On Thu, 25 Jul 1996, Richard Landes wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jul 1996, Dennis D. Martin wrote:
>
> > > This ties in with what J. B. Russell called "Reformist heretics," those
> > > who started out as critics and ended up outside, sometime impelled by a
> > > hostile reception. What little I have read about Peter Waldo suggests
> > > that this was how the Poor of Lyons got themselves into trouble.
> > > (Speaking of modern survivals, there is a Chiesa Valdensiana in Rome.)
> > >
> > > tom izbicki
> >
> > Depends what one means by "hostile." The Church effectively accepted
> > Waldensian spirituality, since it was not unlike a wide variety of
> > "apostolic life" movements, including the Franciscans a generation or two
> > later. But the Church insisted on limits on authorized preaching, as had
> > always been the case. I would not consider the insistence that the Poor
> > Men of Lyons follow the same rules as everyone else a "hostile"
> > reception, but others (both then and now) probably would.
>
> this description strikes me as a bit ingenuous. Waldo was subject to alot
> of hostility from the clergy both local and at the papal court, and for
> more than his desire to preach -- his translation of the bible comes to
> mind. telling him that he needed local permission to preach was a way for
> the pope to finesse his problem, but essentially, given the hostility of
> local clergy, a way of saying no. as for the approach to the
> Franciscans, it was hardly as smooth or as consistent as you suggest. if
> the Waldensians went from believing themselves to be the champions of
> Catholicism to thinking of the Church as the whore of Babylon, it is
> hardly the result of a non-hostile church.
>
> rlandes
>
One can trade accusations of "ingenuousness" ad infinitum. One man's
caution (required of responsible leaders) is another man's hostility. Do
I detect a certain "hostility" toward the Catholic church (or is it merely
critical caution) in the
way certain modern writers deal with topics of dissent and heresy in the
medieval church. One is, of course, entitled to one's hostility,
critical caution, enthusiastic affirmation etc. toward the movements one
studies. I would not find it helpful simply to dissolve everything into
a tired postmodernist "everyone is biased and it's all a hermeneutic
game". But I would suggest that we all approach these matters with
commitments for and against. Mine is that of a believing Catholic; I do
not hesitate to admit it. I only ask that others admit theirs as they
evaluate medieval sources and that we all try not to use such admitted
commitments to discredit each other a priori.
The question of "hostile" and "cautious" receptions thus remains. The
fact that other movements of similar spiritualities were accepted
and the Waldenses and others were not raises questions about whether
"hostility" alone can be an adequate explanation. Some movements or
individuals may have been rejected on the basis of unfair, false
accusations, poor investigation etc. I am not suggesting the
authorities' behavior in this regard in the Middle Ages is above
criticism. What I am suggesting is that simply to explain the Waldenses'
denouement into heresy because of hostility on the part of the
authorities is too simplistic. And I am suggesting that the question of
who was authorized to preach (and to translate scriptures etc.) was a
matter of legitimate importance within the medieval Church's life. Any
organization needs to have rules if anarchic fragmentation is not to
result. That doesn't mean that all rules and all interpreting of rules
by authorities in an organization is above criticism, but it does mean
that simple chip-on-the-shoulder claims of meanspirited and hostile
authorities does not get us very far in understanding medieval popular
religion. And, given the last 30 years in Western European and American
popular culture, I think that a bias stemming from a now
deeply engrained chip-on-the-shoulder anti-institutionalism is a greater
danger to scholarly interpretations of the Middle Ages than is a
pro-authority, traditionalist bias.
But then, perhaps I am prejudiced in my assessment of the last 30 years
in the West! (Let she who is without bias cast the first stone!)
Dennis Martin
Loyola University Chicago
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|