<P> According to the terms of the compromise, the election of bishops and abbots was to follow proper procedure, that is, the canons of the cathedral were to elect the bishop . The monks were to choose the abbot, and only ecclesiastical superiors were to invest the candidate with ring and staff (the traditional insignia of the episcopal office). This was a minimum that the church had demanded (who had far fewer problems with a mere nomination by a layman if the layman did not actually hand over ring and staff). To make up for this and symbolise the worldly authority of the bishop which the pope had always recognised to derive from the Emperor, another symbol, the scepter, was invented, which would be handed over by the king (or his legate). The rest is an actual compromise: In Germany, the Emperor (or his legate) would have the right to be present at elections to resolve any disputes between candidates ("yet without violence"). What this meant, in effect, was that the king would have the bishop he wanted (though over time, the territorial princes would get some "representation" within the chapters, making it less easy to ignore them). The bishop - elect would then by invested by the Emperor (or representative) with the scepter and, sometime afterwards, by his ecclesial superior with ring and staff . As William of Champeaux assured Henry V, he had nothing to lose by surrendering the right of investiture . The king retained substantially what he already possessed--the power to fill bishoprics with men of his choice . Nevertheless, Gregory VII's dramatisation of the issue produced a significant improvement in the character of men raised to the episcopacy . Kings no longer interfered so frequently in their election, and when they did, they generally nominated more worthy candidates for the office . </P> <P> This takes only Germany into account, though . As for Burgundy and Italy, elections were to be held without interference by the Emperor, and consecration and investiture by the ecclesial superior would, here, precede the investiture with the scepter which was to follow some time afterwards . Thus, by the Pope accepting the German bishops to be nominated with a large amount of secular influence, his right was recognized to freely choose the bishops in the other parts of the Empire, especially in Imperial Italy at the very doors of the Papal States . To see in the Concordat of Worms mere face - saving of the Church is thus not correct . </P> <P> The writing in the document was ambiguous, skirted some issues and avoided others all together . This has caused some scholars to conclude that the settlement turned its back on Gregory VII and Urban II's genuine hopes for reform . The emperor's influence in episcopal was preserved, and he could decide disputed elections . If the compromise was a rebuke to the most radical vision of the liberty of the Church, on at least one point its implication was firm and unmistakable: The king, even an emperor, was a layman, and his power at least morally limited (hence, totalitarianism was unacceptable). According to the opinion of W. Jordan, the divine right of kings was dealt a blow from which it never completely recovered, yet it should be noted that unfettered authority and Caesaropapism was not something the later Mediaevals and Early Moderns understood by the phrase "by the grace of God" (which many of them ardently defended). If anything, a blow was dealt to subconsciously remaining pre-Christian Germanic feelings of "royal hail". </P> <P> There exists a misconception concerning the power of the pope in the Middle Ages . Tradition affords him more power and authority than he actually possessed . It is likely the pope in modern ages is much more powerful than those in mediaeval times . The most powerful of all mediaeval popes was Innocent III . His pronouncements on doctrinal matters and the judgments of his court were considered definitive and final . Opposing the mediaeval pope was the primary and unyielding authority of the state . The struggle over investiture between Pope Gregory VII and Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor had dramatised the clash between church and state . The Concordat of Worms had eased the situation for a generation . But in the end, it solved nothing . Practically speaking, the king retained a decisive voice in the selection of the hierarchy . All kings supported King John of England's defiance of Pope Innocent III ninety years after the Concordat of Worms in the matter concerning Stephen Langton . In theory, the pope named his bishops and cardinals . In reality, more often than not, Rome consecrated the clergy once it was notified by the kings who the incumbent would be . Recalcitrance by Rome would lead to problems in the kingdom . For the most part it was a no - win situation for Rome . In this, the Concordat of Worms changed little . The growth of canon law in the Ecclesiastical Courts was based on the underlying Roman law and increased the strength of the Roman Pontiff . </P>

How did the concordat of worms start europe on the road to separation of church and state