority given to these fundamental spheres of society.

Gregory acknowledges the division of the two powers, but claims that sovereignty, an invention of man in a postlapsarian world, is a derivative of “men ignorant of God who raised themselves above their fellows by pride, plunder, treachery, murder…at the instigation of the devil.” 245. The son of God, as the high priest making intercession for us, despised earthly kingdoms and offered himself as reconciliation for devilish earthly dominion and heavenly spiritual dominion. Gregory backs the claim of Pope Gelasius who said, “There are two powers by which this world is governed, the sacred authority of the priesthood and the power of kings. Of these the priestly is by so much the greater as they will have to answer for kings themselves in the day of divine judgment.” 246

Gregory refers to Augustine to substantiate his claim that men who try to rule over other men in equal status to themselves act in selfish pride. The priesthood, in an opposite way seeks to rule guided by the love of God, for the glory of God, and the profit of human souls. (246)

Norman offers an opposite viewpoint. “ To tell the truth, as the Lord’s Christ, the king may properly be called a priest and the priest a king. For it is a priestly function to rule the people in the Spirit of Christ, and a royal function to offer sacrifice and burnt offerings in the Spirit.” 254 The kingship and priesthood are likened to God and what Norman calls the Lord’s Christ, as mirror relationships in human authorities. The relationship God bears to Christ can be similarly likened to the relationship between King and Priest. Norman points to the precedent of David’s authority over the priesthood in the old testament as further substantiation for his point. The Lord, who gave David authority at the throne, instigated the lordship of that throne over all within the kingdom. David, the Christ-figure, the ruler, was given authority to rule even over the priests. Norman substantiates, “The Lord gave him, I saw, the lord who does nothing wrong but all things right. It was right then that the king should have authority and rule over priests. 256

The final viewpoint is that of Bernard, who mediates Gregory and Norman. In a series of letters addressing the Pope, Norman advocates a less divine appointment to papacy. He first questions the purpose of the elected supreme position, asking the question, “for what purpose?” 271. He refers to a similar question posed in Jeremiah 1:10, who responds “so that you can root up and destroy, plunder and put to flight, buildand plant.” 271 “ We will understand ourselves better if we realize that a ministry has been imposed upon us rather than a dominion bestowed.” 271 This seems to be a humbling qualification of the office and less pompous as his characterization of spiritual labor seems to indicate within the papal office. He suggests that the pope has been entrusted with a form of stewardship, not rule, as the following statement indicates. “It seems to me yo are entrusted with stewardship, not given possession…if you proceed to usurp possession of it, you usurp that which is Christs.”