How did people in western medieval Europe (say, 1100-1400) conceive of the Pope's theological authority? To what extent was he considered to have been chosen by God?

by The_Manchurian

Modern people often seem to conceive of the medieval view of the Pope as God's chosen representative, that no-one would ever question, during a time of brutal theological control. Of course, actually Kings in the Middle Ages, while pious Catholics, often disagreed with, argued with, and sometimes went to war against, the Pope. Now, I think that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was actually a 19th century development? So, I wondered if medieval people more thought of the Pope the way Americans think of the President; the position itself holds legitimacy and respect, but the President may be bad at his job. How often did people criticise the Pope? Was it a normal thing to say "the Pope is wrong about X", and would that be something people were allowed to say publically by society and the local Church? If a priest said "I disagree with the Pope" would the local Bishop defrock him? Or, rather, would a priest not want to disagree with the Pope because he might get in trouble, or actually because to disagree with the Pope would be, in his mind, to disagree with God?

It is true that the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility was codified in the First Vatican Council (1869/1870) but the key thing is that it was codified then, it didn't come out of nowhere and the theology behind it was older than that. You can already see similar sentiments back in the late eleventh century.

The Dictatus papae (on paper 1075, some reason to believe it was later, but not so much later as to not be early 12th century at the latest) is a list of statements about the pope and the church, which includes such lines as.

-- 19. That [the pope] himself may be judged by no one.

-- 21. That to [the apostolic chair, aka the pope] should be referred the more important cases of every church.

-- 22. That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.

While shy of outright calling the Pope infallible, it does get pretty close in that regard. However, this was still a debate in flux, and in a 14th century dispute with the Franciscan monks about ascetic poverty and church property, the Franciscans argued that Pope John XXII could not overrule his predecessors due to the infallibility of their own proclamations, an argument which he rejected along with Papal Infallibility with it, though not so thoroughly as to close the door on the topic forever.[1]

Now it's important to keep in mind that.

The doctrine of papal infallibility does not mean the pope is never wrong, rather it means that when he is speaking through his authority as the pope on matters concerning catholic doctrine, he is infallible.
This is a brief overview covering some of the theological stances of the era, not all of them, and most definitely doesn't include the way regular people thought of it (in as much as they did.)

[1] Brien Tierney. Origins of papal infallibility, 1150-1350: 1150 - 1350 a study on the concepts of infallibility, sovereignty and tradition in the middle ages.