 |
 |
I feel compelled to attempt an hypothesis as to how the Gregorian camp might have avoided the charge of donatism as I have recently published an article on Bruno of Segni's _De sacramentis ecclesiae_ (Essays in History, U VA 1996 - published on the U VA web sight - I would love for people to read that and offer their opinions). While I didn't address the question directly in that piece, it seems to me that the politics of the investitutre controversy have a lot to do with it. The reform camp saw the investiture contest in large part (and rightly) as a liturgical question, was the investmentof a bishop valid if performed by the emperor or any other king or lay lord. The answer of course, no and those bishops so invested are not bishops and need to be re-invested. This position is only a small step away from the reform position on simoniac priests. Perhaps, and this is speculation, they felt that both positions hung together and that if the sacraments of the opposition were valid they would have no real leverage in their effort and broad church reform. Just an hypothesis, do your worst. As for the lacuna in the scholarship, I can say that there is very little written about Bruno, and that usually incidentally while discussing the reform or exegesis. (I have an incomplete biblio. appended - unintentionally, an editorial decsion - to my article, to which I would add de Lubac's _exiges medievale_). One reason for this is that Bruno (who takes up 2 vols. in the PL) is considered in large part derivative in his exegesis (which I think is unfair) and scholars aren't willing to wade through two volumes of the PL in search of his gems. I'm sure others more qualified than I will correct me on these points. -Louis Louis Hamilton Fordham University %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%