Saint Bruno de Segni
Évêque-abbé au Mont-Cassin (+ 1125)
Originaire d'Asti, il défendit la foi catholique pour
contrecarrer les attaques de Bérenger de Tours contre la doctrine
eucharistique. Grégoire VII l'avait en haute considération et le fit abbé du
Mont-Cassin. Nous trouvons aussi saint Bruno en France, en particulier lors du
concile de Poitiers où fut prêchée la croisade.
À Segni dans le Latium, en 1123, saint Bruno, évêque,
qui œuvra et souffrit beaucoup pour la réforme de l’Église: contraint de
quitter son siège, il trouva refuge au Mont Cassin et fut un temps abbé de ce
monastère.
Martyrologe romain
SOURCE : http://nominis.cef.fr/contenus/saint/1530/Saint-Bruno-de-Segni.html
Quand quelqu’un t’invite à des noces
Chaque jour le Seigneur célèbre des noces, car chaque
jour il s’unit les âmes fidèles lors de leur baptême ou de leur passage de ce
monde-ci au royaume céleste.
Eh bien ! nous qui avons reçu la foi en Jésus Christ
et le sceau du baptême, nous sommes tous invités à ces noces. Une table y est
dressée pour nous, dont l’Écriture dit : Tu prépares la table pour moi
devant mes ennemis (Ps 22, 5). Nous y trouvons les pains de l’offrande, le
veau gras, l’Agneau qui enlève les péchés du monde. Ici nous sont offerts et le
pain vivant descendu du ciel et le calice de l’Alliance nouvelle. Ici nous sont
présentés les Évangiles et les épîtres des Apôtres, les livres de Moïse et des
prophètes, qui sont comme des mets remplis de toutes les délices.
Que pourrions-nous donc désirer de plus ? Pourquoi
choisirions-nous les premières places ? Quelle que soit la place que nous
occupions, nous avons tout en abondance et ne manquons de rien. Mais toi qui
cherches à avoir la première place, qui que tu sois, va t’asseoir à la dernière
place. Ne permets pas que ta science te gonfle d’orgueil, et ne te laisse pas
exalter par la renommée. Mais plus tu es grand, plus il faut t’humilier en
toute chose et tu trouveras grâce auprès de Dieu (Lc 1, 30), si bien
qu’au moment favorable il te dira : Mon ami, avance plus haut, et ce sera
pour toi un honneur aux yeux de tous ceux qui sont à table avec toi.
St Bruno de Segni
Saint Bruno († 1123) fut évêque de Segni, en Italie,
et abbé au Mont-Cassin. / Commentaire sur l’Évangile de Luc, 2, 14, trad. dir.
par H. Delhougne, Les Pères de l’Église commentent l’Évangile, Brepols,
Turnhout, 1991, n°192
SOURCE : https://fr.aleteia.org/daily-prayer/samedi-30-octobre/meditation-de-ce-jour-1/
Profile
Born to the Italian nobility. Studied theology at
the Benedictine monastery of
Saint Pepetuus at Asti, Italy,
and at Bologna, Italy. Benedictine, monk. Ordained in 1079,
and assigned to a parish at Siena, Italy.
Noted for defending orthodox Church wisdom,
his knowledge of Scripture, and his teachings on the Blessed Sacrament.
Counselor to four popes.
Consecrated bishop of Segni, Italy in 1080 by Pope Gregory
VII. Fought simony and
lay investiture.
In 1095 he
retired to a monastic life
at Monte
Cassino. Elected abbot in 1107.
Following a chastisement of the pope for
shirking his duty to others, he was soon ordered back to his diocese, a
vocation he fulfilled until his death.
Vatican librarian. Cardinal legate,
though he declined the cardinalate. Wrote several
works on theology.
Born
1049 at
Solero, Piedmont, Italy
1123 of
natural causes
5 September 1183 by Pope Lucius
III
Additional Information
Book
of Saints, by the Monks of
Ramsgate
Lives
of the Saints, by Father Alban
Butler
Saints
of the Day, by Katherine Rabenstein
books
Our Sunday Visitor’s Encyclopedia of Saints
other sites in english
sitios en español
Martirologio Romano, 2001 edición
fonti in italiano
Works
MLA Citation
“Saint Bruno of Segni“. CatholicSaints.Info. 3
July 2021. Web. 6 November 2021.
<https://catholicsaints.info/saint-bruno-of-segni/>
SOURCE : https://catholicsaints.info/saint-bruno-of-segni/
Butler’s
Lives of the Saints – Saint Bruno, Bishop of Segni, Confessor
Article
He was of the illustrious family of the lords of Asti
in Piemont, and born near that city. From his cradle he considered that man’s
happiness is only to be found in loving God: and to please him in all his
actions was his only and his most ardent desire. He made his studies in the
monastery of Saint Perpetuus, in the diocess of Asti. Bosch proves that he
never was canon of Asti, but enjoyed some years a canonry at Sienna, as he
himself informs us. In the Roman council in 1079, he defended the doctrine of the
Catholic Church concerning the blessed eucharist against Berengarius; and Pope
Gregory VII nominated him bishop of Segni in the ecclesiastical state in 1081.
Bruno, who had been compelled to submit, after a long and strenuous resistance,
served his flock, and on many important occasions the universal church with
unwearied zeal. Gregory VII who died in 1085, Victor III formerly abbot of
mount Cassino, who died in 1087, and Urban II who had been scholar to Saint
Bruno (afterwards institutor of the Carthusians) at Rheims, then a monk at
Cluni, and afterwards bishop of Ostia, had the greatest esteem for our saint.
He attended Urban II into France in 1095, and assisted at the council of Tours
in 1096. After his return into Italy he continued to labour for the sanctification
of his soul and that of his flock, till not being able any longer to resist his
inclination for solitude and retirement, he withdrew to mount Cassino, and put
on the monastic habit. The people of Segni demanded him back; but Oderisus,
abbot of mount Cassino, and several cardinals, whose mediation the saint
employed, prevailed upon the pope to allow his retreat. The abbot Oderisus was
succeeded by Otho in 1105, and this latter dying in 1107, the monks chose
bishop Bruno abbot. He was often employed by the pope in important commissions,
and by his writings laboured to support ecclesiastical discipline and to
extirpate simony. This vice he looked upon as the source of all the disorders
which excited the tears of all zealous pastors in the church, by filling the
sanctuary with hirelings, whose worldly spirit raises an insuperable opposition
to that of the gospel. What would this saint have said had he seen the
collation of benefices, and the frequent translations of bishops in some parts,
which serve to feed and inflame avarice and ambition in those in whom above all
others, a perfect disengagement from earthly things and crucifixion of the
passions ought to lay a foundation of the gospel temper and spirit? Paschal II
formerly a monk of Cluni, succeeded Urban II in the pontificate in 1099. By his
order Saint Bruno having been abbot of mount Cassino about four years, returned
to his bishopric, having resigned his abbacy, and left his abbatial crozier on
the altar. He continued faithfully to discharge the episcopal functions to his
death, which happened at Segni on the 31st of August in 1125. He was canonized
by Lucius III in 1183, and his feast is kept in Italy on the 18th of July. See
his anonymous authentic life, and Leo of Ostia and Peter the deacon in their
chronicle of mount Cassino, with the notes of Solier the Bollandist.
MLA Citation
Father Alban Butler. “Saint Bruno, Bishop of Segni,
Confessor”. Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs, and
Principal Saints, 1866. CatholicSaints.Info.
12 August 2018. Web. 17 July 2020. https://catholicsaints.info/butlers-lives-of-the-saints-saint-bruno-bishop-of-segni-confessor/
SOURCE : https://catholicsaints.info/butlers-lives-of-the-saints-saint-bruno-bishop-of-segni-confessor/
Saint Bruno of Segni
Bishop of Segni, in Italy, born at Solero, Piedmont,
about 1048; died 1123. Benedictine bishop, serving as Vatican librarian and
cardinal legate. He received his preliminary education in a Benedictine
monastery of his native town. After completing his studies at Bologna and
receiving ordination, he was made a canon of Sienna. In appreciation of his
great learning and eminent piety, he was called to Rome, where, as an able and
prudent counsellor, his advice was sought by four successive popes.
At a synod held in Rome in 1079 he obliged Berengarius
of Tours, who denied the real presence of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist to
retract his heresy. He enjoyed the personal friendship of Gregory VII, and was
consecrated Bishop of Segni by him in the Campagna of Rome, in 1080. His
humility caused him to decline the cardinalate. He is called “the brilliant
defender of the church” because of the invincible courage he evinced in aiding
Gregory VII and the succeeding popes in their efforts for ecclesiastical reform,
and especially in denouncing lay investiture, which he even declared to be
heretical.
He accompanied Pope Urban II in 1095, to the Council
of Clermont in which the First Crusade was inaugurated. In 1102 he became a
monk of Monte Casino and was elected abbot in 1107, without, however, resigning
his episcopal charge. With many bishops of Italy and France, Bruno rejected the
treaty known in history as the “Privilegium”, which Henry V of Germany had
extorted from Pope Paschal II during his imprisonment. In a letter addressed to
the pope he very frankly censured him for concluding a convention which
conceded to the German king in part the inadmissible claim to the right of
investiture of ring and crosier upon bishops and abbots, and demanded that the
treaty should be annulled. Irritated by his opposition, Paschal II commanded
Bruno to give up his abbey and to return to his episcopal see.
With untiring zeal he continued to labour for the
welfare of his flock, as well as for the common interest of the Church at
large, till his death. He was canonized by Pope Lucius III in 1183. His feast
is celebrated on the 18th of July. St. Bruno was the author of numerous works,
chiefly Scriptural. Of these are to be mentioned his commentaries on the
Pentateuch, the Book of Job, the Psalms, the four Gospels, and the Apocalypse.
SOURCE : http://www.ucatholic.com/saints/bruno-of-segni/
St. Bruno
Bishop of Segni,
in Italy,
born at Solero, Piedmont,
about 1048; died 1123. He received his preliminary education in
a Benedictine monastery of
his native town. After completing his studies at Bologna and
receiving ordination,
he was made a canon of Sienna.
In appreciation of his great learning and eminent piety,
he was called to Rome,
where, as an able and prudent counsellor, his advice was sought by
four successive popes.
At a synod held
in Rome in
1079 he obliged Berengarius
of Tours, who denied the real
presence of Our Lord in the Holy
Eucharist to retract his heresy.
He enjoyed the personal friendship of Gregory
VII, and was consecrated Bishop of Segni by
him in the Campagna of Rome,
in 1080. His humility caused him
to decline the cardinalate.
He is called "the brilliant defender of the church" because of
the invincible courage he
evinced in aiding Gregory
VII and the succeeding popes in
their efforts for ecclesiastical reform,
and especially in denouncing lay investiture, which he even declared
to be heretical.
Birkhaeuser, Jodoc Adolphe. "St. Bruno." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 3. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908.23 Apr. 2015 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03014a.htm>.
Transcription. This article was transcribed for
New Advent by Joseph P. Thomas.
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. November
1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal
Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is
Kevin Knight. My email address is webmaster at newadvent.org.
Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your
feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and
inappropriate ads.
Copyright © 2020 by Kevin
Knight. Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
SOURCE : http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03014a.htm
BRUNO,
O.S.B. (ca. 1040/1050-1123)
Birth. Ca. 1040/1050, Solero d'Asti, Piedmont. Of a
modest family (1). He is also listed as Bruno of Segni; Bruno Astense; Brunonis
Astensis; and Bruno di Segni.
Education. Initial studies at the Benedictine
monastery of S. Perpetua in Asti, where he studied humanities and prepared for
the ecclesiastical life; then, he went to study the seven liberal arts at the
University of Bologna.
Priesthood. Ordained (no further information found).
He decided to enter the monastery of Monte Cassino but during the trip, he
became ill in Siena and the local bishop, Rodolfo, named him canon of the
cathedral chapter. Because of his knowledge and piety, he was called to Rome,
where he was advisor to four popes. Participated in a Roman synod in 1079;
there, he convinced Berengarius of Tours to retract his heresy which denied the
real presence of the Lord in the Holy Eucharist; the disputation between the
canon and the heretic took place before Pope Gregory VII.
Episcopate. Elected bishop of Segni in 1079 (2) by its
canons; he accepted after an intervention of Pope Gregory VII. Consecrated in
1080, Campagna of Rome, by Pope Gregory VII. In 1082, returning to Segni from
Rome, he was imprisoned by Adolfo di Segni; tradition says that he was
miraculously freed. Returned to Rome and there he was imprisoned, together with
the pope in mole Adriana (castle of Sant'Angelo). Librarian and
chancellor of the Holy Roman Church in 1086.
Cardinalate. Created cardinal bishop of Segni in a
consistory celebrated in 1086 (3). Participated in the papal
election of 1088, celebrated in Terracina, in which Pope Urban II was
elected. Subscribed papal bulls issued between 1089 and July 20, 1096. In 1095,
he accompanied Pope Urban II to the Council of Clermont, in which the First
Crusade was called; he went with the pontiff to Avignon Tarasco on September
11, 1095; to Avignon on September 13; to Cluny on October 25; to Clermont on
November 18 (he participated in the council celebrated in that city); to
Limoges, December 23 to 31; to Charroux, where he participated in the
consecration of the abbatial church, on January 10, 1096; to Poitiers on
January 22; to Moyenmoutier on March 10; to Tours on March 14 to 20 (he
participated in the council celebrated in that city); to Poitiers from March 30
and before April 14; to Nîmes on July 12; and to St.-Gilles on July 20. Did not
participate in the papal
election of 1099, in which Pope Paschal II was elected. Subscribed papal
bulls issued between August 30, 1100 and November 2, 1106. In 1103, he entered
the Order of Saint Benedict (Benedictines) at the monastery of Monte Cassino;
he was elected abbot in November 1107, keeping his episcopal see. He was sent
to France as legate in 1104. In March 1105, during the Lateran Synod, he acted
as a judge in a controversy. On September 8 of the same year, he was with the
pope in Civita Castellana. He returned to France as legate in 1106. On November
2, 1106, he was in Parma with the pope. On June 4, 1109, Pope Paschal II went to
Segni to canonize Bishop Pietro of Anagni, friend of Cardinal Bruno, and most
probably, the cardinal was present at the ceremony. He opposed lay investitures
of bishops and abbot, even declaring them to be heresy; he criticized Pope
Paschal II for granting Emperor Heinrich the privilege of investitures during
the pontiff's imprisonment by the emperor April 11, 1111 and demanded that the
treaty be annulled. On March 23, 1112, during the Lateran Synod, Pope Paschal
II rejected the granting of the privilege of investitures to Emperor Heinrich
V; the bishop of Segni was not present at that session of the synod and he
continued with his intransgent position; unhappy with the bishop's opposition,
the pope asked him resign his abbey and to return to his see of Segni
definitively. He participated in the Lateran synod of 1116, but never regained
his earlier position in the papal curia. He wrote commentaries on thirteen
books of the Holy Bible; a life of Pope St. Leo IX; and one of St. Pietro,
bishop of Anagni; a treatise on the Sacraments; and another one on the Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass; 145 of his homilies and six books of sentences are still
preserved.
Death. July 23, 1123, Segni (4). Buried in the
cathedral of Segni.
Canonization. He was canonized by Pope Lucius III in
1183 in Segni. Named first protector of the city and diocese of Segni. His
feast is celebrated on July 18.
Bibliography. Bruno, di Segni, Saint, ca. 1048-1123;
Odo, monk of Asta, fl. ca. 1120. Opera omnia. 2 v. Lutetiæ Parisiorum Apud
J.-P. Migne, 1854. (Patrologiæ cursus completus. Series secunda ; t. 164-165;
Variation: Patrologiae cursus completus; Series latina ; v. 164-165). Note: At
head of title: Sæculum XII. Responsibility: S. Brunonis Astensis ; aucta et
adnotationibus illustrata juxta editionem Romf anno 1791 curante Bruno Bruni
datam ; accedit Oddonis Astensis Expositio in Psalmos S. Brunoni ab ipso
auctore dicata quam ad calcem Operrum S. Brunonis edidit Maurus Marchesius,
Venetiis anno 1651 ; accurante J.-P. Migne; Bruno, di Segni, Saint, ca.
1048-1123 ; Oddo, Astensis, 12th cent. S. Brunonis Astensis Signiensium
Episcopi Opera. Cum expositione in Psalmos. 2 v. bound in 1. Venetiis : Apud
Bertanos, 1651. Contents: Partial contents: v.1. Commentary on the Pentateuch,
Job, Psalms, Canticle of Canticles, Apocalypse. --v.2. Homilies on gospels of
the church year; Canticle of Zachary; the Incarnation; sacraments; Pope Leo IX;
letters. Note: Full-page "Effigies S. Bruni Astensis..." Other
titles: Opera; Expositio super psalterium. Responsibility: Oddonis
Astensis monachi Benedictini eidem Sancto Brunoni ab ipso auctore dicata. Nunc
primam duobus tomis distincta in lucem edita studio, et labore D. Mauri
Marchesii, Casinensis decani; Bruno, di Segni, Saint, ca. 1048-1123; Oddo
Astensis. S. Brunonis Astensis abbatis Montis Casini et episcopi
signiensium Opera omnia, accedit Oddonis Astensis Expositio in Psalmos. 2 v.
Parisiis : apud Garnier fratres, 1854-1884. (Patrologiae cursus completus.
Series latina. Accurante J.-P. Migne. t.CLXIV-CLXV). Note: Vol.2 has imprint:
Parisiis apud J.-P. Migne; Bruno di Segni, Saint, ca. 1048-1123 ; Rembolt,
Berthold, d. 1518. Brunonis Expositio admodu[m] peculiaris in o[mn]es Diui
Pauli epistolas .... Parrhisijs : Per ... Bertholdum Rembolt, 1509.
Uniform Title: Expositio admodum peculiaris in omnes Divi Pauli epistolas;
Cipollini, Francesco. Bruno di Segni (1123) e la chiesa del suo tempo :
giornate di studio, Segni, 4-5 novembre 1999. Venafro (Isernia) : Eva, 2001.
(San Germano ; 4); "Essai de liste générale des cardinaux. Les cardinaux
du XIè siècle". Annuaire Pontifical Catholique 1927. Paris : Maison
de la Bonne Presse, 1928, p. 149, no. 11; Ferraro, Giuseppe. Lo Spirito
Santo nei commentari al Quarto Vangelo di Bruno di Segni, Ruperto di Deutz,
Bonaventura e Alberto Magno. Città del Vaticano (VC) : Libr. Ed. Vaticana,
1998.(Letture bibliche; 11). Identifier: Johannesevangelium; Kommentar;
Pneumatologie; Geschichte 1050-1280. Note: Bruno di Segni, saint (11th cent.);
Ruperto di Deutz (11th cent.); Bonaventura da Bagnoregio, saint (1217-1274);
Alberto Magno, saint (1205 ca.-1280); Gams, Pius Bonifatius. Series
episcoporum Ecclesiae catholicae. 3 v. in 1. Graz : Akademische Druck- u.
Verlagsanstalt, 1957, p. 725; Ganzer, Klaus. Die entwicklung des
auswärtigen kardinalats im hohen mittelater ; ein beitrag zur geschichte des
kardinalkollegiums vom 11.bis 13. jahrhundert. Tügingen : Niemeyer, 1963,
p. 57-62, no. 19; Grégoire, Réginald. Bruno de Segni, exégète médiéval et
théologien monastique. Spoleto, 1965. (Centro italiano di studi sull'alto
Medioevo. [Pubblicazioni]; 3; Variation: Centro italiano di studi sull'alto
Medioevo ; Pubblicazioni ; 3). Note: "Cette étude a fait l'objet
d'une thèse présentée le 19 janvier 1963 à l'Athénée pontifical de
Saint-Anselme à Rome, pour 'obtention du doctorat en théologie"; Hüls,
Rudolf. Kardinäle, Klerus und Kirchen Roms: 1049-1130. 1 aufl. Tübingen:
Max Niemeyer, 1977. (Bibliothek des Deutschen Historischen Instituts in Rom:
Bd. 48), p. 129-130, no. 2; Jiménez Fernández, Fernando. La
"Expositio in apocalypsim" de San Bruno de Segni. Romæ: Pointificia
Universitas Sanctæ Crucis, Facultas Theologiæ, 2003. Note: Thesis ad
doctoratum in Sacra Theologia totaliter edita; Klewitz, Hans-Walter. Reformpapsttum
und Kardinalkolleg. Die Entstehung des Kardinalkollegiums. Studien über die
Wiederherstellung der römischen Kirche in Süditalien durch das Reformpapsttum.
Das Ende des Reformpapsttums. Darmstadt : Hermann Gentner Verlag, 1957, p. 118,
no. 24; and 121, no. 13; Navarra, Bruno. San Bruno Astense vescovo di
Segni e abate di Montecassino. Roma : Centro Studi Del Lazio, 1980; Regesta
pontificum Romanorum ab conditio Ecclesia. Ad annum post Christum natum
MCXCVIII. Graz : Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1956. 2 v. Reprint.
Originally published : Lipsiae : Veit et comp., 1885-1888. Original t.p.
included : Regesta pontificum Romanorum ab condita ecclesia : ad annum
post Christum natum MCXCVIII. Editionem secundam correctam et auctam edidit
Philippus Jaffè ; auspiciis Gulielmi Wattenbach; curaverunt S. Loewenfeld, F.
Kaltenbrunner, P. Ewald, II, 702.
Link. Biography by
Jodoc Adolphe Birkhaeuser, in English, The Catholic Encyclopedia; his
image and biography, in English, Wikipedia; biography,
in English, New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge; his
image and biography, in Italian, Santi e Beati; his
image and biography, in Italian, Wikipedia; and his
image on a religious card. Piero Stradella.
(1) This is according to Grégoire, Bruno
de Segni, exégète médiéval et théologien monastique, p. 18, which adds, on p.
16-18, that some sources indicate that he was of a noble family from Asti and
that his parents were Andrea and Squilla (Willa) but that these affirmations
lack historical foundation.
(2) This is according to Gams, Series
episcoporum Ecclesiae catholicae, p. 725, which says that he was primarius
protector civitatis et diocesis, sed 44 ann. and that he was created
cardinal on July 18, 1079.
(3) His first biography in English, linked above, says
that he declined the promotion to the cardinalate because of humility. "Essai
de liste générale des cardinaux. Les cardinaux du XIè siècle". Annuaire
Pontifical Catholique 1927, p. 149, no. 11, includes him among the cardinals
created by Pope Urban II, adding that he may have been promoted to the
cardinalate by Pope Victor III. Ganzer, Die entwicklung des auswärtigen
kardinalats im hohen mittelater, p. 57-62, no. 19, includes him among the
cardinals created by Pope Paschal II. Klewitz, Reformpapsttum und
Kardinalkolleg. Die Entstehung des Kardinalkollegiums, p. 121, no. 13, says
that he was created cardinal by Pope Gregory VII. Besides the discrepancies
between the sources concerning when Bishop Bruno was created cardinal, there
are also conflicts between German sources with regard to if he was a cardinal
at all: Paul Hinschius, Das Kirchenrecht der Katholiken und Protestanten
in Deutschland. System des katholischen Kirchenrechts mit besonderer Rücksicht
auf Deutschland (6 v. Graz : Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1959.
Reprint of 1869-97 ed.), I, 326-326, indicates that he was not a cardinal based
on the fact that around that time the number of cardinal bishops was constant,
at seven, and the dioceses, with which they were connected, would not have
changed; Bernhard Gigalski, Bruno, bischof von Segni, abt von
Monte-Cassino (1049-1123) sein leben und seine schriften : ein beitrag zur
kirchengeschichte im zeitalter des investiturstreites, und zur theologischen
litteraturgeschichte des mittelalters (Münster i.W. : H. Schöningh, 1898),
rejects the cardinalate of Bishop Bruno, partly based on a personal report of
Johannes Baptist Sägmüller (scholar who wrote the article "Cardinal"
in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia); the same source also says that the see of
Segni never belonged to the cardinalitial suburbicarian dioceses.
Klewitz, Reformpapsttum und Kardinalkolleg, 37-47, concludes that at the
time of Bruno, the number of the cardinal dioceses had been long fixed at seven
but, that, however, the composition of these dioceses still occasionally
changed. For a vacant diocese, the occupant of a diocese, which was not one of
the seven, was accepted to fill the fixed number of seven. The position was not
bound to the diocese, but remained alone limited to the person. The see of
Segni, according to Klewitz, was temporarily taking the place of the see of
Silva Candida. The author supports his theory by the report Pope Urban II to
Abbot Ugo of Cluny over his choice, when he says "Notum itaque facimus
dilectioni remainder advice, quod apud Terracinam Campaniae Civitatem sanctae
Romanae Ecclesiae episcopi et cardinales, Portuensis videlicet, Sabinensis,
Tusculanus, Albanensis et Signensis cum aliis episcopis numero sexdecim".
Bruno is equated to the remaining cardinals and signed as "S.R.E.
episcopus et cardinalis", differently from the other sixteen bishops
mentioned. It should be noted that the see of Segni was united to the
suburbicarian see of Velletri on October 20, 1981.
(4) This is according to Ganzer, Die entwicklung
des auswärtigen kardinalats im hohen mittelater, p. 62. Grégoire, Bruno de
Segni, exégète médiéval et théologien monastique, p. 58; and his biography in
Italian, linked above, say that he died on July 18, 1123.
©1998-2014 Salvador Miranda
SOURCE : http://www2.fiu.edu/~mirandas/bios1086.htm
Francisco de Zurbarán (1598–1664). Le
Pape Urbain II et Saint Bruno de Segni, 1630,
Seville, Museo Provincial de Bellas Artes
Saint
Bruno of Segni – A Pamphlet 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.[Psalm 33:4] 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. Psalm 67:36] He also says to his disciples:
Without me, you can do nothing.[John 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.[Psalm 17:14]
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. 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. 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. Luke 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.
For that race 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. [Exodus
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.
Now then, in those days, there was a certain Roman
monk named Hildebrand, an adolescent of noble disposition, brilliant wit and
holy religion. The adolescent had come there 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]
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. 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 Corinthians 9:22] His speech, seasoned with salt,
soothed the pious and terrified the impious.
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 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.
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.
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. 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. John 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? [Romans 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.[Romans 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. Psalm 112:8]
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 Saint 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. 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.
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.
[John 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.
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.
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. Matthew
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. [Genesis 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. [John
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.[John 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. 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. 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. 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, 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 Timothy 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.
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. 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. 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?
Using the following authority of the saints I shall
prove likewise that the consignation of chrism should be repeated among
heretics. For Pope Eusebius 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.
Let’s also listen to what was established in council
concerning this matter in the time of the blessed Pope Silvester 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.
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 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
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.
Let us also see what Leo I 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. 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.
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.
We could give still more authorities concerning this
issue but these, in my opinion, are sufficient.
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. Therefore the prayer over a person shall not be repeated in those
sacraments which are not allowed to be repeated.
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. [John 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.[Ezekiel 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.[Matthew 13:30] 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. 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.
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. Matthew
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.[Wisdom 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.[John 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. Matthew 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. 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.
– translated by W L North from the edition of E.
Sackur in MGH Libelli de Lite II, (Hannover, 1892)
SOURCE : https://catholicsaints.info/saint-bruno-of-segni-a-pamphlet-on-simoniacs/
.jpg)
San Brunone d'Asti o San Bruno di Segni, affresco
nella cattedrale di Asti.
San Bruno di Segni (da Solero) Vescovo
Solero, Alessandria, 1049 - Segni, Roma, 18 luglio
1123
Bruno nacque a Solero d'Asti nel 1040. Dopo aver
conseguito la laurea presso l'Università di Bologna, decise di ritirarsi nel
monastero di Montecassino. Nominato canonico della Cattedrale di Siena dal
vescovo Rodolfo, fu inviato a Roma per impegni della diocesi. Qui ebbe
l'incarico di confutare l'eretico Berengario. La disputa si tenne davanti al
Pontefice, e Bruno confutò così sapientemente l'eretico, che Gregorio VII
stesso lo consacrò e nominò vescovo di Segni. Pochi anni dopo affiancherà il
Papa nella gigantesca lotta alle elezioni simoniache e la prepotenza di Enrico
IV. Tornò a Segni nell'aprile del 1082, ma giuntovi fu imprigionato dal conte
Adolfo di Segni. Il Signore però vegliava su di lui e con un miracolo ripetuto
per tre volte lo liberò. Tornato a Roma fu nuovamente imprigionato col Papa
nella mole Adriana. Dopo la liberazione, Bruno, desideroso di pace, trascorse
nel chiostro benedettino gli ultimi anni della propria vita, seguendo con cura
la Regola, tanto che dopo soli cinque anni di vita monastica venne eletto abate
di Montecassino. Nel 1112 si ritirò a Segni, sua sede episcopale, e qui morì il
18 luglio 1123.
Emblema: Bastone pastorale
Martirologio Romano: A Segni nel Lazio, san
Bruno, vescovo, che molto lavorò e soffrì per il rinnovamento della Chiesa e,
costretto per questo a lasciare la sua sede, trovò rifugio a Montecassino, dove
divenne abate temporaneo del monastero.
Bruno nacque a Solero, all'epoca diocesi di Asti, tra
il 1045 ed il 1049; iniziò la sua formazione religiosa con i monaci martiniani
presso il locale cenobio di S. Perpetuo e proseguì gli studi a Bologna dove
esisteva una Scuola di Grammatica e Retorica, conseguendo il titolo di dottore.
Chiamato a Siena dal vescovo Rodolfo per insegnare teologia, fu nominato
canonico della cattedrale e vi rimase sino al 1076 quando seguì il cardinale
Pietro Igneo che lo introdusse alla corte papale dove fu notato da Gregorio VII
per la sua preparazione teologica e per la sua eloquenza. Nel 1079 il papa lo
consacrò vescovo della sede suburbicaria di Segni ed in questa veste ebbe modo
di collaborare da vicino con quattro papi. Fu più volte nominato legato
pontificio in Francia e nell'Italia meridionale; combatté strenuamente la
simonia ed il nicolaismo nel burrascoso periodo della lotta per le investiture.
La sua vocazione per lo studio delle Sacre scritture lo portò a scegliere la
vita monastica e nel 1102 si ritirò a Montecassino dove nel 1107 fu eletto
abate.
Nel 1111 fu costretto a lasciare Montecassino a causa
dei suoi dissidi con papa Pasquale II che aveva concesso a Enrico V il
diritto alle investiture dei vescovi germanici. Tornato alla sua missione
pastorale a Segni, lasciò la vita terrena per quella celeste il 18 luglio 1123.
Nel 1183 (o 1181 secondo alcuni storici) Lucio III lo
elevò agli onori degli altari nella sua cattedrale dove è custodito il suo
cranio.
San Bruno è ricordato soprattutto per aver confutato
definitivamente, con il monaco Alberico, l'eresia di Berengario di Tours che
negava la reale presenza di Cristo nell'Eucaristia, durante il sinodo romano
del 1079 ed in questa veste è raffigurato sulla pala d'altare del
"Concivium Patronus" nella collegiata di Solero, ma gli studiosi
tengono in grandissima considerazione le sue opere e la sua figura di esegeta
delle Sacre scritture.
S. Bruno scrisse commentari sul Pentateuco, sui Salmi,
sul Cantico dei Cantici, su Isaia e numerose omelie sui Vangeli. La memoria
liturgica viene celebrata il 18 luglio a Solero, a Segni, a Siena, a
Montecassino, a Colleferro nella parrocchiale a lui dedicata e ad Asti
dove sorge una cappella sotto il suo titolo presso la quale era possibile
lucrare l'indulgenza plenaria concessa da papa Benedetto XIV con un Breve del 5
aprile 1758. La cattedrale di Asti, consacrata a fine 1095, o inizio 1096, da
papa Urbano II con S. Bruno, lo ascrive fra i canonici del suo Capitolo e la
diocesi astese lo onora fra i suoi santi.
Autore: Gian Piero Pagano
S. Bruno nacque a Solero d'Asti nel 1040: trascorsa la
fanciullezza sotto la salutare e sapiente guida di monaci Martiniani, fu
inviato dai genitori all'Università di Bologna dove, ancor giovane, si laureò.
Benchè in ambiente non favorevole, si conservò virtuoso e fermo nella fede
della prima educazione. Facendosi sempre più sentire la vocazione, desideroso
di seguire i consigli del Signore, decise di ritirarsi nel monastero di
Montecassino.
Però durante il viaggio, si fermò a Siena dove, per
disposizione di Dio, fu trattenuto dal vescovo Rodolfo, che lo nominò canonico
di quella cattedrale. Inviato a Roma per impegni della diocesi, qui ebbe
l'incarico di confutare l'eretico Berengario.
La disputa si tenne davanti al Pontefice, e Bruno
confutò così sapientemente l'eretico, che Gregorio VII stesso lo consacrò e
nominò vescovo di Segni.
A Segni fu banditore della Buona Novella e apostolo di
carità. Ma i confini della sua piccola diocesi erano troppo ristretti per la
sua attività; eccolo quindi vicino al grande genio di Gregorio VII nella
gigantesca lotta contro l'incontinenza e specialmente contro le elezioni
simoniache e la prepotenza di Enrico IV. E qui è bene accennare quanto abbia sofferto
dai nemici.
Si era nell'aprile del 1082. Roma, fedele al Papa,
dopo aver respinto i due assalti del falso penitente Enrico IV che aveva
ripreso a combattere la Chiesa, godeva un po' di tregua. Bruno ehe si trovava
allora a Roma con Gregorio VII, si mise in viaggio per ritornare alla sua
diocesi, ma giuntovi fu imprigionato dal conte Adolfo di Segni.
Il Signore però vegliava su di lui e con un miracolo
ripetuto per tre volte lo liberò.
Ritornò allora a Roma ma fu nuovamente imprigionato
col Papa nella mole Adriana.
Con rincrescimento di molti, Bruno, sempre bramoso di
pace, solitudine e unione con Dio, volle ad ogni costo seguire la sua
aspirazione al chiostro. Perciò adempì diligentemente la regola benedettina
nella pietà, nello studio e nel lavoro, tanto che dopo soli cinque anni di vita
monastica venne eletto abate di Montecassino. Nel 1112 si ritirò a Segni, sua
sede episcopale, da dove passò al Signore il 18 luglio 1123, giorno in cui la
Chiesa ne celebra la festa.
S. Bruno fu pure un grande scrittore. Nonostante i
molti incarichi, trovò tempo per commentare tredici libri della Sacra Bibbia;
scrisse la vita di S. Leone IX e di S. Pietro vescovo di Anagni; un trattato
sui Sacramenti e un altro sul santo Sacrificio della Messa. Di lui ci rimangono
pure 145 omelie e 6 libri di sentenze.
Autore: Antonio Galuzzi
SOURCE : http://www.santiebeati.it/dettaglio/63375
BRUNO di Segni, santo
di Hartmuth Hoffmann - Dizionario Biografico degli
Italiani - Volume 14 (1972)
BRUNO di Segni, santo. - Nacque presso Asti
intorno alla metà del sec. XI. I suoi genitori vengono detti talvolta di
illustre e talvolta di umile condizione. Da fanciullo ricevette un'educazione
clericale nel monastero di S. Perpetuo presso Asti, e più tardi studiò le arti
liberali a Bologna. Fra il 1070 e il 1080 era canonico a Siena. Da qui andò a
Roma, forse per sbrigare affari concernenti la sua chiesa, e quivi strinse
rapporti con il vescovo Pietro (Igneo) di Albano. Al sinodo tenuto nel 1079
avrebbe preso posizione contro Berengario di Tours e la sua dottrina
eucaristica. Nello stesso anno, a quanto pare, fu eletto vescovo di Segni, per
iniziativa di Gregorio VII. Questo episcopato aveva forse allora
provvisoriamente rango cardinalizio, o almeno B., perché stimato consigliere
del papa, si acquistò una posizione equivalente a quella di cardinale.
Il primo documento semiufficiale in cui egli compare
in qualità di vescovo proviene dal sinodo romano del 4 maggio 1082. La lotta
fra l'imperatore e il papa aveva allora già coinvolto nelle sue dolorose
conseguenze la campagna romana, e B., che per tutta la sua vita fu instancabile
zelatore della libertà e della riforma della Chiesa, nell'estate del 1081 0
1082 restò per tre mesi prigioniero del conte Ainulfo di Segni, partigiano di Enrico
IV. È da dubitare che nel corso del decennio successivo egli avesse modo di
occuparsi come di consueto della propria diocesi. La politica della Curia lo
trasse a Roma, e sotto papa Vittore III assunse anche le funzioni di
cancelliere e bibliotecario della Chiesa romana. Il primo documento da lui
datato in tale veste è del luglio-agosto 1087. Insieme con gli altri cardinali
vescovi del partito gregoriano egli, dopo la morte di Vittore III, elesse a
successore di questo il francese Urbano II. B. depose allora la carica di
cancelliere, ma continuò a rimanere nella cerchia dei più stretti collaboratori
del nuovo pontefice, che usava accompagnare nei suoi viaggi. Così lo seguì
anche nel 1095 in Francia dove prese fra l'altro parte al celebre concilio di Clermont
che indisse la prima crociata.
Sotto Pasquale II (dal 1099) egli mantenne la sua
influenza in Curia (per esempio sottoscrisse ancora un privilegio papale del 14
settembre 1101); ma dopo una malattia, sopraggiunta probabilmente nel 1102,
decise di entrare come monaco a Montecassino. Il papa accettò questa decisione
con difficoltà e ottenne da lui l'impegno di continuare ad amministrare la sua
diocesi e di tenersi per quaranta giorni all'anno a disposizione della Curia. In
conseguenza, nel 1106 egli venne inviato come legato pontificio in Francia
insieme con Boemondo I di Antiochia, per propagandare i piani di crociata del
principe normanno e definire svariate contese ecclesiastiche pendenti. Appena
di ritorno, nel novembre del 1107, fu eletto abate di Montecassino. Esercitò il
nuovo ufficio solo pochi anni. Negli anni 1107-1111 fu probabilmente a Lodi
come legato pontificio. Quando Pasquale II nel 1111 con l'accordo di ponte
Mammolo concesse all'imperatore Enrico V l'investitura dei vescovi, B. protestò
con particolare violenza contro questo che fu definito un
"pravilegio". Bollando l'accordo di eresia tentò, con un'accanita
campagna pubblicistica di sobillare la opinione pubblica e di costringere il
papa alla ritrattazione. Nella foga polemica era sul punto di negare
l'obbedienza a Pasquale II. Questi, pur essendo in cuor suo decisamente avverso
al patto che gli era stato estorto, volle liberarsi dell'importuno ammonitore:
B. dovette rinunciare al suo inconsueto doppio ruolo nella gerarchia
ecclesiastica, lasciare Montecassino e accontentarsi della dignità episcopale.
Può essere che a tale passo lo abbia spinto la presenza di un gruppo di
scontenti all'interno del monastero; ma decisivo deve essere stato il divieto
di Pasquale II, al quale dovette apparir chiaro che l'abate della potente
abbazia di Montecassino era in grado di provocare la rivolta ecclesiastica in
tutta l'Italia centrale e meridionale, mentre il vescovo di una insignificante
cittadina di montagna quale Segni non costituiva certo un pericolo.
In effetti egli scomparve da questo momento quasi
totalmente nella quiete della sua diocesi. La solenne ritrattazione del
"pravilegio" avvenuta al sinodo lateranense del 1112 fu da lui
approvata successivamente. B. compare per l'ultima volta con un ruolo di scarso
rilievo al concilio romano del 1116. Morì il 3 luglio (0 31 agosto) 1123. Nel
1181, o, più probabilmente, nel 1183, papa Lucio III lo accolse fra i santi.
Fra i numerosi scritti di B. (o a lui attribuiti)
il Libellus de symoniacis è forse quello più interessante. Composto
tra il 1086 e il 1101, giustappone, in modo piuttosto infelice, una vita di
papa Leone IX e un trattato sulla validità delle consacrazioni dei simoniaci.
Nella Vita, nella quale B. si servì di notizie raccolte dalla viva
voce di Gregorio VII, difendeva Leone IX dall'accusa di aver ingiustamente
condotto la guerra del 1053 contro i Normanni, esaltando il papa e il suo
esercito - in conformità con gli ideali della crociata - come campione della
Chiesa. La seconda parte dello scritto muove dal seguente problema: prima delle
riforme di Leone IX, a stento si poteva trovare un ecclesiastico che non fosse
simoniaco o consacrato da un simoniaco; ora, se a tutte queste consacrazioni
conferite da simoniaci (cioè da eretici) è mancata l'efficacia della grazia
divina, non vi è più stato in pratica nessun sacerdote ordinato validamente; il
che significa che la successione apostolica sarebbe rimasta interrotta. Per
pronunziare in proposito una parola chiarificatrice, B. doveva pertanto
stabilire se i sacramenti sono azioni oggettive (non pregiudicate
dall'eventuale eresia di chi le amministra) o se sono condizionati da un
elemento soggettivo (ossia la pura fede di chi consacra). B. non offre però
un'indagine rigorosamente sistematica di tale questione, così dibattuta fin dai
tempi antichi e particolarmente nella lotta delle investiture. Dopo svariate
digressioni, egli stabilisce che le consacrazioni conferite da simoniaci devono
essere riconosciute nel caso in cui il consacrato non sia stato a conoscenza
della simonia del consacrante. In caso contrario, la benedizione gli tornerebbe
in maledizione. Ma non risulta chiaro se tale maledizione significa che lo
Spirito Santo non è stato ricevuto, o se essa risulta unicamente dal rapporto,
canonicamente proibito, con l'eretico: sulla vera e propria validità della
consacrazione non vi è ancora quindi nulla di deciso. In ogni caso, B.
raggiungeva il suo doppio scopo di politica ecclesiastica: difendere, cioè, la
successione apostolica e porre d'altra parte in dubbia luce l'attività
sacerdotale di un simoniaco. Dei Padri della Chiesa egli cita soprattutto
Agostino (per la distinzione di "forma" e "virtus
sacramenti"), e fra i contemporanei gli si può accostare, per analoghi
tentativi di soluzione, il cardinale Deusdedit.
La Vita del vescovo Pietro di Anagni (morto
nel 1105) sembra essere stata composta da B. fra il 1105 e il 1109; ma
l'unica Vita Petri che si conosce risale al sec. XIV (non è anteriore
al 1325); essa mostra tracce di una rielaborazione compiuta nel sec. XII, e non
è possibile stabilire quanto in essa sia conservato del testo di Bruno. Intorno
all'anno 1080 B., su richiesta dell'arcidiacono romano Teodino, compose
una Translatio s.Stephani, con cui egli ha probabilmente dato solo
una nuova redazione a materiale antico di secoli. Pietro Diacono di
Montecassino conosceva di lui dei versi In laudem s. Mariae; essi sono
stati recentemente identificati con una certa verosimiglianza nel codice Casin. 194,
ma hanno scarso valore letterario.
Particolarmente ampia è l'opera esegetica di Bruno.
Egli cominciò intorno al 1070 a commentare per il vescovo Ingone d'Asti
il Salterio gallicano; in periodo più tardo scrisse un'altra redazione, in
cui poneva a base del suo commento il Salterio romano. A Siena espose per
i canonici il Cantico dei Cantici; già vescovo di Segni, nella primavera
1082 o 1083, dedicava al "cardinale Damiano", abate di Nonantola (e
di Fonte Avellana), un commentario di Isaia; quindi spiegava l'Apocalisse, il Pentateuco,Giobbe, i Proverbi di
Salomone 31, 10-31 (De muliere forte) e i Vangeli. Non si possiedono più i
suoi commentari ai libri dei Giudici e dei Re. B. respinse
il nuovo metodo scolastico, attenendosi alla vecchia tradizione. Si riallacciò
al commentari patristici e altomedievali, che però riespose in una sua
personale e vivace forma letteraria; così per esempio la sua esposizione dell'Apocalisse secondo
le sette visioni è indipendente dalla tradizione (Aimone di Auxerre e Beda).
Con gli scritti enumerati si connettono le sue circa
centocinquanta omelie. In larga misura carattere omiletico hanno parimenti i
suoi sei libri di Sentenze, in cui tratta le allegorie della Chiesa,
le virtù cristiane e simili argomenti. Al vescovo Gualtieri di Maguelonne
dedicò un trattato De sacramentisecclesiae, opera interessante dal
punto di vista di storia della liturgia, che spiega simbolicamente le cerimonie
ecclesiastiche. Solo con riserva si può attribuire a B. il breve scritto De
incarnatione Domini et eius sepultura; il suo rapporto con le corrispondenti
tesi di Anselmo di Canterbury, o anche di Ivo di Chartres, non è ancora stato
sufficientemente chiarito. Inoltre passa sotto il nome di B. una lettera che
egli avrebbe indirizzato a un monaco latino residente a Bisanzio di nome Leone
sulla questione dell'azzimo: lavoro di non rilevante importanza, poiché
riproduce essenzialmente il trattato composto un paio di decenni prima da Laico
di Amalfi.
Nelle biblioteche medievali le opere di B., a
giudicare dal numero dei manoscritti conservatici e dalle menzioni nei
cataloghi, hanno avuto grande diffusione. D'altra parte egli non pare aver
influenzato la tradizione letteraria. Per quanto si apprezzasse l'eloquenza
edificante, la scolastica non poté in nulla giovarsi del suo pensiero
"antiquato".
Le opere di B. sono pubblicate in J. P. Migne, Patr.
lat., CLXIV-CLXV (sulle vecchie edizioni informa Grégoire). Vedi inoltre Libellus
de symoniacis, a cura di E. Sackur, in Mon. Germ. hist., Lib. de
lite, II, Hannoverae 1892, pp. 543-562 (cfr. J. Loserth, Zu Pseudo-Udalricus "De
continentia clericorum" und zu B.'s von Segni "De
Symoniacis", in Neues Archiv, XX [1895], pp. 444-449). Quattro
lettere sono pubblicate ibid., pp. 563-565; una quinta lettera in Rec.
deshistoriens des Gaules et de la France, XIV, Paris 1877, p. 810.
Inoltre: G. Lucchesi, S.Brunonis Astensis Commentaria in Isaiam ex cod. A.
136 Civ. Bibl. "Archigymnasii" Urbis Bononiae restituta, Bononiae
1913; A. M. Amelli, S. B. di Segni,Gregorio VII ed Enrico IV in Roma
(1081-1083) illustrati da un doc. ined. della Bibl. Cap. di Verona, Montecassino
1903; I. Falasca, Vita S. Petri confessoris et episcopi Anagnini auctore
S. Brunone episcopo Signino,ex Mss. Alex. 94 et Vallic. H. 12, Alatri
1883; Acta Sanctorum Aug., I, Parisiis 1867, pp. 230 ss.; Bibl.
hagiographica latina, Bruxelles 1900-1901, nn. 7882-7884; Catal.
codd. hagiogr. Bibl. Regiae Bruxellensis, I, Bruxellis 1886, pp. 70-74;
II, ibid. 1889, p. 309 n. 97; Catal. codd. hagiogr. latin. Bibl. Nat.
Parisiensis, I, Bruxellis 1889, p. 130; J. B. Schneyer, Repertorium
der lateinischen Sermones des Mittelalters..., I, Münster 1969, pp. 695-704.
Fonti e Bibl.: Vita Brunonis..., in Acta
Sanctorum,Iulii, IV, Parisiis 1868, pp. 478-84; Leonis Marsicani et
Petri Diaconi Chronica monast. Casinensis, in Mon. Germ. hist., Script.,
VII, a cura di G. H. Pertz, Hannoverae 1846, pp. 776-783; Petrus
Diaconus, De viris illustr., in J. P. Migne, Patr. lat., CLXXIII, coll.
1040-1042; J. Ramackers, Papsturkunden in Frankreich,neue Folge, V,
in Abh. der Akad. der Wissenschaften Göttingen, phil.-hist. Klasse,
s. 3, XXXV (1956), pp. 81-93 n. 20; A. Caretta, Il "Liber" di
Alberto giudice e la "Chronica" di Anselmo da Vairano, estr.
da Arch. stor. lodigiano, s. 2, XIV (1965) e XV (1966), p. 110; R.
Volpini, Additiones Kehrianae, I, in Riv. stor. d. Chiesa in
Italia, XXII (1968), pp. 337-41. Fondamentali sono le biografie di G.
Gigalski, B. Bischof von Segni,Abt von Montecassino (1049-1123), Münster
1898, e di R. Grégoire, B. de Segni, exégète médiéval et théologien
monastique, Spoleto 1965. Vedi inoltre M. Manitius, Geschichte der
lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters, III, München 1931, pp. 49 s.; K.
Ganzer, Die Entwicklung des auswärtigen Kardinalats im hohen Mittelalter, Tübingen
1963, pp. 57-62. Per questioni particolari si vedano C. Mirbt, Die
Publizistik im Zeitalter Gregors VII., Leipzig 1894, passim; A.
Amelli, S. B. vescovo di Segni e abate di Montecassino attraverso la nuova
luce delle sue opere testé rinvenute, Montecassino 1923; W. Kamlah, Apokalypse
und Geschictstheologie, Berlin 1935, pp. 15-25; Th. Schieffer, Die
päpstlichen Legaten in Frankreich vom Vertrage von Meersen (870) bis zum
Schisma von 1130, Berlin 1935, pp. 175-178; A. Schebler, Die
Reordinationen in der "altkatholischen" Kirche, Bonn
1936, pp. 259-64, C. Erdmann, Die Entstehung des Kreuzzugsgedankens, Stuttgart
1936, pp. 110-13; A. Michel, Amalfi und Jerusalem im griechischen
Kirchenstreit (1054-1090)... B. von Segni úber die Azymen, Romae
1939; L. Santifaller, Saggio di un elenco dei funzionari impiegati e
scrittori della cancelleria pontificia dall'inizio all'anno 1099, in Bullettino
dell'Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, LVI (1940), pp. 207 s.;
V. Fenicchia, Intorno agli atti di s. Pietro da Salerno,vescovo di Anagni
nel sec. XI,contenuti nel cod. Chigiano C. VIII. 235, in Archivio
della R. Deput. romana di stor. patr., LXVII (1944), pp. 253-267; F.
Stegmüller, Repertorium biblicum Medii Aevi, II, Matriti 1950, pp.
223-228, nn. 1842-61; J. Obersteiner, Die Erklärung von Proverbia
31,10-31durch Beda den Ehrwürdigen und B. von Asti, in Theolog.-prakt.
Quartalschr., CII (1954), pp. 1-12; N. Haring, The Augustinian Axiom:
Nulli sacramento iniuria facienda est, in Mediaeval Studies, XVI
(1954), p. 102; A. Landgraf, Dogmengeschichte der Frühscholastik, I-IV,
Regensburg 1952-56, passim; F. Ohly, Hohelied-Studien, Wien
1958, pp. 103-106; A. Borst, Der Turmbau von Babel, II, Stuttgart
1958-59, pp. 586-88; H. De Lubac, Exégèse médiévale, I, 1-2, Paris
1959, passim; J. G. Rowe, Paschal II, Bohemund of Antioch and the
Byzantine Empire, in Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, IL
(1966), pp. 165-202; H. Hoffmann, Die älteren Abtslisten von Montecassino, in Quellen
und Forsch. aus italien. Archiven und Bibliotheken, XLVII (1967), pp. 323
s.; R. Herde, Das Hohelied in der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters
bis zum 12.Jahrhundert, in Studi medievali, s. 3, VIII (1967),
pp. 1068 s.; P. Savio, Ricerche su s. Brunone Astegiano, in Boll.
stor-bibl. subalpino, LXVII (1969), pp. 5-67; H. Rüthing, Untersuchungen
zum ersten Psalmenkommentar B.s von Segni, in Recherches de théologie
ancienne et médièvale, XXXVII (1969), pp. 46-77; Rep. fontium
historiae Medii Aevi, II, pp. 594-95.
SOURCE : https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/bruno-di-segni-santo_(Dizionario-Biografico)
Voir aussi : http://www.annussacerdotalis.org/clerus/dati/1999-06/07-6/Mt112530.rtf.html
