Cusanus' decisions as legate could be appealed to the pope himself, as
happened; see Donald Sullivan's article on Cusanus' legation, "Nicholas
of Cusa as Reformer," in Medieval Studies 36 (1974): ca. 383. Nicholas V
reversed his legate in several instances.
Tom Izbicki
At 03:16 PM 11/20/2000 +0100, you wrote:
>At 16:35 19.11.00 -0600, you wrote:
>>I would have a somewhat different take on this. From my experience with
>>the Schlitpacher/Cusanus monastic reform materials, I would say that this
>>can be taken fairly literally. Relief from some liturgical duties need
>>not mean a relaxation of religious vigor. Of course, since the schedula
>>does not specify, we can't be sure, but had there been serious laxity, it
>>probably would have been noted or at least described with more severe language.
>
>I meanwhile had a chance to look at a copy of the visitation document of
>1451 which goes into more detail than Schlitpacher's short note. It lists
>every single thing that needs to be changed, among them liturgical duties
>that were indeed relieved a bit but only on certain days. Also, the Cursus
>BMV was to be altered according to the reform. The orders given are rather
>strict and obviously the nuns -including the abbess -themselves thought
>so; for example, the visitors stated that the nuns must not eat meat or
>wear clothes made of linen unless they were sick or weak. Nevertheless,
>the archive holds another document, issued 2 years later by the Archbishop
>of Salzburg on behalf of the pope, which allows the convent to consume
>meat on certain days and to wear softer clothes. So the authority of the
>visitors seems not to have been absolute even though a man like Cusanus
>was papal legate to the German speaking countries. This is what I find a
>bit strange; both the visitors _and_ the Archbishop refer to the pope as
>the source of their authority; this could indicate that the pope didn't
>really care about what was going on in monasteries and nunneries or that
>the Archbishop still had more authority than anybody else as far as
>monasteries and nunneries in his region were concerned. It is known for
>Nonnberg, for example, that it was an "Eigenkloster" and as such under
>direct supervision of the Archbishop of Salzburg. This would explain why
>the Archbishop and not the visitors issued the second document; the latter
>would, of course, not issue a document that contradicts their own interests.
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|