On Wed, 24 Jul 1996, Michael F Hynes wrote:
> > > > > * Bruno, bishop of Segni (1123)
> > > > > - prolific scriptural commentator; maintained that sacraments
> > > > > administered by bishops or priests who had been guilty of simony were
> > > > > invalid
> This is not so. The locus classicus on the subject of reordination had for
> a long time been L. Saltet, Les reordinations (Paris, 1907). It was A.
> Michael, "Die folgenschweren Ideen des Kardinals Humbert und ihr Einfluss
> auf Gregor VII," Stud. Greg. I, 1947, pp. 65-92 who concluded that Bruno
> found "simoniacal orders" invalid. For the latest on the issue
> (w/wonderfully complete boblio.), see John Gilchrist, "`Simoniaca
> Haeresis' and the Problem of Orders from Leo IX to Gratian,"Proceedings of
> the Second Int. Congress of Canon Law..., 1965, pp. 209-35. Michael's
> error was in confusing "illegal" (but valid) with invalid. Bruno did not
> question the validity of simoniacal orders; he did insist, however, that
> simoniacs undergo a public penance and be rec'd back into the church by
> the laying on of hands (traditional penitential ceremony). N.B. Thhis is
> not reordination.
>
> > > The same problem arises in connection with another writer of that time,
> > > Humbert of Silva Candida.
> > >
> > > tom izbicki
>
> This is true-- Humbert took the traditional termonology referring to
> simony as a heresy and revived the Cyprianic tradition re: reordination.
> Most others in the controversy tookj the position that simony was a matter
> of the will and not the intellect, and, hence, could lead to heresy but
> was not heretical in itself.
>
> > > > I'll check this when I get home, but does anyone know off-hand how Bruno's
> > > > views on the sacraments avoided the condemnation on Donatist teachings? Did
> > > > he reconcile them somehow with _ex opera opere_ sacramental doctrine?
> >
> > this raises an issue that struck me when i was a graduate student and we
> > read about the "gregorian" "reform" (which was neither). i asked why none
> > of the historians we read discussed the fact that gregory's call for lay
> > boycotts was not a form of donatism? the answer i got was that it was
> > not, stricto sensu, donatism. but that seemed a weak way to deal with the
> > apparent fact that this papal movt had been taken over by a clearly defined
> > and roundly denounced heresy (something that Damian seems to have been
> > quite clear about). in all the discussion of the "patristic roots" of the
> > gregorian reform, many historians seem to have missed donatism.
> >
> > can anyone a) recommend a good treatment of this issue in the literature
> > on the "reform", and b) explain the general lacuna?
> >
> > rlandes
>
> Gregory VII did not argue that simoniacal orders were invalid but illegal
> (see above). He insisted upon penance (& often was sucessful in getting
> it!) from simoniacs.
> Hope this clarifies things.
i probably did not make myself fully clear to start with. i know there
are technical distinctions which permit one to avoid the charge of
donatism -- these reformers were neither ignorant nor stupid. i'm more
interested in what one might call "functional donatism", that is, how the
message was heard by laymen like the patarenes, or the people who flocked
to hear Henry of Lausanne in Le Mans while Hildebert was down meditating
on the eloquent ruins of Rome. whether the pope who calls on laymen to
boycott simoniac and nicolaite priests has a clear distinction in his
mind that deflects the accusation of heresy may have little meaning to
his "footsoldiers" down in the trenches of reforming warfare. that
modern historians have not dealt with the quasi-donatism of the
"reformers" reflects, it seems to me, an excessive acceptance of the
reformers own self-definition. when historians do look at this issue
(like R I Moore), then you get something that looks more like a social
history of religion and places the papal reform and the apostolic
heresies of the 11th and 12th centuries on a continuum.
rlandes
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|