 |
 |
> > > * Bruno, bishop of Segni (1123) > > > - prolific scriptural commentator; maintained that sacraments > > > administered by bishops or priests who had been guilty of simony were > > > invalid > > The same problem arises in connection with another writer of that time, > Humbert of Silva Candida. > > tom izbicki > > 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 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%