Well, yes, although in this instance as in others it is more difficult for
scholars than for canon lawyers to decide who should be considered the
legitimate pontiff in disputed elections. In the case of Anacletus for
instance, he was elected by a majority of the college of cardinals, after a
minority had (secretly) elected Innocent II; and Anacletus held Rome during
most of his reign. However, History, in the person of St. Bernard, was on
the side of Innocent II however, as were most of the other French monastic
reformers as well as St Norbert in Germany. The old order such as Cluny
suffered much under the predecessor of Innocent, Honorius, who favored the
new orders esp. of canons regular as against Cluny and Monte Cassino. Thus
the abbot and community of MC supported Anacletus.
Many of the privileges Anacletus gave to Monte Cassino and Glanfeuil were
confirmed by Innocent III, among others.
As it seems even today: political leaders come and go, but the pork just
keeps flowing in its accustomed channels.
jw
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of B.M.COOK
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2000 11:13 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Anti-poes - was Cardinal abbot?
> John Wickstrom wrote:
> >
. In a bull of 1097 Urban II proffered the following privilege to the
abbots of St. Maur sur Loire in Anjou: [snip]
> > The privilege was confirmed by Pope Anacletus II in 1131.
But would this confirmation have been valid ???
Wasn't Anacletus one of the Anti-Popes ??
I seem to remember that in 1135 William of Aquitaine was reduced to
grovelling at the feet of Bernard of Clairvaux, sobbing and renouncing his
allegiance to Anacletus. [Bernard brain-washing the great (if not the good
!!!) again.]
Were the confirmations / excommunications &c of anti-popes of any
significance except to their own followers and during their own time in
office ?
Brenda M. Cook.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|