On sacramental topics, canon law never was entirely divorced from
theology. The vulgate version of the Decretum includes the third section
De consecratione. The decretal collections include sections on the Trinity
& on various sacraments (e.g., Baptism) + relics and the veneration of the
saints. Canonists occasionally wrote on these topics, e.g., Guillelmus de
Monte Lauduno wrote on the sacraments.
Ferrara-Florence was negotiating with eastern churches on topics not just
of dogma but of sacramental practice. Constance issued the major decrees
against the Hussites, and Basel negotiated with Bohemian delegates on
eucharistic practices.
Tom Izbicki
Johns Hopkins
At 08:25 PM 10/29/2000 +0400, you wrote:
>Dear all
>
>I'll thank the Rev. Stolz for pointing out it was Lateran 4 that 'fixed' the
>sacraments at 7 and said just which were in and which were out. After his
>informative point (I wish I could call it a 'reminder'!), I'll refine my query
>to this:
>
>At what point did the number and definition of sacraments become 'canonical'?
>Bono Giamboni, the chap in question, switches from a non-canonical
>'incarnation'
>to a canonical 'ordination' within a few years in 1260+. How might we explain
>this?
>
>Since we should expect Lateran 4 to shove these into a canon, then how long
>before this 'bit' -- in the sense of being generally known and accepted? As
>said, within the writing career of one man we shift from non-'canonical' to
>'canonical'.
>
>As I've said, Gregory IX (thinks: wasn't he Innocent III's, um, nephew???
>unthinks) sticks all of them into his Decretals and doesn't seem to have a
>problem with it in 1230+. I.e. what we now have as the canonical 7 are what
>Gregory has and what uncle Innocent III said was so.
>
>Why did the Council of Florence reiterate them? Was this a response to Hus? Or
>had there been dispute or even confusion between 1230 and 1438 -- after
>all, we
>have Bono Giamboni who changed track from one work to the next within a small
>number of years. I can understand the Council of Trent needing to reaffirm
>just
>about everything (loin-girding), though this is outside my period.
>
>I'd appreciate the insight of this list, and I'll apologise in advance for any
>naivety or ignorance. Thanks again to Rev. Stolz for setting parameters.
>
>In ignorance
>
>Angus Graham, waiting for the rain in Oman
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|