Note 476 — XII. PETER DAMIANI.

How utterly this was opposed to the received dogmas and practice of the church can be seen from the decision of Nicholas I. on the same question—“Sciscitantibus vobis, si a sacerdote, qui sive comprehensus est in adulterio, sive de hoc fama sola respersus est, debeatis communionem suscipere, necne, respondemus: Non potest aliquis quantumcumque pollutus sit, sacramenta divina polluere, quæ purgatoria cunctarum remedia contagionum existunt.... Sumite, igitur, intrepide ab omni sacerdote Christi mysteria, quoniam omnia in fide purgantur” (Nicolai I. Epist. XCVII. c. 71). See also a similar decision in 727 by Gregory II. (Bonifacii Epist. CXXVI.).

The only adverse authority of this period that I have met with is the Penitential of Theodore of Canterbury, already referred to, prescribing rebaptism for those baptized by priests of known unchastity (Lib. II. cap. ii. § 12.—Haddan & Stubbs’s Councils, III. 192).

Damiani saw the danger to which a practice such as this exposed the church, and lifted up his voice to prevent the evil results—

and when, about the year 1060, the Florentines refused the ministrations of their bishop, whom they were determined from other causes to eject, he reproved them warmly, adducing the only reasonable view of the question, “quod Spiritus Sanctus per improbi ministerium dare potest sua charismata” (Opusc. XXX. c. 2).

Simoniacal priests as well as concubinary ones were included in the ban, and when, in 1049, Leo IX. commenced his vigorous persecution of simony, there arose a belief that ordination received at hands tainted with that sin was null and void. This was promptly stigmatized as a heresy, and Damiani’s untiring pen was employed in combating it. He argued the question very thoroughly and keenly when it was under debate by a synod, and succeeded in procuring its condemnation (Opusc. VI. c. 12).

The prohibition, first proclaimed by Nicholas II. and finally enforced by Gregory VII., caused no little trouble in the church. Towards the close of the century, Urban II. found himself obliged to discuss the question, and in an epistle to Lucius, provost of the church of St. Juventius at Pavia, he admits that the sacraments administered by guilty priests are uncorrupted, yet he approves of their rejection in order to stimulate the clergy to virtue, and even declares that those who receive them, except under instant and pressing necessity, are guilty of idolatry (“nisi forte sola morte interveniente, utpote ne sine baptismate vel communione quilibet humanis rebus excedat; eis, inquam, in tantum obsunt, ut veri idolatræ sint”—Urbani II. Epist. 273)—a decision the logic of which is not readily apprehended. St. Anselm of Canterbury assents to the doctrine, but places it in a more reasonable and practical shape—“non quo quis ea quæ tractent contemnenda, sed tractantes execrandos existimet” (Epist. VIII.). The consequences of such a system, however, if strictly carried out, would have been most disastrous to the church, and when the zeal of Hildebrand became forgotten his injunctions were overruled. The century was scarcely out before Honorius of Autun maintained most positively that Christ operates through the hands of the vilest as well as of the most holy ministers, provided only they are orthodox in faith (Eucharistion c. vi.—Pez, Thesaur. II. i. 355). About 1150, however, Geroch of Reichersperg declares that he considered Gregory’s commands as still in force, and that he paid no more attention to the masses of concubinary priests than if they were so many Pagans (Gerhohi Dial. de Differentia Cleri—Pez, Thesaur. II. ii. 463). Yet before the end of the twelfth century, Lucius III. had returned to the policy of Nicholas I.—“Sumite ergo ab omni sacerdote intrepide Christi mysteria, quia omnia in fide Christi purgantur” (Post Lateran. Concil. P. L. c. 38), the positiveness of which was not much affected by the subtle distinctions which he endeavored to draw between crimes notorious and tolerated. Yet St. Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, affirmed that it was a mortal sin to assist at the Mass celebrated by a priest who was notoriously unchaste (Pontas, Dict. de Cas de Conscience II. 1445). The church, however, gradually returned to the old doctrine and practice. The policy of Gregory was condemned as a heresy when adopted by the followers of Arnold of Brescia (Bonacursi Vit. Hæreticorum—D’Achery I. 214) and an austere priest, Albero of Mercke, near Cologne, who taught it was promptly silenced (Anon. adv. Alberonis errores—Martene Ampl. Coll. IX. 1251). In 1292 the council of Aschaffenburg anathematized those who “præsumptione dampnabili” taught the heresy that priests in mortal sin could not perform the sacred mysteries, and it decided “licite ergo a quocumque sacerdote ab ecclesia tolerato, divina mysteria audiantur et alia recipiantur ecclesiastica sacramenta” (Concil. Schafnaburg. ann. 1292 can. i.—Hartzheim IV. 7). And when Wickliffe and Huss undertook to carry out the dicta of Nicholas II. and Gregory VII. to their legitimate conclusions, the policy was at once recognized as a heresy of the worst character and most destructive consequence. Thus in 1491 a Synod of Bamberg condemns as heretics those who refuse to receive the ministrations of sinful priests.—Synod. Bamberg. ann. 1491 Tit. xliv. (Ludewig. Script. Rer. German. I. 1241-2).