Presbyters Uniwersytet Warszawski
ID
ER 372
Braulio, bishop of Saragossa (Iberian Peninsula) responds to the letter of Eugenius II of Toledo (Iberian Peninsula) in which he asked about the case of an improperly ordained presbyter (possibly Lucidius), and about presbyters consecrating chrism (ca AD 647).
XXXVI
 
Braulio humbly says that he is not competent enough to respond to the questions of Eugene, but he will nevertheless try to answer.
 
Igitur iam ad ipsas causas ueniamus. Dicis te in epistolis tuis duo obserata fuisse in eglesia tua, unde contabes anima tua, et quid remedii adibeas penitus scientia uestra non habere. Scilicet de quodam fratre de quo scribitis qui non accepto presbiterii gradu presbiteri[i] peragit officium. Et ut causam omnem exponeres, narras eum fuisse molestissimum precessori uestro, qui rogatus a rege ut eum presbiterum ordinaret, quia iussioni principis resistere non preualuit, ut uestris uerbis loquar, hoc genus factionis inuenit. Duxit eum ad altarium, manum ei non inposuit et, cantantibus clericis In excleso, pro benedictione maledictionem effudit, sicuti ipse perecessor uester hoc personis idoneis et sibi carissimis postmodum publicabit coniurans ut hoc, quamdiu ipse uiueret, reticerent.
Quid inde fieri debeat a me iubes expetere, quia ignorare uos dicitis utrum presbiter habeatur an si illi, qui per eum crismate prenotati sunt, recte cristicolae uocitentur. Post hoc coniuras meam inscitam ut hanc questionem soluam.
Hec est prima interrogatio uestra, ad quam dum multis, ut premisi, ad respondendum inpediar causis, summa<m> illut conficit quod nequid tenebris obsitus uidenti preuere ducatum. Sane, quia iubes ut dicam quod sentio, perquiratur persona que maledicto subiecta esse dicitur si tempore maledicentis, ipso presente, officium presbiteri[i] egit nec tamen prohibitus ab ipso est, si babtidiauit, si crismauit, si sacrificium obtulit et ille passus est eum hoc agere, qui sibi conscius erat eum maledixisse. In nullo iste mihi sed potius ille uidetur culpabilis fuisse, qui dolo malo aliut egit et aliut simulauit. Ac per oc ille, cuius factio in tantum nefas prorupit, ut mihi uidetur, honus suum ipse portabit. Uestra autem sanctitas ab hoc delicto inmunis erit, quia unumquemque in qua uocatione inuenistis, in ea esse permittitis. Et quur non abeatur presbiter non uideo, si ille eum publicauit presbiterem esse, qui noluit ut ipse presbiter esset aut quare non ab isto unguine sacro tincti uocentur cristicolae, quia etsi iste indignus, crismate tamen uero sunt illi peruncti. Obtime nouit prudentia tua canonum antiqua esse instituta ut presbiter crismare non audeat, quod seruare et orientem et omnem Italiam hucusque scimus. Sed postea consultum est ut crismarent presbiteres sed de crismate benedicto ab episcopis, ut non uideretur presbiterorum hoc esse preuilegium, quum ab illa unctione sancta populum Dei sacrant, sed episcoporum, quorum benedictione et permissu, quasi de manu episcopi, ita huiusce rei peragunt officia. Quod si ita est, quur et iste, quasi manus episcopi, quamuis inutilis, quos crismauit non habeantur catholici, quum, ut dixi, sancto et uero crismate ab episcopo sacrato et cum illius permissu fuerint peruncti? Manifestum est babtisma in nomine Trinitatis data non debere iterari, crismare autem non prohibemur hereticos, quos a uero crismate inuenimus extraneos. Iste autem recto crismate crismabit, ut iam dixi, non mici uideretur fribolum esse quod fecit.
Additur his quod ille, qui eum permisit, numquam contradixit et crisma a se benedictum tradere sti non dubitabit ac per hoc quod iste fecit, ille egit. Quid enim siue per occasionem, siue per ueritatem? Quia in catholica hactum est, necesse iterari non est.
Nam et illi, qui post excessum precessoris uestri eum talia narrasse referunt, melius facient si istam causam in aliam uitam sibi reseruant. Quis enim eis, illo desistente, aut contradicere nunc poterit aut purgare obiecta poterit? Uobis tamen quod ille non dissipauit dissipare non conuenit, memores illius sententie 'Nolite ante tempus quicquam iudicare', et iterum 'Quod apertum est, uobis; quod occultum est, Deo'.
 
Then Braulio responds to the question concerning deacons offering chrism.
 
His duabus in breui premissis questionibus, tertiam ingerit ignorantie mee prudentia uestra scribens eo quod quidam presbiteri de crismate quod sibi ipsi conficiunt, si tamen crisma istut erit nominandum, babtizatos signare presumunt. Bene fateor et obtime dubitas non esse crisma, quod non solum non ab episcopis sed contra ius et uetitum canonum a presumtoribus presbiteris uidetur esse sacratum. Nam si celestis magister et Dominus reliquid suum episcopis uicariatum, quod constitutum ab illis est, ab spiritu Cristi, iuxta Apostolum, constitutum est, et si quis precepta eorum spernit, Cristi precepta spernit. Unde uide<n>tur mihi a sancto et uero crismate denuo presignari debere hi qui a talibus sunt peruncti fraude; presumtorum tamen disciplina in uestro est arbitrio posita, dum aliter emendetur error adque aliter condemnetur presumtor. Iam uestre est sapientie et cum ignaris mitius agere et presumtores uehementer distringere.
 
Braulio once again apologises for his incompetence and asks Eugene for indulgence.
 
(ed. Riesco Terrero 1975: 144, 146)
Letter 36
 
Braulio humbly says that he is not competent enough to respond to the questions of Eugene, but he will nevertheless try to answer.
 
Now, then, let us turn to the topics themselves. You say in your letter that two situations have arisen in your Church which have caused your soul exceeding grief and that all your knowledge has found no remedy to apply. You write of a certain brother who, without receiving the rank of presbyter, is performing the office of presbyter, and to explain the whole case, you relate that he caused much trouble for your predecessor, who was asked by the king to ordain this brother a presbyter. Because he could not disobey the command of the prince, to use your words, he hit upon the following scheme. He led him to the altar, made no imposition of the hand on him, and, while the clerics were singing loudly, he pronounced a malediction instead of a benediction, as this predecessor of yours later confessed to persons worthy of trust and very close to him, conjuring them to silence while he lived. Then, you ask me to consider what should be done in this case, because you say you do not know whether he should be considered to be a presbyter or whether they who were anointed with chrism by him are rightly called Christians. After this you request my ignorance to solve this problem.
This is your first question, the answer to which is difficult for me for many reasons which I have stated, but chiefly because one who is buried in darkness cannot offer leadership to one who sees [Matt 15:14]. Now, since you ask me to give you my opinion, ask the person who is said to be subject to a malediction whether, at the time the malediction is spoken and in the presence of the bishop, he performed the office of presbyter and was not forbidden by him; whether he baptized, anointed with chrism, celebrated Mass, and was allowed to do so by the one who was aware of having pronounced the malediction. It seems to me that not the presbyter, but the one who did one thing by deceit and pretended to be doing another is to blame. Therefore, the one whose act was so sinful will, it seems to me, "bear his own burden" [Gal 6:5], while your Holiness will be immune from this crime, because you permit each one to remain in the calling in which you found him [cf. 1 Cor 7:20]. I do not see why he should not be considered a presbyter, if the bishop who did not want him to be a presbyter publicly recognised him to be a presbyter; nor why those anointed by him with the holy unction should not be called Christians, for, even though he is unworthy, they still have been anointed with a true chrism.
Your prudence knows well that ancient canons have forbidden a presbyter to have the audacity to administer chrism, a prohibition observed up to now, as we know, in the Orient and throughout Italy; later, presbyters were permitted to administer chrism, provided the chrism was blessed by the bishops, in order that it would not appear to be a privilege of presbyters to consecrate the people of God with this holy unction, but only of the bishops, by whose benediction and permission they perform the ministry, as if by the hand of a bishop, although an unwrothy one, since, as I said, they were anointed with a holy and true chrism, blessed by the bishop, and with his permission? It is manifest that baptisms given in the name of the Trinity should not be repeated, but we are not forbidden to anoint with chrism heretics whom we find not to have shared the true chrism. He anointed them with a true chrism, as I have said; it does not seem that what he has done is invalid.
There is an additional fact that he who permitted him to perform never contradicted him, and did not hesitate to entrust to him the chrism which he had blessed, and thereby himself performed what the other did. What difference does it make whether the act was performed under pretext or was authentic? Since it was performed in a Catholic Church, it must not be repeated. Those who report after death of your predecessor that he told them these stories will do better if they save that matter for another life. Now that he is gone, who will be able to contradict them, or who will be able to correct their objections. What he did not disperse, you must not disperse, mindful of these words: "Pass no judgement before the time" [1 Cor 4:5]; and again: "what is manifest, to us; what is secret, to God" [Deut 29:29].
 
Then Braulio responds to the question concerning deacons offering chrism.
 
Having set down these two questions in brief, I find that your prudence has proposed to my ignorance a third, namely, that some presbyters presume to anoint the baptized with chrism which they make themselves, if that is to be called chrism. I must say that you have reason to be hesitant, for that is not chrism which appears to have been consecrated, not only by bishops, but against the established law and prohibitions of the canons. For if the heavenly Master and Lord left His vicariate to His bishops, then, what was constituted by them was constituted by the spirit of Christ [cf. Acts 20:28], according to the apostle, and if anyone spurns their precepts, he spurns the precepts of Christ. Therefore, it seems to me that those who have been fraudulently anointed by such should again be anointed with the holy and true chrism. The punishment of the presumptuous is left to your judgement, however, for it is one thing to correct a mistake, and something else to condemn one who is presumptuous. It is part of your wisdom to deal more kindly with the ignorant and to punish the presumptuous severely.
 
Braulio once again apologises for his incompetence and asks Eugene for indulgence.
 
(trans. by C. Barlowe 1969: 80-83; lighlty adapted)
 

Discussion:

Manuel Risco (1775: 161) proposed identification of the presbyter mentioned by Eugene II with the deacon Lucidius of whom Ildefonsus of Toledo wrote in his preface to De viris illustribus (see [559]).

Place of event:

Region
  • Iberian Peninsula
  • East
  • Italy north of Rome with Corsica and Sardinia
  • Rome
  • Italy south of Rome and Sicily
City
  • Saragossa
  • Toledo

About the source:

Author: Braulio of Saragossa
Title: Letters, Epistularium
Origin: Saragossa (Iberian Peninsula)
Denomination: Catholic/Nicene/Chalcedonian
Letter 35 is Braulio`s answer to the letter that Eugene II of Toledo wrote most probably in 647 (letter 35, [337]), the year of his accession to the episcopal see of Toledo, because it deals with the problems Eugene II inherited from his predecessor, Eugene I. This date is also confirmed by the position of the letter in Braulio`s Epistularium (the letters are in chronological order, see Lynch 1950: 60,208). Similarly Madoz (1941: 55-56).
Eugene II and Braulio had been friends for a long time. Eugene arrived from Toledo to Saragossa ca 620 attracted by the shrine of Eighteen Martyrs and the monastery founded by the bishop of Saragossa John, brother of Braulio. Eugene was made archdeacon in the church of Saragossa during Braulio`s episcopacy (Lynch 1950: 56-57). Thus, it is no suprise that after his accession to the important see of Toledo he looks to his former master for advice.
Edition:
Edition:
Riesco Terrero, Luis ed. Epistolario de san Braulio. Annales de la Universidad Hispalense. Serie Filosofía y Letras, v. 31. Sevilla, 1975.
 
Translation:
C.W. Barlowe, Iberian Fathers, v. 2, Braulio of Saragossa, Fructuosus of Braga, Washington D. C. 1969.
Bibliography:
C.H. Lynch, Saint Braulio, bishop of Saragossa (631-651) his life and writings, Washington, D.C 1938 (see also Spanish translation revised by P. Galindo: C.H. Lynch, P. Galindo, San Braulio, obispo de Zaragoza: (631 - 651). Su vida y sus obras, Madrid 1950).
J. Madoz, Epistolario de San Braulio de Zaragoza: ed. crít. según el cód. 22 del Archivo capitular de León, Madrid 1941.
M. Risco, Espana Sagrada, vol. 30, Madrid 1775

Categories:

Described by a title - Presbyter/πρεσβύτερος
Act of ordination
Ritual activity - Baptism and instructing catechumens
Ritual activity - Eucharist
Ritual activity - Anointment with chrism
Ritual activity - Blessing of oil
Ritual activity - Imposition of hands
Conflict
Relation with - Bishop/Monastic superior
Relation with - Monarch and royal/imperial family
Relation with - Heretic/Schismatic
Former ecclesiastical career - None
Administration of justice - Ecclesiastical
Theoretical considerations - On priesthood
    Please quote this record referring to its author, database name, number, and, if possible, stable URL: M. Szada, Presbyters in the Late Antique West, ER372, http://www.presbytersproject.ihuw.pl/index.php?id=6&SourceID=372