On Thu, 25 Jul 1996, Richard Landes wrote:
>
>
> are you arguing that we not engage in "only... speculation" about what
> commoners thought? is this not the equivalent of (functionally) saying
> that if commoners don't leave written evidence of what they thought, they
> didn't think (ie what they thought is insignificant)?
History is not a speculative discipline. I'd love to know what the
"commonors (though I find this term hoplessly vague)" thought, but, alas,
we have precious little evidence on this. BTW, your last statement by no
means follows from what I've said-- I simply don't see how you can arrive
at it and I reject it.
> again, your case
> may (or may not) be airtight for the canonical distinctions you are
> making, but i think you end up losing alot of the social religious dynamic
> in approaching it this way.
You seem to be implying that you know something about 11th cent.
ecclesiological debates that I (or Gilchrist) don't-- if so, I'd
like to know what it is we've overlooked. The distinctions I and the 11th
cent. reformers made simply cannot be dismissed out of hand just to fit a
desired end.
> Moore and (thanks for the reminder) Grundmann
> are able to place the reform in a context of popular concerns and
> enthusiasms that go a long way towards both explaining its origins and
> dynamics. to get a sense of how close the reformers come to donatism
> (which is just the orthodox epithet for rigorism), imagine Augustine
> reading either Humbert or Hildebrand.
>
> rlandes
>
>
>
>
The latter smacks of anachronism; but let me indulge you. I think he wd
have found their position perfectly acceptable. Simoniac orders were
valid and so sacraments done by simoniacs were also valid. He may even
have understood Humbert, even if he disagreed factually w/him: viz.
Simoniacs are heretics and so (even Augustine wd agree if he accepted
the position that they were heretics) their orders are invalid and hence
so too their sacraments. But to return to the mainstream reformist view,
simoniacs violate the laws governing the clergy in the church (and,
moreover, threaten its unity) and so they cannot be allowed to exercise
their offices until they are restored penitentially into the good graces
of the church. BTW, Simoniacs who preform the sacraments within a given
jurisdiction also violate the disciplinary rules of the church, but G VII,
et al., never maintained that their sacraments were invalid. The donatist
analogy simply cannot be made w/o twisting and distorting beyond all
recognition the positions of the parties in the 11th cent. disputes. As
for the explanitory pwr of the models noted above that is a subject for
another debate. But let it be noted that no matter how attractive an
explanitory model may be, it is useless if it is not based on the
evidence; and if it distorts that evidence (as describing G VII, et al. as
Donastists surely does), it is worse than useless. I have no prob.
w/exploring the social roots/responsess to the reform; but be true to the
sources!
MFH
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|