George FERZOCO wrote:
> >* Oddino Barrotti da Fossano (1400) - a rarity: a parish priest with an
> >enduring reputation for sanctity
> >
> >Beatification or canonization represent institutionalized memory; without
> >strong backing from a diocese (i.e. economic support) the legal procedures
> >securing canonization were not undertaken, let alone completed. Monastic
> >orders, on the other hand, fully supported their own. Statistics about
> >canonized sanctity can be highly misleading.
> >
> >Gary Dickson
> >University of Edinburgh
>
> Excellent point, Gary; I think this must have been Carolyn's point in her gloss, too.
> I find it funny that promotors of canonizations were very open and proud of the huge
> sums of money needed to pay for processes. I've got a couple of references in vitae
> of Peter of the Morrone, for example, where it is openly stated that his canonization
> was brought about by the financial generosity of French king Philippe le Bel. (The
> same vitae, though, never mention that it was in Philippe's interest to have him
> canonized as yet another way to blacken the memory of pope Boniface VIII.)
>
> Can anyone think of other parish priests or otherwise 'ordinary folk' with lasting
> reputations for sanctity? Or perhaps is Oddino odd (sorry, I couldn't resist!) for
> some other reason (e.g. mystical visions, miracles) which in fact would make him a
> quite ordinary medieval saint?
>
> George
>
> George Ferzoco tel ++ 44 (0)116 252 2654
> Director of Italian Studies fax ++ 44 (0)116 252 3633
> University of Leicester e-mail [log in to unmask]
> School of Modern Languages
> LEICESTER LE1 7RH UNITED KINGDOM
Dear Gary Dickson and George Ferzoco
I am not so sure whether canonization (I would like to suggest that we should avoid the
term "beatification" when talking about the middle ages) has to be regarded as
"institutionalized memory". X 3,45,1 ("Audivimus") says that "non liceret vobis ipsum
pro sancto absque auctoritate Romanae ecclesiae publice venerari", and the majority of
the 15th century canonists follow Hostiensis and Innocence IV in clearly separating
public veneration (i.e. office and mass universally prescribed by the pope) from private
veneration (a local cult without a specific liturgical form of veneration). As far as I
can see now (after having analyzed decretalists' commentaries of the 13th to 15th
century), it is no quite clear what exactly people meant when they spoke about
"canonization" - the "paralegal" definition found in Hostiensis ("Canonizare est aliquem
sanctum per Papam, ad quem solum hoc pertinet [...] cathalogo aliorum sanctorum
ascribere, et publice ac solenniter, canonice ac regulariter declarare, diffinire ac
statuere, quod tanquam sanctus ab omnibus honoretur et quod pro ipso sicut pro aliis
sanctis eiusdem conditionis certa die fiat solenne officium annuatim, vt si canonizetur
tanquam confessor, fiat pro ipso officium confessorum, et si sicut martir tanquam
martirum, et sic de singulis") and Innozenz IV. ("Canonizare est sanctos canonice et
regulariter statuere, quod aliquis sanctus honoretur pro sancto, puta solenne officium
pro eo facere, sicut fit pro alijs sanctis, qui sunt eiusdem conditionis, vt si
canonizetur confessor, fiat pro eo officium confessorum, et si martyr, fiat pro eo
officium martyrum, et sic de alijs.") that was generally accepted until the end of the
fifteenth century (it can be traced up to Malvetius' "Tractatus" of 1487) seems to be
quite unequivocal on the matter. On the other hand, there are papal canonizations of the
13th century that do not order a universal veneration. We also know many late medieval
examples of mere confirmations of existing cults carried out by the pope. And finally,
there is a vast manuscript tradition that proves the existance of "institutionalized
memory" of saints never canonized (cf. e.g. recently D. Webb, Patrons and Defenders,
1996)
Considering those facts, the question arises, what exactly was reserved to the pope - in
terms of canonist theory - between 1234 (the insertion of "Audivimus" into the Decretals)
and the reforms under Urban VIII. of 1632, when the papal monopolization of the
veneration of saints was eventually accomplished: Was it the definite statement that a
person had to be regarded as holy (that would be a maximal definition, as it should be
understood later) or just the order to have a specific candidate venerated by the whole
church that would not affect existing cults (a minimal definition)?
Regarding your second point, the case of Oddino Barrotti (could anyone give some
references concerning that saint?) does not seem that "odd" to me. Vauchez lists many
cases in a way comparable that do not even concern clerics but laymen (e.g. "La sainteté
populaire" - pp.173-183). You could add Jean Michel (died 1447) - see J.M. Matz in Revue
d'Histoire Ecclesiastique 77, 84ff - or examples mentioned by J. Straub, Die
Heiligengräber der Schweiz..., 1987 (e.g. Agnes, died 1484, or Ulrich, died 1491.
Thomas Wetzstein
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|