 |
 |
On Wed, 24 Jul 1996, Richard Landes 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. Michael F. Hynes %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%