A Liturgy Of Reform- Bruno Segri’s De Sacramentis Essay, Research Paper
A Liturgy of Reform: Bruno Segri’s De Sacramentis Ecclesial and the Gregorian ReformIn the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries the Holy Roman Emporers and the Popes were engaged in a political, very often heated, sometimes bloody struggle. The litterary, political, and military maneouvering of these medieval men has been portrayed, in our own century, variously as revolutionary, as a function of the growth and promotion of Roman canon law, an attempt to promote sacerdotal leadership over the laity, even outright hierocracy over secular rulers, as the promotion of a monastic ideal for all of society, or, in still another approach, as reifying persecution within Western society.1 At the center of this deadly struggle upon which historians have heaped so many theses was a liturgy: the rite of investing a bishop with his staff and ring, the symbols of his office. The investiture contest is itself only one element in the process of ecclesiastical reformation which hisotrians have named “Gregorian” after its most dominant personality: Gregory VII (1073-1085). The Gregorian reforms attempted to extend the monastic reforms of the tenth century to the secular clergy and laity in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Zealous to curb simony and to have a more spiritually, more ecclesiastically focussed episcopate, Gregory VII asserted as peculiar to papal dignity the right to appoint and invest all bishops. In so doing, Gregory threatened a significant source of power and revenue of secular lords in general and of royalty and the Holy Roman Emperor in particular, and asserted a central, reforming role for the papacy.2It must have been clear from the outset to all those eager to continue this reform movement that the year 1111 would be an inauspicious one. The German ruler Henry V was marching towards Rome, allegedly with 30,000 men, to resolve any confusion over his right to invest his bishops. The Gregorian reform effort must have seemed to have arrived at an acute state of crisis to those who had struggled in its cause. Few alive at the time had been more zealous in their pursuit of ecclesiastical reform than Bruno, Cardinal Bishop of Segni, Abbot of Monte Cassino. Few men in Europe, or even in Italy, were as outspoken in the papal politics of that year or, for that matter, of the previous generation than Bruno and few would fall so quickly from papal favor. It is this man, an exegete, cardinal bishop, papal counsellor, monk, and abbot with whom this study is concerned. More precisely, it is his brief, but highly original liturgical commentary on the dedication of a church, known as the De Sacramentis Ecclesiae, on which we shall focus our attention.3This paper will demonstrate that Bruno used his commentary as the basis for ecclesiological reflection; more precisely, to promote his vison of an idealized, reformed Church. It will also demonstrate that Bruno, out of favor with the papacy, envisions the episcopate in general (not the pope in particular) as the chief agents of reform. Finally, it is fitting that Bruno would choose to express his vision in a liturgical commentary as the success of the entire reform movement seemed to hinge on proper liturgical practice: the investiture of bishops. In order to understand how the De sacramentis might relate to momentous events of 1111 we need to try to place this small commentary within the context of Bruno’s career. Bruno was born in Solero around 1040 or 1050 of humble parents. He was educated first at the Benedictine monastery of St. Perpetua in Asti and then studied the seven liberal arts at the increasingly important schools of Bologna.4 In February of 1079, as a canon of Sienna, Bruno was sent to Rome for a synod on the Eucharistic doctrine of Berengar of Tours. There, Bruno’s vigorous denouncement of Berengar’s views both convinced Berengar to retreat from his position and won Bruno the respect and friendship of Gregory VII. That same year Bruno was elevated to the episcopal seat of Segni which had remained unfilled for eight years.5Bruno spent much of his time in the entourage of Gregory VII, and was an outspoken supporter of the pope. In the summer of 1082 Bruno was arrested by count Aynulf of Segni, a partisan of Henry IV, and jailed for three months.6 He continued to serve the church as the librarian of Victor III (1086-87) and as counsellor to Urban II (1088- 99). Bruno’s name appears in many papal documents from Urban’s reign, his signature appears on several bulls, and he attended several councils most notably that of Clermont in 1095 where Urban declared the first Crusade. Papal business brought him to the island of Maguelonne in June of 1096 and he probably first met Walter at this time. (Walter would become bishop of Maguelonne in 1104, and it is to him that Bruno addressed the De Sacramentis.)7In 1103, apparently after suffering an illness, Bruno entered the Abbey of Monte Cassino over the initial objections of Paschal II (1099- 1118). Even as a monk Bruno continued to travel extensively in service of the pope and in 1107 was elected as abbot of that venerable monastery. The anonymous life of Bruno and the life by Peter the Deacon do not agree on Bruno’s motivations for entering the monastery; the former records only biblical “clich s” and the latter relies upon a letter supposedly from Bruno to Paschal. This letter, “une mosa que d’extraits d’opuscules de Pierre Damien,” is so derivative that it may simply be a creation of Peter the Deacon, though it could have been written by, or at the behest of Bruno.8 On this matter, it is worth noting that there had been two men who had risen from the abbacy of Monte Cassino to the chair of St. Peter in Bruno’s lifetime: Stephen IX (1057-58) and Victor III (1086-87). If Cardinal Bishop Bruno was hoping that Paschal’s successor would also come from that ancient abbey, he was right. It would not, however, be Bruno. He lived to see John of Gaeta be elevated as Gelasius II (1118- 19) upon Pascal’s death. Whatever Bruno’s immediate motivation for entering Monte Cassino, by 1111 he was certainly a force to be contended with in papal politics. The events of 1111 would change that situation substantially. As Henry V approached Rome with his army, a meeting was arranged between himself and Paschal II to be held at Sutri, about thirty miles northwest of Rome. Recent scholars have shown that, despite his reputation and the criticisms of the other reformers, Paschal, at first, presented a strong reform-minded position to Henry.9 In Paschal’s original position, Henry would lose the right to invest bishops and the bishops would give up their regalia. This latter term caused much confusion at Sutri and subsequently, but Paschal appears to have meant that bishops would no longer hold royal or civil offices while retaining their ecclesiastica, i.e., their churches and lands donated to them. In other words, Paschal was genuinely trying to liberate the Church from lay control and so, potentially from simony and certainly from lay investiture.10 Dissatisfied with this offer, Henry had Paschal arrested and, in April of 1111, after several months of captivity Paschal, upon the advice of John of Gaeta (the future Gelasius II) among others, granted Henry the right to invest bishops elected without simony. Bruno, who had not been at Sutri in February and so had escaped imprisonment, accused Paschal of betraying the reform movement. His reaction, in Gr goire’s words, “fut tr s violent l’ gard du pape” and helped give rise to the rumor that the synod to be held in 1112 would depose Paschal and elect a new pope.11 Bruno felt that Paschal had betrayed the reform. First, you should know this because the lord pope neither loves me nor my counsel. However, a good purpose ought not to be modifed. And I say this opinion which I have indeed said to Gregory and Urban and in which I remain adamantly, and I hope for the mercy of almighty God because I will persist in this purpose until the very end.12Nonetheless, Bruno attempted to assure Paschal even as he condemned lay investiture as heresy:Certainly I so love you as I ought to love a father and lord and I wish to have no other lving pope, just as I promised you along with many others …. I ought to love you, but I ought to love more the one who has made you and me.13Even after this very tempered show of respect, Bruno goes on to argue that the privilegia of April 1111 were a violence against all religion and piety and reminds Paschal that pope himself had declared investiture heresy. Bruno urged the pope to confirm investiture as heresy so that peace might reign in the Church.14In 1112, after Paschal renounced the privilegium (Bruno was absent from this synod also), Bruno remained unconvinced of the pope’s commitment as Paschal refused to excommunicate Henry. Bruno remained critical of the pope. Paschal, in response to this criticism and schismatis et discordiae metuens, recanted his decision to allow Bruno to be both abbot and bishop at once and compelled him to return to Segni.15 If Bruno had seen the abbacy of Monte Cassino as placing him closer to the papacy, this certainly put an end to that ambition. In any case, this must have come as a terrible personal blow to Bruno and done little to endear Paschal to him.16This is the context within which Bruno’s De Sacramentis Ecclesiae ought to be understood. The exact date of the composition of the document is unknown. It has to have been written after 1104, however, as it is addressed to fratri Galterio, Magalonensi episcopo and Walter was not elevated to the episcopate until that year. Bruno refers to himself only as bishop, and not as abbot which could imply that it was written after his tenure at Monte Cassino was over; however, Bruno appears to have rarely, if ever, used that title for himself and it is never used in the his few extant letters. If the De Sacramentis was written after the events of 1112 this would help explain its most unusual feature: the almost complete lack of reference to the papacy or to Petrine authority. It offers a portrait of the episcopate as the principal office of reform while scarcely referring to the relationship between reforming bishop and Roman pontiff. In this latter characteristic the De Sacramentis is completely out of synch with the “Gregorian conception of episcopacy” – an ideal, found in the writings of the reformers of the late eleventh century and early twelfth century, of both reforming zeal and strong papal discipline of the episcopate.17The relative absence of pontifical or Petrine language stands out profoundly when the De Sacramentis is placed alongside the most popular liturgical “commentary” of the day and that of pre- preeminent position in Rome, the Romano-Germanic Pontifical.18 This was most probably the pontifical used by Bruno and two copies were in existence at Monte Cassino. It was also the basis for the new liturgical books produced by twelfth-century reformers in Rome.19 This pontifical contains a commentary on the dedication of a church entitled Quid Significent Duodecim Candelae which makes several strong assertions of Petrine authority and uses the title pontifex throughout.20 Even Amalarius of Metz (c. 775-850/51) in his brief comment De Officio in Dedicatione Ecclesiae was not afraid to associate episcopus with pontifex, a commonplace to be sure but one which Bruno avoided.21 Nor was Bruno’s younger contemporary, Hugh of St. Victor (1096-1141) concerned to distinguish the two offices when he expounded on the dedication of a church in his own De Sacramentis Christianae Fidei.22Bruno confines his use of the word pontiff to three of the final sections on priestly vestments: Quid pallium significet, De vittis, and De summo pontifice. In the section on the pallium Bruno distinguishes between pontifex which refers to all bishops and summus pontifex. For bishops in general the pall (superhumerale) refers to the grave burden they bear; their’s is the burden of carrying the weak and the sinful. The bishops carry the burden of the whole Church. Indeed, what does the superhumeral, by which the shoulders of the bishop are both beautified and burdened, signify if not the burden of episcopal dignity? The dignity of the episcopate is a great burden: those shoulders carry the burdens of the entire church, and they ought to bear the weak sheep and the sins of the people.23Bruno prefaces his reference to Summus Pontifex by noting that those bishops who do not lift a finger to bear the burden of others do not truly bear the pallium. Bruno then observes that the Summus Pontifex was given the pallium by Christ who left the ninety-nine sheep to seek out the one stray. Understood, then, is the even greater responsibility of the pope to be worthy of the pallium.24 In the section De summo pontifice, Bruno asserts that he does not believe that the pope wears purple robes because of his royal power but because Constantine once gave to Pope Sylvester all the imperial insignia.25The relative absence of pontifical language or reference becomes more pronounced upon closer comparison of the De Sacramentis with the Duodecim Candelae. In one instance, the anonymous commentator of the Duodecim Candelae interprets the bishop’s staff as representing sacerdotis potestas.26 This priestly power stems from Christ’s commissioning the apostles to go out and preach the gospel taking only a staff with them (Mt. 10.10, Mk. 6.8, Lk. 9.3). Later, when the pontiff raps the staff three times on the lintel of the church building it represents apostolic authority over heaven, earth, and hell. The commentator quotes Matthew 16.18-19:”You are Peter and upon this rock [petram] I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it and whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound even in heaven and whatever you declare unbound upon earth will be unbound even in heaven.27These two references combine to make the pontiff’s staff a strong symbol of apostolic teaching authority.Bruno likewise connects the virga pastoralis with sermo divinis et praedicatio evangelica. Bruno, however, never makes the connection with Christ’s commissioning of apostolic teaching authority; rather, he makes his point more obliquely referring to Isaiah 11.4, percutiet terram virga oris sui, et spiritu laborium suorum interficiet impium. By means of Isaiah, then, Bruno retains the sense of teaching authority from the Duodecim Candelae without introducing its sense of apostolic authority. This reference also allows Bruno to note that the bishop knocking three times on the door represents the Trinity evoked in the sacraments and the preaching knocking on the ears (the doors) of the attentive faithful.28 The attentive medieval reader, however, especially one familiar with the more common Duodecim Candelae, would have to ask himself why a man previously so concerned with asserting apostolic authority, such as Bruno, would avoid the opportunity to assert that authority here by choosing such a relatively obscure reference?Further, the Duodecim Candelae refers a second time to the above passage (Tu es Petrus…) in order to make the analogy of apostolic authority as the strong walls of the Church.29 Bruno, when confronted with the lapides of his church, chooses to ignore the more obvious reference used in the Duodecim candelae and prefers to see them as signifying the Church which is built from living stones (vivis lapidibus aedificatur) joined and united by charity.30 The Lapis altaris is Christ and all his limbs and so it is appropriate to put relics in the altar.31Bruno chooses a more enigmatic reference over an obvious Petrine one, again, when he discusses the hyssop used in sprinkling the congregation with holy water. He begins this section by observing, Hyssopus naturaliter in petra nascitur.32 Here Bruno is deliberately choosing petra over saxa. The anonymous commentator of Duodecim Candelae says, Ysopus … est humilis, quae radicibus suis saxorum dicitur penetrare duritam.33 For the anonymous commentator hyssop represents humility which enters our hardened hearts. Bruno chooses petra instead but he is not at all interested in connecting this with Petrine authority, again choosing a more obscure scriptural allusion instead. Hyssop is naturally born in rock: “The rock, however, “as the Apostle said, “was Christ.” The Hyssop is the good herb which is born, reborn, and rooted in Christ. ALthough through this indeed all the multitude of the faithful can be understood, nevertheless especially those are figured in the hyssop who in the faith of Christ are rooted and founded, they are not able to be torn away from or seperated from his love. Though which [Hyssop] what better are we to understand than the bishops and priests, who, to the extent that they obtain a greater dignity within the Church, ought to be more firmly adhereing to faith in Christ?34In this passage Bruno’s deliberate avoidance of apostolus and preference for episcopus demands an explanation. Bruno’s question is a rhetorical one. Who better than priests and bishops ought we understand by the hyssop, for they having obtained greater dignity in the Church ought to be more firmly rooted in the rock (petra) which is Christ? Obviously the one with the highest dignity in the Church – the pope – could best be understood here, since he sits in the chair of St. Peter, who better to be rooted in petra? Bruno, by choosing petra over saxa is calling our attention to the appropriate answer to his rhetorical question. What is more if Bruno had followed the style more typical of the commentaries and used pontifex rather than episcopus he would not have been able to make his point. Without directly attacking the papacy, Bruno was able to imply a critique of the papacy and assert the primacy of bishops and clergy within the Church. The question remains, why would Bruno, one of the most important Gregorian reformers of his day, undermine the position of the papacy in favor of the broader episcopate? Or, at very least why wouldn’t he use this text as an opportunity to discuss the new Church being founded under the papal reformers? The rhetoric of the De Sacramentis only makes sense if we place it after 1112. If it was written after 1112 the reader can easily imagine Bruno, out of favor with the papacy, potentially with his own papal ambitions scuttled, and certainly not trusting Paschal II to continue with the reforms he held dear, shifting his attention to the role of the episcopate in consecratione ecclesiae.35 What better metaphor for the role of the episcopate than an extended commentary on the rite of making holy a new Church?Bruno begins the De Sacramentis by recalling a meeting between himself and Walter (1096?) where they first began to conceive of this commentary. Since we were together in Rome on the Island in the house of the bishop of Portuens, and when we were reading in the book of Exodus concerning the tabernacle and of Aaron’s vestments signifying a certain kind of testimony and type of great mystery you and then I began to wonder what others like these we might find in the church, as now these old things have passed away and have all been made new.36Bruno produced much literature commenting on the symbolism of different liturgies and liturgical elements and so there is an abundance of proof that he had, indeed, been giving these things much thought. In a letter which could have been written no earlier than March of 1110 Bruno connected many of the same sacramentals he interprets for Walter in the De Sacramentis (anulus, virga, aqua, sal, oleum, and crisma) directly with the investiture controversy. It is worth our while to explore this letter briefly. The letter has two manuscript traditions. The one, an incomplete version, is reproduced in the Monumenta’s Libellus de Lite.37 More recently the complete letter has been discovered and edited with critical apparatus by G rard Fransen.38 The letter is addressed to the bishops and cardinals of the holy Roman Church. The latest datable reference Bruno makes in the full letter is to the Lateran synod of March 1110 and specifically to Paschal’s reaffirmation that any who were invested by a lay ruler would be excommunicate.39 All of this occured before Paschal’s controversial reconciliation with Henry in 1112. Bruno’s tone in this letter, however, reflects none of the controversy with Paschal after 1112.