His decree claimed that any people of the clergy appointed by lay persons would be a false appointment because it was, " bereft of apostolic authority" (Tierney 51). Seeing as how lay investiture had seemed to become tradition among lords and kings, this decree by Gregory VII seemed to be a risky move that could have brought harsh consequences. It is fairly obvious in this statement that Gregory is placing the papal powers above those of the royal elite. In his statement, he mentions that, "no one of the clergy shall receive the investiture from the hand of an emperor or king or of any lay person, male or female" (Tierney 51). In this, he seems to create a group of "lay persons", that seems to include upper and lower class, male and female, excluding only people of the clergy. Now, this statement with the one following, saying that lay investiture is "bereft of apostolic authority" makes it seem that the Pope has more power than the king or emperor. The decree also makes it seem that the king is not as good a Christian as the Pope, and therefore his appointments are useless. Gregory states this when he says, " if anyone shall receive a bishopric or abbey from the hand of any lay person, he shall by no means be considered as among the number of the bishops or abbots- (Tierney 52). This gives support to the idea that Gregory saw the appointments by the royals as false appointments; that they did not have the divine right to appoint clergy men and that they, therefore, did not count among other men of the clergy. Gregory did hold a lot of power in Europe at the time, even among kings, and one of the powers was heading the Christian religion. If he was going to take action in actually stopping lay investiture, then he was required to create severe consequences for anyone partaking in it. Excommunication from the church was just one of these punishments, and not just for the person performing lay investiture, but also for the false bishop or priest who was appointed by the lay person.
