Bruno of Segni: A Pamphlet on Simoniacs.
late 11th Century
Translated by W.L. North from the edition of
E. Sackur in MGH Libelli de Lite II, (Hannover, 1892), pp.546-562.
Introduction
The edition of Bruno's pamphlet On Simoniacs translated here consists of two
works which are in many ways unrelated to each other in content and appear
independently in the manuscript tradition. Part I, namely cc.1-9, contains a
brief life and several miracles of Leo IX which are clearly intended to be
delivered as a sermon on St. Leo IX's feast day. Part II, i.e. cc.10-16,
presents a discussion of the validity of simoniacal ordinations and, more
particularly, Bruno's response to the charge (going back to the time of Peter
Damian and Humbert of Silva Candida) that if simony was as widespread a practice
as reformers claimed, then the reformers themselves must be simoniacs – for who
else could have ordained them but the simoniacal priesthood against which they
were railing. In addition to responding to this charge with a detailed
discussion of the relationship between intentionality and heretical behavior,
Bruno also addresses other related issues such as the repeatability of certain
sacraments and whether or not buying churches and church property constitutes an
act of simony.
Although the precise date of its composition is unknown, scholars have
suggested, on the basis of Bruno's references to Hugh of Cluny, John of Tusculum,
John of Porto, and Hubald of Sabina that the work was composed between
1094-1101. They have also viewed his discussion of simoniacal ordinations as
intended to respond specifically to critics of Urban II and his supporters who,
at the Council of Piacenza in 1095, favored the reinstatement in their clerical
office of those coming from the Wibertine party, if they had not knowingly
committed simony or received their ordination from a simoniac. In the
translator's view, both the Life and the discussion of simoniacal ordinations
were probably composed in late 1094 or early 1095 in preparation for Urban II's
pastoral tour of northern Italy and France.
Text
ON SIMONIACS
Bruno, bishop of Segni, to all the faithful and all catholics. May the grace and
peace of God, our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ be with you. The
Psalmist speaks, saying: Glorify the Lord with me, and let us exalt His name
together.[Ps.33:4][1] In this he most clearly teaches us that we, too, should
invite whomever we can to the praise and glorification of God. For all the
praise, virtue, and glory of the saints is applied to Him Who is wondrous in His
saints.[cf. Ps.67:36] He also says to his disciples: Without me, you can do
nothing.[Jn. 15:5] In each [saint], He is crowned and in all He is honored. He
Himself speaks in them, He Himself fights and wins in them. Both the faithful
themselves and his servants therefore say, not inappropriately: In God we shall
do miracles, and He Himself shall bring our enemies to nought.[Ps.17:14]
[1] Bruno is using the Septuagint translation.
1. We shall therefore praise the saints of God, we shall honor the friends of
God, because [God] Himself is praised and magnified in them, [God] who has given
them so much glory, virtue, and magnificence. And so I ask: Glorify the Lord
with me, and on this great festival of the blessed Leo, highest pontiff and
universal pope, let us exalt his name together.
The whole world was placed in wickedness, sanctity had failed, justice had
perished, and truth lay buried. Iniquity was king, avarice was lord, Simon magus
held the Church, bishops and priests were given over to pleasure and
fornication. Priests were not ashamed to take wives, they held their weddings
openly, they contracted nefarious marriages, and endowed with laws those with
whom, according to the laws, they should not live in the same house. For the
sacred canons allow no other women to live together with this order than those
women alone who are above all suspicion.[2] But what is even worse than all this
- hardly anyone was found who either was not a symoniac [himself] or had not
been ordained by symoniacs. As a result, to this very day, there are some people
who, because they argue wickedly and do not understand the dispensation of the
Church, contend that starting from that time the priesthood failed in the
Church. For they say: "If all were like this, i.e. if all either were symoniacs
or had been ordained by symoniacs, you who are now [priests], how did you come
to be here? Through whom did you pass, if not through them? There was no other
way. Hence, those who ordained you received their orders from none other than
those who either were symoniacs or had been ordained by symoniacs." We shall
respond to these people later, since this question requires no small discussion.
[2] E.g. Council of Nicaea, c.3.
2. In the meantime, let us continue with what we have begun. Such was the
Church, such were the bishops and priests, such were even the Roman pontiffs
themselves, who should illuminate all the others. All the salt had lost its
flavor, and there was nothing left with which it might be seasoned,[cf.
Lk.14:34] and if the Lord Sabaoth had not left His seed for us, we would have
been like Sodom and Gomorrah. Amidst this great tempest, the blessed Leo took up
the episcopal see of the apostolic pinnacle, in order that such and so great a
light as this, when placed atop the candelabra, might enlighten all who are in
the house. He was, in fact, bishop of Toul, Bruno by name, noble by birth,
beautiful in appearance but more beautiful in his sanctity, educated in letters,
powerful in his doctrine, and adorned with [good] manners – indeed, whatever
things are necessary to this order, all these came together in him. And at such
a moment, such a teacher, who was going to have such disciples, was truly
necessary. And so religious men gathered together with the emperor Henry [III],
a most prudent man in every way, and with the legates of the Romans who were
there at the time, and strongly entreated the aforementioned bishop that, out of
love for the princes of the apostles Peter and Paul, he would support the Roman
church and not be afraid to give himself up to danger for the sake of the faith
and the Christian religion.[3] For that race[4] feared to live in this land of
ours, since [they considered it] like passing from the healthiest of places to
those ridden with sickness. But that blessed bishop was not afraid of the
sickness of the place; rather he feared to ascend to the height of so great a
church. So, too, is Moses read to have felt. For when the Lord wished to place
him at the head of the people of Israel, he says: I beseech you, Lord, send whom
you are going to send. [Ex.33:12] When [Leo] had finally been won over by their
entreaties, he promised that he would do what they asked on one condition: I am
going to Rome, he says, and once there, if the clergy and people elect me as
their bishop voluntarily, I shall do what you ask. Otherwise, I shall not accept
the election." Rejoicing, they confirmed his judgment and praised his condition.
[3] Pope Damasus II had died in August of 1048. The meeting in Germany to which
Bruno refers occurred in late 1048.
[4] I.e. those from the German Empire. Leo IX's predecessors Clement II (24
December 1046 - 9 October 1047) and Damasus II (17 July - 9 August 1048) had
both died from illness after only a very short time in office.
Now then, in those days, there was a certain Roman monk named Hildebrand,[5] an
adolescent of noble disposition, brilliant wit and holy religion. The adolescent
had come there[6] both for the sake of learning and also in order that he might
fight (militare) under the rule of Saint Benedict in some religious house
(locus). Now the blessed bishop summoned this youth into his presence and, as
soon as he learned his purpose, will, and religion, asked [Hildebrand] to return
to Rome with him. To which [Hildebrand] answered: No, I say. Why not? the bishop
replies. Because you are going to seize the Roman church not in accordance with
the institutions of the canons but by means of secular and royal power, he says.
Inasmuch as [Leo] was by nature a simple and most gentle man, he satisfied
[Hildebrand's concerns] with patience, explaining everything just as he wished.
Of course, in this action he imitated the example of the blessed Peter, whose
successor he was soon to become. For after Peter baptized Cornelius, a gentile,
that is, and one outside the religion of the Jews, and was rebuked by the other
apostles because he approached a man who had a foreskin, he did not disdain
giving them an explanation concerning all these things.[cf. Acts 10:24-11:17]
[5] Later Pope Gregory VII. See below.
[6] To Toul? To Lotharingia?
And so when the bishop came to Rome, he brought the aforementioned monk with
him. And he greatly served the blessed apostle Peter by bringing this man back
with him, for through his counsel and wisdom the Roman church was to be ruled
and governed for a time. This fellow is, in fact, Pope Gregory VII – but it
belongs to another time and work to recount his prudence, constancy, and
fortitude as well as his battles and labors. Now then, in accordance with Roman
custom, Leo was elected as bishop by the clergy and people with great praise,
then raised to the episcopal see of the blessed apostle Peter, and was called
(in my opinion through the workings of Providence) Leo, when his name was
changed.[7] For Leo from the tribe of Juda, from which this Leo traced his
origin, conquered and, having become the mightiest of beasts, feared the attack
of no one. Indeed, Leo's roar soon shook the earth, terrified the sacrilegious,
upset the symoniacs, and wounded the army of married priests. For this most
blessed pontiff, afire with the flame of the Holy Spirit, burned especially
against symoniacs. He also confirmed the ancient canons in order that the order
of clerics might live chastely and religiously. In this, condescending greatly
when necessary through his power of dispensation (dispensatorie) and having
mercy upon past [sins] by apostolic authority by imposing only a small penance,
he admonished them not to commit such [sins] again. Yet because the pope was
acting not according to his will, but out of necessity, this ought not be taken
as an example, unless perchance a similar situation arises such as often forces
the rectors of the Church to tolerate what cannot be corrected. Who can describe
how much kindness he had for all, how great was his humility, how great was his
mildness, how generous, how affable, how compassionate he was to all? He became
all things to all, in order to profit all. [I Cor. 9:22] His speech, seasoned
with salt, soothed the pious and terrified the impious.
[7] Leo IX was elected pope in December 1048.
3. But now let us come to those things which the Lord did through him, though we
do not wish to write down everything that we have heard or found written down
about him. Blessed Pope Gregory, whom we mentioned above, used to say many
things about this man and it is from him, as I recall, that I heard the majority
of what I've said up to now. Sometimes when he would speak about him to us who
were listening, he began to rebuke us, and especially me (or so I believed
because he kept his eyes intent upon me) because we were letting the deeds of
the blessed Leo perish in silence and because we were not writing things which
would be to the glory of the Roman church and [serve] as an example of humility
to the many who listened. But because he poured out his words to no one in
particular (in commune), not one wrote what he ordered to be written by all. Nor
even now would I have written these things, if I had not been forced in a
certain way to write them, as I shall make clear in what follows. May both popes
have mercy on me, because I recognize that I have offended both in this.
Let us first recount what we have heard was done through him in the regions of
Gaul by the admirable power of God. Now when the blessed Leo was celebrating
councils there[8] and many bishops were being accused of the heresy of simony,
among others a certain fellow was accused who was held in greater suspicion that
the rest. But when the accusation against him could not be proven by certain
evidence, the pope promised him that [the bishop] himself would tell the truth
about himself. But since he did not want to tell the truth and tried to conceal
his iniquity in every way, the blessed Leo said to him: If, as you say, you are
not a symoniac and have not sinned against the Holy Spirit, say now, if you can:
"Glory to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit." After [the bishop]
had said "Glory to the Father and to the Son," although he tried hard [to say
it], he was utterly unable to say "and to the Holy Spirit." And after he
repeated it again and again and could in no way name the Holy Spirit when his
mouth was open, it appeared clear to all that he had sinned against the Holy
Spirit, whose name he could not say. All therefore gave thanks to God, since He
had deigned to show them so new a sign and so unheard of a miracle. And so,
because some were terrified by the judgment of this man, they came to the pope
by themselves and, after accusing themselves, they revealed their consciences to
him. At that time, too, when the abbot of Cluny, while still an adolescent of
good promise, was asked by the blessed Leo if he ever had any ambition to lead
so great a monastery himself, because he was a disciple of the Truth, he stated
what was the case, saying: According to the flesh, of course I have had
[ambitions], but according to the spirit, I have not. So pleasing to all and
praiseworthy was his response that it was immediately written in the hearts of
all out of tremendous joy. Repeatedly they asked themselves what he had
answered, in order that they might be able to retain his very words. He is now
an old man, full of days, venerable to all and loveable to all, and he still
rules that venerable monastery with the greatest wisdom – indeed, he is a man
praiseworthy in every way, beyond compare, and of singular religion.
[8] The most famous of these councils was that of Reims in 1049.
4. I also heard the blessed Gregory telling another miracle concerning this same
pope, which I do not think should be passed over. The blessed Leo, said Gregory,
had a certain teacher, a wise and truly religious man, who sent him a wooden
cup, after he had received the pontificate of the Roman Church. The venerable
pontiff considered this cup to be wonderfully precious and, out of veneration
for the blessed Remi, whose cup [the teacher] said it was, he usually drank from
it more readily than from vessels of silver and gold. It just so happened,
however, that it was once set down carelessly and fell to the ground, splitting
into two pieces. When, as was customary, the blessed pontiff ordered that wine
be brought to him, the servant (pincerna) stood there with a troubled look on
his face, well aware of the damage which he had caused. The pontiff said to him:
"Why are you acting like that?" "Because the cup is broken," he said. And the
blessed Leo said: "Is it really broken?" And the servant said: "Broken, my
lord." "Bring it to me," he said to the servant. When [the servant] brought it,
the pontiff took it in his hands and, fitting the pieces together by matching
the pieces at the points where they seemed to have formerly been attached, he
held it for a little while in his hands and then returned it whole and unharmed
to the servant, saying: "Go and mix [the wine]." Gregory was present at this
miracle and told us. Another man of not such great authority later told me that
he was present and saw it, too.[9]
[9] This miracle is also recounted by Desiderius (later Pope Victor III) in Book
III of his Dialogues on the Miracles of St. Benedict, which is edited by G.
Schwarz and A. Hofmeister in MGH Scriptores 30/2, pp.1143-44. Desiderius, like
Bruno, also claims to have originally heard the story from Gregory VII.
5. While the blessed Leo was in Rome and was ruling the apostolic see in peace,
many people came from the borders of Apulia with their eyes gouged out, their
noses cut off, and their hands and feet chopped off, wretchedly lamenting the
cruelty of the Normans. Whence it happened that this mildest of men, who was
full of piety and mercy, had compassion for the tremendous affliction of those
wretched people and attempted to humble the arrogance of that race. Yet,
although he was truly zealous for God, it was perhaps not according to knowledge
– would that he had not gone there himself but had just sent the army there to
defend justice! But why say more? The armies of both sides clash, as the many go
to battle the few. An immense slaughter occurs, and much blood is shed on this
side and on that.[10] The one side persists through their fortitude, the other
through their multitude. The ones could say at theirs deaths, what we read that
our Savior said in His passion: They would not have power over us, unless it had
been given to them from above.[cf. Jn. 19:11] And yet, why is it that the good
are vanquished and the wicked emerge victorious? O depth of the riches of
[God's] wisdom and knowledge, how incomprehensible are His judgments, how
untrackable are His ways? [Rom.11:33] Those who fight for justice are conquered,
those who fight against justice conquer. Nevertheless, the Apostle consoles us
about such things when he says: We know that all things are done to the good for
those who love God.[Rom.8:28] Whether they die or they live, it is good for
them. Whatever happens to them is good for them. All things happen to them for
the good, and death, in fact, works better than life for such people. For the
death of His saints is precious in the sight of the Lord. Indeed, we should
firmly believe and in no way doubt that all those who die for justice are placed
among the martyrs. May He place them with the leaders (principes) of his
people.[cf. Ps. 112:8]
[10] Bruno here refers to the battle of Civitate in 1053.
6. We have passed over much and chosen a few things from a multitude, because we
were commanded to write not the whole, but only a part of the whole. Behold –
rumor flies, the earth is filled [with the news?], and everythere there is talk
that a battle has occurred and that the soldiers of Christ and the army of the
saints have been beaten. Then, the pitiful pontiff returned to Benevento, a city
faithful and friendly to St. Peter. When they learned of the pontiff's approach,
the entire city rushes out to meet him – men and women, youths and maidens, the
old and the young, yet not as if for a procession, but for weeping and
lamentation. Standing in wonder, [the people] watch them coming from afar; now
the pope draws nearer with bishops and clerics preceding him, their faces sad
and their heads hanging. After the venerable pope comes among them and blesses
them with his raised hand, clamor and wailing rise up to heaven and the entire
earth resounds with weeping and laments. In such a procession he enters the city
and amidst such psalmody he comes to the church. After remaining there for a
time, he returns to Rome and in each city [along the way] the lamentation and
tears begin anew. For what man could keep himself from tears who had seen him
going out with such an army, but saw him later return with only clerics, bereft
of that noble knighthood. Then, when he reached Rome, he hastened as soon as
possible to the church of the blessed apostle Peter and commended to him on
bended knee and with great devotion the souls of those who, obedient unto death
out of love for him, had not been afraid to shed their blood to defend
justice.[11] And while he remained there, it was shown to him through a
revelation in a dream that he soon would leave this world. He therefore ordered
the bishops, cardinals, and other clerics to be summoned to him and exhorted
them with great kindness to live chastely and fight bravely against the heresy
of simony; and he said to them: You should know, my brothers, that I am going to
leave this world in a few days. For last night I, although unfortunate and
unworthy of the see of this church, was in another life through a vision, and
because of this, it now wearies me to live in this life. But I greatly rejoice
that I saw there among the martyrs of Christ those brothers and friends of mine
who died after following me to Apulia in defense of justice. They were well
adorned and holding palms in their hands so that those who thought that they had
been beaten may know in this way that they are the victors. And this is true.
For everything which is born from God conquers the world, and our faith is this
victory which conquers the world. They all were shouting, saying to me in a loud
voice: "Come, O our beloved, in the morning you shall be with us, because we
have achieved so great a glory as this through you." But I heard others saying,
from a different part: "No, but on the third day you shall come to us."
Therefore if, after the third day, I am still in this life, you may know that
what I saw was not true.
[11] Bruno here collapses Leo's expedition to Civitate in May 1053 and his
return from Benevento in March 1054 into a single event.
But no one should be surprised if malignant spirits wished to terrify the man to
whom such happy news was announced in a vision, [spirits] who long ago dared to
approach our Lord and Savior Himself. For thus says the Lord Himself: For the
prince of the world comes, but he has nothing on me. Then he says: Go my
brothers, each to his own house. Tomorrow return to me. [Jn.14:30] That entire
night [Leo] prayed to the Lord down upon bended knees. When morning came, he
ordered his tomb to be prepared. The bishops and priests assembled once again,
just as that most blessed man had ordered them to do the day before. While they
remained in the church, he said as he sat on his bed: Hear me, our brothers and
fellow bishops, and all you who have assembled here. Above all, I order you not
to sell the lands of the church, the vineyards, the castles, the dwellings, and
the rest of the Church's property, and that no one wish to defend them as his
own possession. Do not have the practice of swearing. Beware of your relatives.
Do no injury to the servants of the blessed Peter who come here nor deceive them
in your dealings with them (negotiis). Give tithes freely from all that you
possess.
Then, turning to the cross, he poured forth great prayers for all to the Lord,
asking and entreating Him on bended knee that He might deign to forgive them all
their sins. And when he had done this, again gazing to heaven, he said: Lord
Jesus Christ, good pastor who put on a servant's form for our sake, who chose
twelve apostles for the conversion of all the nations, and who said to your
blessed apostle Peter: "Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven,
and whatever you loose on earth, shall also be loosed in heaven," I, his
unworthy vicar, beseech your immense clemency that you absolve those servants,
my brothers, who were killed because of their love of justice, from all their
sins and lead them into the repose of the blessed. And Lord, absolve those whom
I excommunicated and convert them to the way of truth. Destroy the heresy of
simony and all heretical depravity, and deign to bless and protect your faithful
Beneventans who received me so honorably and served me richly in your name, as
well as the rest of the faithful. For You are God, blessed forever and ever.
Amen.
After he ceased speaking, they remained there a short while and then returned,
each one to his own home. Throughout that night, just as on the previous one, he
remained in vigils and prayer. Then, on the following day, namely the third
which was the last day in this life for the blessed Leo, the highest pontiff,
they all assembled with much greater frequency. Rising, the blessed pontiff went
before the altar and remained in prayer for almost an hour, greatly weeping.
Returning thence to his bed, he had a brief talk with them. When this was done,
he called the bishops to him and, after he made his confession, he received the
holy body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Then he laid back down on the bed
and a little while later, fell asleep in the Lord. Rising, one of the bishops
touched him, thinking that he was still alive and just sleeping. When they
realized that he had already died, everyone soon gathered from all sides and
made great lamentations over him. The blessed pontifex died on 19 April in the
reign of our Lord Jesus Christ, to Whom, along with the Father and the Holy
Spirit, is glory and honor forever and ever. Amen.[12]
[12] For his account of the events and exhortations preceding Leo IX's death,
Bruno clearly used, at times verbatim the earlier account of Libuin, subdeacon
of the Church of Rome, On the death of Pope Leo IX. This source is edited in J.M.
Watterich, Pontificum Romanorum ..... Vitae, v.1 (Leipzig, 1862; repr. Aalen,
1966), pp.170-177.
7. On the day after the death of blessed Leo, a certain woman came from the
region of Tuscia and as she climbed up the stairs, she began to be vexed by a
demon and to utter dire sounds and great howls. After she had said the name of
the blessed Leo, she was pulled to his tomb by those who were there. One of the
bishops interrogated the demon which was vexing her, saying: I adjure you by Him
Who lives and reigns forever to tell us if Pope Leo has power (potestas) among
the saints." And responding, [the demon] said: Truly the Leo about whom you ask
is among the saints and possesses great power among them, and that evil-doer
shall cast me today from this house which I have had in my possession for nine
years and two months. At that time, however, a certain other unfortunate woman
who was there, began to criticize (derogare) the blessed Leo and say: The Pope
Leo who had so many men killed shall put the demons to flight!? Truly, the
moment he shall put demons to flight, I shall be queen and make all those whom
he killed in his wickedness rise again. Scarcely had she finished saying these
words when she, suddenly seized by the demon, began to be extraordinarily (mirabiliter)
vexed. That other woman whom we said came from the region of Tuscia, however,
was freed. Then, all who were present were turned to wonder and admiration and
began to shout and say: Holy Leo, spare us, holy Leo, indulge us, have pity on
us for we have greatly sinned. In that same hour, two crippled people (contracti)
who were unable to walk by themselves, were also healed. And on this same day,
around evening, a certain deaf and mute man who, to top off his great
misfortune, was held in the grip of a most serious paralysis, [this fellow] came
to the tomb of the blessed. As soon as he approached the tomb, he became healthy
and sound and received the power of speech as well as of hearing. Truly the Lord
Christ did many other miracles in these days through the blessed Leo, in order
that He might reveal to us, His faithful, of what merit [Leo] was.
8. That miracle which that outstanding fellow Bishop John of Porto related to
me, should also not be passed over. For he said that a bishop of the city of
Curia from the transalpine regions had come to Rome during almost these same
days, and in his company there was a dwarf (homunculus) who, being mute from
infancy, had never spoken. Those serving the bishop brought him with them on
their saddles, because he was a truly faithful and fitting person to watch over
their packs. Now then, one day when the aforementioned bishop was still staying
in the city, that mute man about whom we have spoken, entered the church of the
blessed Peter. When he saw the crowds of people flowing in from all around to
the tomb of the blessed Leo, he went there as well. Then, after the by-standers
realized that he was mute, as they normally do with such people, they began to
indicate to him with certain signs that he should humble himself at the tomb of
the blessed man, pour forth his prayers, and to pray the Savior of all for his
own health (salus). They indicated to him that this was the tomb in which the
blessed Leo rested. Indeed, the fame of his virtue had already been widely
diffused, and many who came there from all around were healed of various
maladies. Consequently, that fellow approached the tomb and prostrated himself
with his entire body on the ground. And after he lay there for a long time, he
fell asleep, weighed down by sleep. But when he awoke a little while later, he
arose and began to speak so clearly (absolute) that it was as if he had never
suffered any impediment. All were amazed, all rejoiced, all exulted; nor was it
enough to hear him once. It was delightful to ask him questions and to hear him
speaking and responding. Finally he returned to his companions. When they heard
him speaking, truly joyful with great admiration, they led him before the
bishop. The bishop asked him how all this had happened to him. That fellow told
the whole [story] in order. He said that he had seen the blessed Leo and while
he was sleeping in front of his tomb, [Leo] approached and, putting his fingers
into the man's mouth, released his tongue which had been tied for so long.[13]
[13] This miracle is also recounted by Desiderius (Dialogues, MGH SS 30/2,
p.1145).
9. But the time urges me to explain what I promised above, namely that I did not
dictate these words without being ordered to do so (sine imperio). For this past
Lenten season, when we were in Rome, one day when we gathered together at the
church, that truly venerable man, John, bishop of Tusculum, came up to me where
I was standing and, in the presence of Hubald, that most religious fellow and
bishop of Sabina, and certain others, said to me: I have been sent to you as a
messenger. I was standing there, interested in what he wished to say to me. Then
he said: Pope Leo orders you to give him one hundred thousand solidi. But I
said: What are you telling me? And he said: I am telling you the truth, thus
does he command you, and then he began to recount to me what he had seen in
order.
Last night when I was asleep, the blessed Leo appeared to me in my dreams in his
pontifical garb (cum pontificali apparatu) saying: "Go and tell the bishop of
Segni that he should give me one hundred thousand solidi. And when I thought to
myself that you are not so wealthy that you would be able to give him so much
money, sensing my thoughts he said: "Go and tell him to give me one hundred
thousand or fifty thousand." He commands this of you. Therefore attend to what
you are going to answer him.
Then, anxious, I began to think to myself what this vision might be indicating
to me and a little while later I asked the bishop if the blessed Leo had ordered
me to give, to lend, or to pay back that money. And he responded: No, it was `to
give'. Then, I was somewhat comforted. For it makes a big difference whether we
have to give something or to pay it back. I was afraid lest I had perchance
offended him in some respect [on account of] which I would have necessarily to
release [myself] from debt and pay it back. Furthermore, I recalled that his
feast was formerly celebrated in our church, but because I behaved negligently,
the entire feast itself ceased [to be celebrated] there. May he have mercy on me
because I recognize that I have sinned not a little in this.
When I returned home from the church and recounted this vision to our clerics,
they expressed to me the very things which I had already conceived in my own
mind. For they said: We think that the money which the blessed Leo requires from
you is nothing other than that you write something about him which befits his
memory. Truly this is your money. Nor does he seem to need any other [kind] of
money. I was pleased that the interpretation (intellectus) of the others agreed
with my own; and indeed knowledge is well signified by money. It is also
understood in this way in the Gospel in the passage where our Savior shares the
talents with his servants.[cf. Mt.15:25] Yet why does he require one hundred or
fifty thousand? In fact, of these two numbers the former is perfect, the latter
imperfect. For a thousand one hundred times or one hundred a thousand times make
one hundred thousand. Both of these numbers, i.e. one hundred and one thousand,
are perfect because they have no place for increase. For something is imperfect
as long as it can increase in some respect. Yet although the number one hundred
or one thousand can, in fact, be replicated, it cannot increase. It is therefore
perfect. Indeed, everyone who counts concludes after he reaches one hundred or
one thousand and begins again from one. The number fifty is imperfect because,
placed in the middle of one hundred, it does not constitute the end and can be
extended further. Therefore, since that most blessed man ordered me to give him
fifty thousand solidi because (as it seemed to him and to the person to whom he
was speaking) I was not able to give him one hundred thousand, what else does
this mean but that I should begin to recount perfectly (perfecte) the things
which relate to his praise and glory? I have therefore given him fifty thousand
solidi, because I could not give him one hundred, i.e. either because I could
not recount everything perfectly – for not everything has come to my attention –
or because I have recounted certain things as I was able. Yet I pray, most
blessed pontiff, that you may consider these little gifts of mine pleasing and
that by your holy prayers before our savior Jesus Christ, you may gain [for me]
His forgiveness of my debts, Who lives and reigns as God with the Father and the
Holy Spirit forever and ever. Amen
10. And now it remains for us to respond to that question which we promised to
address earlier. We have already said that at that time, in the days of the
blessed Leo, the Church had been so corrupted that hardly anyone might be found
who either was not a simoniac or had not been ordained by a simoniac. As a
result, even unto this day, there are found certain people who, because they
argue wrongly and do not properly understand the dispensation of the Church,
contend that from that time the priesthood in the Church failed. For they say:
If everyone was like this, i.e. if all either were simoniacs or had been
ordained by simoniacs, you who are now priests - where did you come from? By way
of whom, if not them, did you pass? There was no other way. Hence those who
ordained you, received their orders from those men, and from no others, who
either were simoniacs or had been ordained by simoniacs.
It is to this question that we must respond therefore. But first it is fitting
to state what simoniacs are and why they are called this. Then, [we shall argue]
that there is a big difference between simoniacs and those who have been
ordained by simoniacs but who did not know that [their ordinands] were simoniacs.
For if one is ordained by a bishop whom one does not doubt is simoniacal, little
indeed separates him in status (in ordine) from the one by whom he is ordained.
He knows that he is a thief and a robber, and that he has received nothing else
in his ordination than a curse and the power to curse. All simoniacs are thus
ordained as Simon himself was ordained. To him the blessed Peter says during his
own ordination: May your money be with you in perdition, because you thought
that the gift of the Holy Spirit is possessed through money. [Acts 8:20]
Simoniacs, therefore, are those who try to buy the gift of God i.e., the grace
of the Holy Spirit. Yet, whether they buy or do not buy, if they offer only
money and promise to give something for this grace, they are simoniacs. For
Simon himself did not buy anything because there was no one who would sell. Yet
because he wanted to buy, he is cursed nonetheless. And truly he left this curse
to all his disciples as an inheritance. Simoniacs are named after Simon
[because] they imitate him in this action. For after Simon was baptized by
Philip, he stayed with him. When he saw that many miracles and virtues were done
by the apostles, he offerred them money, saying: Give me this power, in order
that upon whomever I shall lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit.[Acts
8:19] To him, as we just said above, the blessed Peter says: May your money be
with you in perdition, because you thought that the gift of God is possessed
through money: truly you have no share or lot in this word.[Acts 8:20-1]
This, then, is Simon's ordination. Thus are simoniacs ordained who offer money.
Why? Because they think "that the gift of God is possessed by means of money."
But what blessing do they receive? Let the blessed Peter tell you, whose voice
is most efficacious and whose curse penetrates to the core: May your money be
with you in perdition. This is the blessing given to them. This prayer is
intoned over their nefarious heads. Thus are they blessed, thus are they
consecrated, thus are they ordained. For as soon as they offer money, to
whomever they may offer it, the apostle, their consecrator, is present. Indeed,
although they may be sanctified by catholic bishops – something which often
happens, in fact – the apostle is nevertheless there among them. Let them say
what they will, let them pour out chrism upon their heads, Simon Peter shall
still not change his sentence, because he is not unaware of what they have
offerred, how much they have offerred, and to whom they have offerred it. They
bless, he curses, they are deceived, but he cannot be deceived. They think that
these men are catholic, they think that they have been canonically elected, and
because of this they bless them. Yet, if they knew them, they, too, would have
said along with the apostle: May your money be with you in perdition. Rightly
therefore is their blessing turned into a curse, because God looks not at the
lips, but at the heart. Indeed, Jacob feared this when he was sent by his mother
to his father in order that [Isaac] might bless him unknowingly and said: Don't
you know that my brother Esau is a hairy man and I am smooth-skinned? Therefore
if my father should take hold of me and feel, I fear lest he think that I wanted
to trick him and bring down a curse upon me instead of a blessing. [Gen.27:21]
Yet [Jacob] should not have been afraid, because he was sent by his mother.
These men, however, are not sent by their mother, these men are not sent by the
Church, they who trick Isaac, they who deceive the bishops, they who wish to
snatch their father's blessing like a thief through robbery. As a consequence, a
curse is not undeservedly called down upon them instead of a blessing. For those
men alone are sent by the mother, those men alone are sent by the Church, who
are sent to their fathers, who are sent to their bishops to be blessed and
consecrated, not through money, not through any promise, not through secular
power, but rather solely through an election of the clergy and people which is
itself pure and without depravity.
Now then, we have spoken about the consecration of Simon, we have spoken about
the consecration of simoniacs – how they are ordained, how they are consecrated,
how the Apostle Peter curses them, and how the blessing of the bishops is turned
into a curse for them. After this, when they have been thus ordained, thus
consecrated, thus cursed, and thus infected with leprosy, they arrive at the
churches entrusted to them. There, since they are obviously a person of this
kind, everything they do is in vain and without profit – except for baptism and
wise counsel, which even they often give. Now we shall discuss how these things
may be understood.
11. Because baptism consists not in the faith of the giver but in the faith of
those who receive it, it is good regardless of by whom it is given. But where
there is no catholic faith, baptism does not work. Consequently, whoever is
baptized outside the Church is not released from sin before he returns to the
Church. For the remission of sins in no way occurs except within the Church.
Nonetheless, it can happen that a faithful person on some occasion is baptized
outside the Church, but because the person is in the Church in his mind, he also
receives the remission of sins outside. Yet if he is such a person, he would
return to the Church, from which he had never departed, also in his body and in
his way of life. Otherwise, if he is baptized outside, remains outside, and when
baptized, has no wish to return – for such a man as this, no remission of sins
in fact occurs for the moment. Yet why is this surprising since even those who
are baptized within [the Church] – and who are undoubtedly cleansed of all their
sins – perish forever if they leave [the Church] and do not return to it before
they die? The ark indicated this; for everything which was placed within it was
saved, while everything found outside perished. Also, listen to what the Lord
says: I am the vine and you are the branches; whoever remains in me, and I in
him, shall bear much fruit. If someone does not remain in me, let him be cast
out like branches and dried, and they shall gather him up and throw him in the
fire and he shall burn. [Jn.15:5-6] Therefore if Christ is the vine, Christians
are the branches; and just as branches cannot live if separated from the vine,
so neither Christians cannot [live] if separated from the body of Christ. The
body of Christ is the Church. Therefore, let whoever does not wish to be
separated from Christ, remain in the body of Christ in order that he may be able
to be a member of Christ. For if he should not remain in the body of Christ, if
he should not remain in the unity of the Church, he shall be cast out and dry up
like [dead] branches. And what else? The malignant spirits shall gather him up.
For whoever is separated from the Church is handed over to them. And what will
they do? They shall cast him into the fire. Why? That he may burn. The words are
Christ's, we do not seek other canons.
Thus it is clear that no one shall be saved outside the Church, whether he was
baptized within it or outside of it. Why is this? Again, let the Lord himself
speak: If someone does not remain in me, let him be cast out like [dead]
branches and they shall gather him up, throw him into the fire, and he shall
burn.[Jn.15:6] Hence, if the person perishes who was sometimes in Christ but who
does not remain in Him, how shall the person not perish who was never in Him and
did not remain in Him? For whoever is baptized outside the Church never was nor
ever shall be in Christ unless he should be joined to the Church before he
departs this life – for he never was nor ever shall be in the body of Christ.
For if he is separated from the body of Christ, he is no longer a member of
Christ. Moreover, the body of Christ is not outside the Church. Otherwise the
Church itself would be outside itself – since the Church is the body of Christ –
and this is impossible.
Consequently, baptism cannot be given and cannot benefit [the person] outside
the Church. For although baptism which is given outside the Church does have the
form of the sacrament, it does not have the virtue of the sacrament; it has the
form, of course, because it is done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit. It does not have the virtue, because it does not effect the remission of
sins. Why then are those who come from the heretics not rebaptized? Do you want
to hear why? Because they have the form of baptism, i.e. because they have
already been reborn from the water at the invocation of the Trinity. It still
remains for them to be reborn as well in the Holy Spirit who effects the
remission of sins in them – something which the visible form cannot give. For
unless someone should be reborn from the water and the Holy Spirit, he shall not
enter the kingdom of God. Indeed, both are necessary there – the form of the
sacrament and the virtue of the sacrament. For neither the water without the
Spirit nor the Spirit without the water releases a person from sin. The form of
the sacrament can be given both inside and outside [the Church], but the virtue
of the sacrament is not given unless the person is inside the Church.
This is why the Roman pontiffs, filled with the spirit of God, decreed with
remarkable providence that those who come [to the Church] from the heretics
should in no way be rebaptized because they [already] have the form of baptism;
but because they do not have the virtue of this sacrament, upon the invocation
of the Holy Spirit, which cannot be given by the heretics, they are confirmed
with sacred chrism through the imposition of hands. Perhaps you require an
authority for this? It shall be given to you. Indeed, this is truly necessary
because all do not seem to agree on this judgment, namely that those who come
from the heretics should not in fact be rebaptized but should rather be
confirmed again with sacred chrism. In particular, the blessed Augustine says:
Injury should be done to no sacrament.[14] In this matter, he seems to differ
greatly from others. For what is the injury of a sacrament if not the repetition
of that sacrament? Yet we have abundant examples and authorities [showing] that
certain sacraments are repeated. I said "certain" because the repetition of
baptism and of sacred orders are not allowed to occur. This is why in the
African councils we read, in fact: Rebaptisms, reordinations, and translations
of bishops are not allowed to occur.[15] At the Council of Nicaea, in contrast,
it is decreed concerning the Paulianists that those coming to the Church should
be baptized again and their clerics ordained again, if they should be
worthy.[16] In this [canon], it is clearly shown that this should be done among
the [Paulianists] alone and not among others. For these [heretics] were not
baptized in accordance with the form of the Church, i.e. in the name of the
Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In this respect they differed even
from other heretics, who maintained the form of the Church in baptisms. For if
they had been baptizing according to the form of baptism which we just
mentioned, obviously such a law would not have been specially promulgated
concerning them, especially since it is said with regard to all the other
heretics, that those coming to the Church are neither rebaptized nor reordained
but are reconciled to the Church by the imposition of the bishop's hand alone.
Furthermore, the entire Church agrees that these two sacraments, i.e. baptism
and sacred orders, should not be repeated, and there is no dissension among the
saints. Hence, when the blessed Augustine states: The imposition of hands, like
baptism, should not be repeated,[17] he is speaking about that kind of
imposition of hands about which the Apostle says to the apostle Timothy: Lay
your hands on no one in haste.[I Tim.5:22] For both the act of signing with
chrism and the reconciliation of penitents are called "the imposition of hands".
Hence the sacred canons also forbid bishop to impose their hands on clerics who
are among the other penitents.
[14] Letter 87 against the Donatists, c.9.
[15] Council of Carthage, III, c.38.
[16] Council of Nicaea, c.19.
[17] On Baptism against the Donatists, III, c.16.
12. But that it is permitted to repeat certain sacraments, is demonstrated most
plainly by the frequent practice (usus) of the Church and one example of the
blessed Gregory. For every day we see the consecrations of churches repeated,
and not only out of necessity but also according to the wishes of the bishops.
Indeed, certain canons even order that if an altar should be moved, it should be
consecrated again.[18] In addition, the blessed Gregory, as he himself attests,
consecrated a certain church in Subura in Rome because it had been held by the
Arians for a long time.[19] How much its consecration or reiteration was
accepted by God is shown by the virtues and miracles which the Lord worked there
on the very days during which [the church] was consecrated. How then is it true
that injury should not be done to any sacrament?
[18] Grat. Decr., De consecratione, D.I c.19, Pope Hyginus.
[19] Cf. John the Deacon, Vita Gregorii II, c.31. This example is also cited by
Deusdedit in his Libellus contra invasores, symoniacos et reliquos scismaticos
c.II §9 (LdL II, p.326) to make a similar point about the reiterability of
certain sacraments
Using the following authority of the saints I shall prove likewise that the
consignation of chrism should be repeated among heretics. For Pope Eusebius[20]
says the following concerning this consignation: Keeping to the rule of the
Roman Church, we order that all of the heretics who are converted by the grace
of God and, believing in the name of the Holy Trinity, have been baptized, be
reconciled through the imposition of hands. And a little later he added, in
speaking about this imposition of hands: The sacrament of the imposition of
hands should be maintained with great veneration. This cannot be performed by
anyone but the highest priests. For even in the time of the apostles, it is
neither read nor known to have been performed by anyone other than the apostles
themselves. Nor can or should this ever be performed by anyone else (as has
already been said) than those who occupy the place [of the apostles]. For if one
should presume to do otherwise, let it be considered invalid and void, nor shall
it ever be considered among the sacraments of the Church.[21]
[20] Pope Eusebius (18 April 308 - exiled September 308) is remembered in the
Liber Pontificalis for having reconciled heretics in Roman through the
imposition of hands, cf. The Book of Pontiffs, translated by R. Davis (Liverpool
Translated Texts for Historians, V), (Liverpool, 1989), p.13.
[21] Letter III §21 to the bishops established throughout Campania and Tuscia,
in Decretales Pseudo-Isidorinae, ed. Hinschius, p.242.
Let's also listen to what was established in council concerning this matter in
the time of the blessed Pope Silvester[22] in Rome: In this time, he says, on 19
June, when the aforementioned great council was gathered in Nicea, the
aforementioned pope by canonical summons and with the counsel of the emperor
Constantine gathered at Rome two hundred and seventy-seven bishops and once
again condemned Calixtus, Arius, and Sabellius, and decreed that no one should
receive the priest Arius, if he came to his senses, unless the bishop of this
place should reconcile him and confirm him with sacred chrism through the
imposition of his episcopal hand in the grace of the Holy Spirit, which cannot
be given by the heretics.[23]
[22] Sylvester, best known as the pope at the time of Constantine's "conversion"
and as recipient of the Donation of Constantine, ruled the Roman Church from 1
January 314 until 31 December 335.
[23] Gesta Silvestri, c.1, ed. Hinschius, p.449.
What could have been said more clearly and more plainly? And in fact, this
sacrament is not repeated, is it? But here are still more examples, in order
that the view, which is denied by many people, may become clearer and more
certain. Therefore let Pope Siricius[24] speak: On the first side of your page
(letter?), you indicated that many people who have been baptized hasten from the
impious Arians to the catholic faith and that certain of our brothers want to
baptize them again. This is not permitted, since the Apostles forbids it and the
canons speak against it. Furthermore, the general decrees prohibit it which were
sent to the provinces by my predecessor Liberius[25] of venerable memory after
the end of the council of Arimensis (post cassatum Arimense consilium). These
[heretics] along with the Novatians and other heretics we join to the assembly
of catholics by the imposition of the bishop's hand through the invocation of
the seven-fold Spirit. The entire East and West also observes this.[26]
[24] Siricius reigned as pope from 384 to 399.
[25] Liberius ruled as pope from 352 until 366 but was sent into exile in 355 by
the emperor Constantius because of his refusal to agree to the Arian heresy. In
his place, he ordained the priest Felix who reigned from 355 until 365 when he
was martyred by Constantius for having declared him a heretic. Cf. The Book of
Pontiffs, pp.28-29.
[26] Ep.7 to Himerius, c.1, ed. Hinschius, p.520.
Let us also see what Leo I[27] says, who strengthened with his constancy and
fortitude the faith that was already going to perish. No one shall dare, I
think, contradict his opinion. Those about whom you have written are not unaware
that they have been baptized, but they profess that they do not know of what
faith the men are who baptized them. Whence, because they have received the form
of baptism in some way, they should not be baptized but should be joined to the
catholics through the imposition of hands by virtue of the Holy Spirit which
they could not have received from the heretics.[28] Likewise, he says elsewhere:
For those who have received baptism from the heretics, although they were not
baptized before, should nonetheless be confirmed with the invocation of the Holy
Spirit alone through the imposition of hands, because they received only the
form of baptism without the strength (virtus) of the Holy Spirit. We also preach
that this rule should be observed in all churches so that the baptismal font,
once entered, is not violated by any repetition, since the Apostle says: "One
God, one faith, one baptism."(Eph.4:5) His ablution should not be defiled by any
repetition; rather, as we have said, only the sanctification of the Holy Spirit
should be invoked, so that he seeks from catholics priests what no one receives
from the heretics.[29]
[27] Leo I reigned from 440 until 461, and was one of the most articulate
spokeman for the importance and power of the bishop of Rome within the universal
Church. Living through the doctrinal controversies surrounding the Council of
Chalcedon (451), he became known as a defender of Chalcedonian orthodoxy,
especially through his Tome, a extended doctrinal letter which he wrote for the
Council of Chalcedon. Cf. his life in The Book of Pontiffs, pp.37-38.
[28] Letter 167 to Rusticus, bishop of Narbonne, ed. Hinschius, p.617.
[29] Letter 159 to Nicetas, bishop of Aquileia, c.7.
In the council of Laodicaea it is also written: On those who are converted from
the heretics, i.e. Novatians or Fotians, whether they are baptized or
catechumens, let them not be received before they anathematize all heresies and
especially that one in which they were held, and then, when at last these
people, who were called faithful among [among the heretics] are imbued with the
symbol of our faith and anointed with the sacred chrism, they may thus
communicate with the sacred ministers.[30]
We could give still more authorities concerning this issue but these, in my
opinion, are sufficient.
[30] Council of Laodicaea, c.7 from the version of Dionysius Exiguus.
One may doubt it, however, when the blessed Augustine says: Injury should not be
done to any sacrament, since elsewhere he himself says that those who come [to
the Church] from the heretics are received into the Church through the
imposition of the bishops' hands, lest perhaps they think that the Church has
conferred nothing upon which they did not have outside the Church. He also
defines what the imposition of hands is, saying: What is the imposition of
hands, if not a prayer over a person? Hence, if the prayer of this sacrament is
repeated over a man, the imposition itself of hands is repeated: for the
imposition of hands is nothing other than a prayer over a person.[31] Therefore
the prayer over a person shall not be repeated in those sacraments which are not
allowed to be repeated.
[31] On Baptism against the Donatists, III, c.16, § 21.
We have said that certain sacraments are allowed to be repeated and others are
not allowed; this has, moreover, beenproven using authorities. It has also been
said that people coming from the heretics should not be received unless it is
through the imposition of hands. We have also stated that all sacraments outside
the Church have the form, to be sure, but they do not have the virtue [of the
sacrament]. We have also said that no one is saved outside the Church. And we
have said with regard to simoniacs that when they are consecrated, every
blessing is turned for them into a curse. Regarding the children of heretics, if
someone should ask why they perish, since they have been baptized, I respond:
"Because they are not in the Church." And if he should reply: "What sin have
they committed so that they are not in the Church?", I would say: "What sin have
the children of pagans and Jews committed so that they did not merit being
baptized?" Nonetheless, the Lord Himself says: I know whom I have chosen.
[Jn.13:18] Furthermore, if the sons of excommunicates are baptized in the
Church, their parents' excommunication does them no harm, for the son shall not
bear the iniquity of the father.[Ez.18:20] After they come of age, however, in
order that they may now be able to recognize their own sins, they cannot be
judged immune from sin. If, in contrast, they were baptized outside the Church –
and all those outside the Church are excommunicate – unless they are reconciled
by the bishops of the Church before they depart this life, they seem to me to be
in great danger.
13. With these issues thus resolved, we should now talk about those who,
although they were not ordained simoniacally, were nonetheless ordained by
simoniacs. For with regard to simoniacs, it is clear that they should in no way
ever be received in their own orders. For they have no part or share in the Word
of God. [Acts 8:21] It is the apostle who speaks. But you say: "Why then are
heretics received in their orders, when simoniacs are not received [in theirs]?
Are simoniacs any worse than Arians, Novatians, Donatists, Nestorians, and
Eutichians? For we read that both bishops and priests from all these [heresies]
were received and were not deprived of their dignity." To this I respond:
"Whether simoniacs are worse or not, I do not know; I do know, however, that it
is a great crime to sell or buy the Holy Spirit. For if it is a great crime to
sell or buy Christ, it is clearly a great sin to sell or buy the Holy Spirit,
for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal. Judas is the one who sells, the
Jew is the one who buys. The Lord cast out both the seller and the buyer from
the Temple.
Many things, of course, are done in the Church through dispensation because of
the needs of the moment and the nature of the business, which clearly would not
be done, if they were done according to the strict judgment of the canons. When
the Lord spoke about the grain and the tares, He says: Allow both to grow until
the harvest.[Mt.13:30][32] Nonetheless, such dispensation as this should be
exercised with great consideration. For some heretics did not in fact err in
receiving their orders; it was rather another reason or doctrine which stood in
the way of their faith. The heresy and sin of the simoniacs, in contrast, is
their ordination itself. For if they are reconciled to their ordination which,
as we said above, is nothing but a curse, to what else should they be reconciled
if not to their heresy and to that curse which they have received? Therefore,
let them not seek reconciliation, lest perchance they incur malediction. Let
them seek the grace of the Holy Spirit, not to receive the episcopal dignity,
but to wash away iniquity. Rightly then are simoniacs not received in their
orders because they have sinned in their orders. The Arians, in contrast, erred
and sinned not in the episcopal dignity but in their beliefs about the Trinity,
and other heretics likewise, each in his own heresy. Only simoniacs sin in
buying sacred orders. As a result, it is also right that they alone not be
received through any ecclesiastical dispensation in the orders in which they
sinned. Yet, we also read in many places in divine Scripture that other people
besides the heresiarchs themselves were received in their orders. Indeed, the
Council of Nicea received Cathars or Novatians through the imposition of hands
and ordered their clerics to remain in their orders.[33] Concerning this
imposition of hands without which heretics are not received, we said enough
above. The blessed Gregory, when writing to the Iberian bishops against the
Nestorians, also says: Let those who are converted from the perverse error of
the Nestorius confess this truth concerning the nativity of Christ before the
holy gathering of your brotherhood, anathematizing Nestorius and his followers
and all other heresies; let them also promise that they shall accept and
venerate the venerable synods which the universal Church accepts, and may your
sanctity receive them in this assembly without any doubt, with their orders
preserved. For thus, when you reveal the secrets of their minds through your
concern and teach them the right things which they should hold through true
knowledge and through kindness you create no obstacle or difficulty for them
regarding their own orders, you my save them from the mouth of the iniquitous
enemy.[34]
[32] Cf. Bruno of Segni, Expositio in Mattheum, PL 165, col.190C.
[33] Council of Nicaea, c.8.
[34] Register, XI, 67.
There are many other [authorities] with which this could be proven, but these
two examples concerning receiving heretics and not depriving them of their
offices (honores) should suffice.
14. We have wandered far; now let us return to our subject and speak about those
who have been ordained by simoniacs. Now then, those who are ordained by
simoniacs, either know that they are simoniacs or think that they are catholics.
If they know that they are simoniacs and allow themselves to be ordained by
them, they deserve no indulgence such that they might be received with their own
orders preserved. For those men are proven to be very ambitious who allow
themselves to be consecrated for the sake of some office by men by whom they
certainly should know that they are cursed. For who doubts that simoniacs are
heretics? Therefore, who shall spare the man who allows himself to be ordained
by someone whom he does not doubt is a heretic? But if he is thought to be
catholic and associates with catholics in church, the saying should be valid (ratum)
which says that God looks not at the [simoniacal bishop] but at the faith and
devotion of the man who subjected himself to his [the simoniacal bishop's] hands
as if to those of a catholic bishop for the sake of God. [God] also looks at the
Church which offers its sons to Him with a simple heart and suspects no evil in
such a consecration. For because it is within the Church, the Holy Spirit is, of
course, present, and [it is the Holy Spirit] which makes the sacred orders even
through a wicked man. It is the man who speaks, but the Holy Spirit which
sanctifies. Furthermore, the faith of the one offerring and receiving does all
this. For we read that the Lord said to many people that it would be done to
them according to their faith.[cf. Mt. 9:29] Hence, if those people were healed
by their own faith, why are these men not made sacred by their faith? Truly
nothing here is against the faith, but rather the whole of what is done is
faithful. But if they acted boldly or against the faith, the Holy Spirit would
have been rightly absent, for the Holy Spirit of discipline shall flee what is
false.[Wis.1:5] We said above concerning the simoniac that if, when he pretended
he was catholic, he is consecrated by catholic bishops, their entire blessing is
turned, for him, into a curse, because God attends not to the lips but to the
heart. For it is not in [the catholic bishops'] heart to bless a simoniac.
Hence, we can likewise say: "When a simoniac, pretending to be a catholic,
blesses a catholic, although his blessing may be a curse, each curse upon
himself is nevertheless turned into a blessing [for the other man]. For the Holy
Spirit is present, which looks not at the fictions of the one speaking and
consecrating but at the mind and devotion of the one receiving. If, however,
something of this sort occurs outside the Church, this rationale should not
support a man who is ordained outside the Church by a simoniac, even if he
thinks that [the consecrator] is not a simoniac. For he is not offerred by
Mother Church nor is the devotion good of someone who would be ordained by
anyone outside the Church.
It is clear, therefore, that with regard to those who are ordained within the
Church without simony but by simoniacs (although they did not think they were
simoniacs), their ordinations should be valid. Therefore, let the babblers be
silent who say that ever since the time of the blessed Pope Leo the priesthood
in the Church had already failed, because everyone was either a simoniac or
ordained by simoniacs. Furthermore, it should be understood with regard to other
heretics that if they have been ordained within the Church and are thought to be
catholics as long as they are there, the sacraments which they perform should be
valid.
15. Now we must respond to those who claim that they are not simoniacs because
they did not buy sacred orders, even though they did buy churches or parts of
churches. Truly I wish that they would tell me if they came to sacred orders
through that purchase or sale, or if they received through that purchase the
power to celebrate the sacred mysteries in the churches which they bought. If
these things are in fact the case, they can hardly claim in their defense that
they are not simoniacs. For a simoniac is someone who attempts to come to sacred
orders through payment (per pretium). A simoniac is also the man who attempts to
buy that power by which the gifts of the Holy Spirit are offerred. The bishop
who, before his election or consecration, has given or promised payment not for
sacred orders (so he pretends) but for lands and vineyards, castles, and
villages – if he decided to become a bishop in this way, he clearly intended to
come to sacred orders by means of payment. For he did not do this in order that
he might possess them solely like a layman but rather that he might at some
point gain the episcopal dignity by means of them. In fact, after such an
invasion, we see such men push to be able to come to sacred orders as quickly as
possible with much greater insistence than those who are canonically elected. In
this behavior, they reveal their intention most plainly and show what that
purchase meant. Hence, whenever they come to consecration, the blessed Peter
shall be there and he shall say to them in his usual way: May your money be with
you in perdition, because you thought that the gift of God is possessed through
money.[Acts 8:20-21] Yet if they should not come to consecration but do penance
and lack that wicked intention, it can in fact be doubted and cannot be easily
answered whether they should be put in charge of other churches. Nonetheless, it
is appropriate to consider what the blessed Peter said to Simon: Do penance, he
says, for your iniquity and ask God if this thought of your heart may perchance
be forgiven you.[Acts 8:22] Indeed, if he had done penance, perhaps later he
would have received gratis what he could not have for payment – though only the
remission of sin is meant in these words of the apostle.
What we have said about the entire episcopate, we also understand concerning
individual churches and their parts. For it is the same sin to fornicate with a
rich person and a pauper. Indeed, if someone buys a church or a part of it, how
much more readily would he buy the entire episcopate, if he could? For whoever
buys a church, clearly buys that power concerning which Simon Magus said to the
apostles: Give me this power, that upon whomever I lay my hands, he shall
receive the Holy Spirit. [Acts 8:19] For before he bought the church, the man
who bought it did not have free power (libera potestas) either to baptize or to
sacrifice or to celebrate any of the other mysteries – and all of these are in
fact gifts and operations of the Holy Spirit. He therefore buys that power, if
in fact he buys the power to baptize or to sacrifice, since he clearly did not
possess it in that church before he bought it. Indeed, just as it is impious to
think that the Holy Spirit may be possessed for money, so it also impious to
think that its gifts and operations ought to be given or exercised for a price.
But you say: "I had this power even before I bought the church." Why did you buy
it then? "Because I was not allowed to do these things before I bought it." Now
I recognize your intention, and I see that it agrees completely (quam maxime)
with the intention of Simon. You did in fact have the power, but you did not
wish your power to be idle, for it gained you little or nothing unless you put
it to work somewhere. You would never buy it, if you did not hope for some
profit from it. This, then, is the intention of Simon; thus did he do – he
wished to buy what he very much hoped he could sell. For he did not say: "Give
me this power that I may have the Holy Spirit." What did he say? Give me this
power that, upon whomever I lay my hands, he shall receive the Holy Spirit.
Indeed, no hope for profit would have remained to him, if he alone had it and
could not give it to others. And the same goes for you – if you alone have this
power and have no place where you may exercise it for profit, what you have
seems to you to be nothing. In what way, then, are you not a simoniac, if you
are like Simon in this great evil?
16. The following things have been said about those who purchase churches after
their ordinations. If they purchase the churches before their ordinations and
come to orders through that purchase, they are clearly symoniacs, particularly
those who attempt to come to sacred orders by buying a church. If, however, they
desire to come, not to the orders themselves, but to the benefices of churches
through payment – for we see many people like this who utterly despise being
ordained after they purchase churches – truly it seems right to call these
people not so much symoniacs as thieves and robbers: For he who does not enter
by the door, is a thief and a robber.[Jn.10:1] And he who enters through payment
does not enter by the door, and therefore he is called a thief and a robber. But
whether they are called by this name or by the other, they should in any case
not possess the church: for the Lord casts out all who buy and sell from the
temple.[cf. Mt. 21:12] In the great council of Chalcedon it was also established
that if anyone should ordain any cleric as either the administrator
(dispensator) or minister of a church for payment, let both the giver and the
receiver be deposed and let those who consented [to this] be struck with
anathema.[35] You see, therefore, that not only clerics, but also
administrators, are cast out of the Church, if they should enter it through
payment. Hence, in one and the same way, all those who buy or sell sacred orders
and the churches themselves and their parts are cast out of the Church. Since
the penalty is similar, why then is there argument over the name? For whether
they are called symoniacs or not, the penalty is still the same. Let it suffice
that we have said this much in response to that question which we promised
earlier to address. These words are also part of our praise of the blessed Leo,
through whose constant admonition all of these things were for the most part
corrected.
[35] This is a paraphrase of canon 2 of the Council of Chalcedon.
Source.
© W.L. North,. 1999
Translated by W.L. North from the edition of E. Sackur in MGH Libelli de Lite
II, (Hannover, 1892), pp.546-562.
This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a
collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and
Byzantine history.
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is
copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print
form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the
document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use.
Paul Halsall, January 1999
halsall@fordham.