Archbishop Gerbert of Rheims (+1003) [later Archbishop of Ravenna, and then Pope of Old Rome as Sylvester II], wrote to Archbishop Seguin of Sens, telling him to refuse recognition to an uncanonical and unjust decision.
214. Rheims. March 15, 997.
Gerbert urges Siguin, Archbishop of Sens, not to submit to the judgment of the Council of Pavia, because this would admit guilt.
GERBERT TO ARCHBISHOP SIGUIN OF SENS
Your Prudence found it necessary, indeed, to avoid the craftiness of shrewd men, and to hear the voice of the Lord saying: "If any shall say to you, behold, here is Christ, or lo! there, do not follow after [Mat. 24:23]. Rome is said to be the one who will justify these things that you condemn and who will condemn what you think just.
And we say that to condemn those things which seem just and to justify what is considered evil are God's province, not man's. "It is God Who justifies, who shall condemn?" asks the Apostle [Rom. 8:33-34]. Consequently, if God condemns, He will not be the one Who justifies.
God says: "If thy brother sin against thee, show him his fault between thee and him alone," and the rest of the words through "Let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." [Mat. 18:15-17] How, therefore, can our rivals say that in the deposition of Arnulf the decision of the Roman Bishop should have been awaited? Have they been able to show the Roman Bishop's judgment to be greater than God's?
But the First Bishop of the Romans, nay, rather the Prince of the Apostles themselves, exclaimed: "We must obey God rather than men" [Acts 5:29]. Declared also that Master of the world, Paul: "If any shall preach unto you anything other than that ye have received, even an angel from heaven, let him be anathema" [Gal. 1:8-9].
Because Pope Marcellus burned incense to Jove, did all Bishops, therefore, become incense burners? I firmly maintain that if the Roman Bishop himself shall have sinned against his brother and, though often advised, shall not have listened to the Church, that Roman Bishop, I say, is, according to the Word of God, to be considered an heathen and publican. For the loftier the position, the greater the ruin. Even though he leads us unworthy mortal through his power over communion, he cannot, therefore, separate us from communion with Christ, because none of us agrees with him when his opinion is contrary to the Evangel [Gospel], nor should a Priest be removed from office, moreover, unless he has confessed to, or been convicted of a crime, especially since the Apostle says: "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?" [Rom. 8:35] and also: "For I am sure that neither death nor life [will] [Rom. 8:38].
But what greater separation is there than to remove anyone of His followers from the Body and Blood of the Son of God, Who daily is Sacrificed for our salvation? But, if he who buys temporal life either for himself or for another is a murderer, by what name shall he be called who buys eternal life?
Nor can the words of [St] Gregory, referring to the people be truly said of Bishops. "Whether," he said, "a pastor compels [them] justly or unjustly, the flock must respect the opinion of the pastor." [Homily on the Gospel, II. xxvi.6] For the Bishops are not the flock, but the people [are]. By as much as the life of the pastor is separated from the flock should the life of the Priest be distant from his people.
Therefore, you ought not to be suspended from Holy Communion like a confessed and a convicted criminal. Thus far, indeed, no legal sentence of condemnation could have been pronounced against you, as if you were a rebel and fugitive, especially since your acts and conscience are unstained, you who have never avoided the sacred councils; nor can it be, according to law. No legal sentence has been pronounced, because Gregory [I] says: "A sentence pronounced with out our writing does not merit being considered a sentence." [Registrum xiii.xlv] Nor can it be pronounced according to law, because Pope Leo the Great says: "The privilege of Peter does not hold wherever a judgment does not arise from the justice of the case." [Sermones IV, 3]
Do not, therefore, give our rivals such an opportunity that the Priesthood, which everywhere is One, just as the Catholic Church is One, seem to be so subjected to one person that when he has been corrupted by money, friendship, fear, or ignorance, no one can become a Priest except one whom these "virtues" commend. Let the common Law of the Catholic Church be by the Evangels [Gospels], the Apostles, the Prophets, the Canons established by the Spirit of God and consecrated by the reverence of the whole world, and the Decrees of the Apostolic See not discordant with them. And let him who through contempt shall deviate from these Laws be judged according to these and be degraded according to these. Therefore, let there be continuous peace forever and ever for the one keeping these [laws] and carrying them out according to his abilities.
We hope that you are faring well... [space of 15 letters in MS L, with debased Tironian notes in the margin]
Again farewell, and do not willingly be suspended from the Sacred Mysteries. For he who, when accused, stands silent before the judge, confesses his guilt; or he who while the judge is deciding, resigns himself to punishment, likewise confesses. Now, a confession is made either for the sake of salvation or of perdition: for salvation, when one admits truths about himself; for perdition, when he fabricates or allows to be fabricated false statements against himself. To keep silent [before] a judge is, therefore, to confess.
Furthermore, to confess false and mortal crimes is the act of a murderer, because everyone who causes his own death is a greater murderer. And the Lord says: "Out of thine own mouth I judge thee." [Lk. 19:22[ The false accusation must, accordingly, be repulsed, and the illegal judgment despised lest, while we desire to appear innocent, we are proved criminals before the Church.
..........................................
Notes taken from Harriet Pratt Lattin's notes at the end of the Letter, from the translated text "The Letters of Gerbert: With HIs Papal Privileges as Sylvester II":
This is Letter 192 in Havet. It deals with the application of the decrees of the council of Pavia by Archbishop Siguin of Sens. If the council was held the last week in January, 997, the news would have reached Sens in 3 or 4 weeks; within two weeks Siguin's obedience to the decrees would be apparent; and in another week Gerbert would have received news of Siguin's actions.
Archbishop Siguin had been suspended from office by the councils of Pavia.
No official record of the council of Pavia exists, and it is known only by the summary sent to Willigis, Archbishop of Mainz, in his capacity of papal vicar in Germany (JL I, 492), printed in MGSS III, 694 and Olleris, pp. 544-46. "It has pleased this holy council that all the Bishops of the Wet who participated in the deposition of Archbishop Arnulf, and who, after having been summoned by definite citations, scorned the council at Pavia, and through a lay person sent irrelevant causes to confuse the council be suspended from episcopal office... [and] those deposed without apostolic authority remain innocent." Apparently Abbot Leo brought the decisions of this Council to France by word of mouth.
No comments:
Post a Comment