Steven Avery
Administrator
Gottschalk of Orbais (808-867)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottschalk_of_Orbais
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06682a.htm
The Gottschalk Homepage
The Latin New Testament
Hugh Houghton
https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/9ffab81d-8391-4bbb-9811-6159a9183053/626900.pdf
the margin as well as a possible abbreviation for Sedulius, although these appear to be later additions.
<Questions on the Trinity and on the Two Nativities,
Operations, Wills and Forms in Christ>
Trina deitas: the controversy between Hincmar and Gottschalk (1996)
George Henry Tavard (1922-2007)
https://archive.org/details/trinadeitascontr0000tava
http://books.google.com/books?id=UkURAQAAIAAJ
HINCMAR OF RHEIMS AS A THEOLOGIAN OF THE TRINITY (1871)
Leo Donald Davis
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27830928
Resisting Heresy unto Death in the 860s (2017)
Matthew Bryan Gillis
https://academic.oup.com/book/12614/chapter-abstract/162531936?redirectedFrom=fulltext
GOTTSCHALK AS PROPHETIC LEADER OF RESISTANCE AGAINST HINCMAR
https://ebrary.net/120907/economics/gottschalk_prophetic_leader_resistance_hincmar
GOTTSCHALK’S END
https://ebrary.net/120915/economics/gottschalk_s
Gottschalk of Orbais: A Medieval Predestinarian (2007)
Francis X. Gumerlock
The Rebellious Monk Gottschalk of Orbais: Defining Heresy in a Medieval Debate on Predestination
Jenny Smith
Codex Sangallensis 48
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sangallensis_48
The codex was written in the West, possibly in the St. Gallen monastery, by an Irish monk in the 9th century.[9] It can not be dated earlier, because it has a reference to the (heretical) opinions of Gottschalk at Luke 13:24 and John 12:40.
RGA
The immediate context of the passage in 1 Jn is cited no less than four times by another Frankish bishop, Hincmar of Reims (806-882), who likewise fails to include the comma in every instance, even in the midst of his vigorous defence of the Trinity against the propositions of Gottschalk.60
60 Hincmar, De prædestinatione Dei XXXV, PL 125:376; De una et non trina deitate X, PL 125:555;
Explanatio in ferculum Salomonis, PL 125:821; Epist. X, PL 126:75. p. 44
Were his debates on the Trinity, or items like the Eucharist and predestination.
Yes. e.g
[Hincmar] By these testimonies of orthodox thinkers, who supported their opinions with Gospel truth,apostolical authority, and the predictions of the law and prophets (as anyone who so wishes may easily find outin the aforementioned books of those thinkers), it is made absolutely clear that the godhead which is the unityof the Trinity, should not be understood, believed, or said to be triple in persons as Godescalc blasphemouslysays. (Hincmar, De una et non trina deitate; Migne Latina, 125.489; Translated by Sarah Van der Pas,correspondence, August 2020)
==================
De Corpore et Sanguine Domini: An Essay on the Eucharistic Presence
Luis Dizon
https://www.academia.edu/32693216/De_Corpore_et_Sanguine_Domini_An_Essay_on_the_Eucharistic_Presence
In the 9th century, a controversy erupted at the abbey of Corbie when a monk named Paschasius Radbertus wrote treatise called De Corpore et Sanguine Domini (On the Body and Blood of the Lord). In it, he elucidated an early version of what would later be known as the doctrine of Transubstantiation. This sparked off a debate over Eucharistic theology, as his ideas were criticized by many theologians of his day, including John Scotus Erigena, Raban Maur, Gottschalk, and Ratramnus.
=============================
Irene van Renswoude
Evina Steinova
THE ANNOTATED GOTTSCHALK: CRITICAL SIGNS AND CONTROL OF HETERODOXY IN THE CAROLINGIAN AGE
Doctrinal controversies of the carolingian renaissance: Gottschalk of orbais’ teachings on predestination (2017)
Andrzej P. Stefariczyk
https://www.researchgate.net/public...schalk_of_orbais'_teachings_on_predestination
https://www.jstor.org/stable/90014623
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottschalk_of_Orbais
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06682a.htm
The Gottschalk Homepage
Gottschalk of Orbais: Medieval Teacher of Twofold Predestination
Gottschalk of Orbais was a Carolingian theologian who taught that God's predestination is twofold. Gottschalk provoked the 9th century predestination controversy. The present site contains a detailed introduction on Gottschalk, a collection of his original Latin writings and other materials
gottschalk.inrebus.com
The Latin New Testament
Hugh Houghton
https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/9ffab81d-8391-4bbb-9811-6159a9183053/626900.pdf
the margin as well as a possible abbreviation for Sedulius, although these appear to be later additions.
<Questions on the Trinity and on the Two Nativities,
Operations, Wills and Forms in Christ>
Another theological point: Our composer uses the phrase "One God, three and one" (trinum et unum). Trinum et unum has a long tradition going back to Tertullian (according to my search in PL-ROM). Paulinus of Aquileia uses it, and so does Alcuin. But it came into controversy with Gottschalk and Hincmar.
Actually, I found very close to what Text 16 has in lines 3/4, where it states "trinum et unum; trinum in personis, unum in essentia". I failed to put this in my apparatus fontium for Text 16, but I must put it in "Additions and Corrections". The source is Ps.-Augustine, Speculum peccatoris (that is the title given it in CPL, 386.
(Continues)
Pelikan, in vol. Ill: The Growth of Mediedal Theology, p. 59-67, does a good job in explaining the whole controversy of trina deitas. My interest in it are two: 1) did this theological controversy effect our composers? That is, do certain phrases in our Texts reflect these
controversies? And 2) "tradition" is no firm argument for either side; it is wide and diverse, and both Hincmar and Gottschalk could use it to defend or reject trina deitas.
Regarding trina deitas, I found this in one ms of Text 15 (Pa6 = Paris, 2718): audi ergo, pater et filius et spiritus sanctus unum sunt, trina maiestas, una deitas. nam sicut filius ex corde patris procedit, ita et spiritus sanctus de patre est. propterea tres confitemur personas et unam
Trina deitas: the controversy between Hincmar and Gottschalk (1996)
George Henry Tavard (1922-2007)
https://archive.org/details/trinadeitascontr0000tava
http://books.google.com/books?id=UkURAQAAIAAJ
HINCMAR OF RHEIMS AS A THEOLOGIAN OF THE TRINITY (1871)
Leo Donald Davis
Z-Library single sign on
Z-Library single sign on | Z-Library. Download books for free. Find books
ur.booksc.me
Resisting Heresy unto Death in the 860s (2017)
Matthew Bryan Gillis
https://academic.oup.com/book/12614/chapter-abstract/162531936?redirectedFrom=fulltext
GOTTSCHALK AS PROPHETIC LEADER OF RESISTANCE AGAINST HINCMAR
https://ebrary.net/120907/economics/gottschalk_prophetic_leader_resistance_hincmar
GOTTSCHALK’S END
https://ebrary.net/120915/economics/gottschalk_s
Gottschalk of Orbais: A Medieval Predestinarian (2007)
Francis X. Gumerlock
The Rebellious Monk Gottschalk of Orbais: Defining Heresy in a Medieval Debate on Predestination
Jenny Smith
Codex Sangallensis 48
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sangallensis_48
The codex was written in the West, possibly in the St. Gallen monastery, by an Irish monk in the 9th century.[9] It can not be dated earlier, because it has a reference to the (heretical) opinions of Gottschalk at Luke 13:24 and John 12:40.
RGA
The immediate context of the passage in 1 Jn is cited no less than four times by another Frankish bishop, Hincmar of Reims (806-882), who likewise fails to include the comma in every instance, even in the midst of his vigorous defence of the Trinity against the propositions of Gottschalk.60
60 Hincmar, De prædestinatione Dei XXXV, PL 125:376; De una et non trina deitate X, PL 125:555;
Explanatio in ferculum Salomonis, PL 125:821; Epist. X, PL 126:75. p. 44
Were his debates on the Trinity, or items like the Eucharist and predestination.
Yes. e.g
[Hincmar] By these testimonies of orthodox thinkers, who supported their opinions with Gospel truth,apostolical authority, and the predictions of the law and prophets (as anyone who so wishes may easily find outin the aforementioned books of those thinkers), it is made absolutely clear that the godhead which is the unityof the Trinity, should not be understood, believed, or said to be triple in persons as Godescalc blasphemouslysays. (Hincmar, De una et non trina deitate; Migne Latina, 125.489; Translated by Sarah Van der Pas,correspondence, August 2020)
==================
De Corpore et Sanguine Domini: An Essay on the Eucharistic Presence
Luis Dizon
https://www.academia.edu/32693216/De_Corpore_et_Sanguine_Domini_An_Essay_on_the_Eucharistic_Presence
In the 9th century, a controversy erupted at the abbey of Corbie when a monk named Paschasius Radbertus wrote treatise called De Corpore et Sanguine Domini (On the Body and Blood of the Lord). In it, he elucidated an early version of what would later be known as the doctrine of Transubstantiation. This sparked off a debate over Eucharistic theology, as his ideas were criticized by many theologians of his day, including John Scotus Erigena, Raban Maur, Gottschalk, and Ratramnus.
=============================
Irene van Renswoude
Evina Steinova
THE ANNOTATED GOTTSCHALK: CRITICAL SIGNS AND CONTROL OF HETERODOXY IN THE CAROLINGIAN AGE
As already mentioned in the introduction to this article, Gottschalk referred to
precisely these acts, the Acts of the Third Council of Constantinople, in his pamphlet
against Hincmar on Trinitarian vocabulary, which Hincmar incorporated in his De
una et non trina deitate. According to Gottschalk, the acts offered support for his
argument that the term trina deitas was fully orthodox. For in the edict of Emperor
Constantine IV, in which Constantine promulgated the decisions of the council, the
emperor had used the expression tritheoteia, which according to Gottschalk meant:
trina deitas A. Moreover, in the Latin version of the edict, said Gottschalk, the phrase
trina et glorificanda deitate occurred. Apparently all bishops present at the council
had agreed to that expression, seeing that they had signed the acts for approval.
Hincmar, who appears not to have been well acquainted with the Acts of the Third
Council of Constantinople before Gottschalk referred to it, consulted his own copy of
the acts and discovered that his exemplar offered a different reading of the contested
passage. Needless to say, Hincmar regarded his own copy as the « authentic » version
and dismissed Gottschalk's copy as a codex novus ' . He accused Gottschalk of having
forged the acts, when he copied them in his cell in Hautvillers (sic) and had
surreptitiously inserted the disputed words in both the Greek and Latin version of the
edict of Emperor Constantine IV 6. Hincmar stubbornly held on to his allegation, even
when others informed him that Gottschalk’s version could in fact be found in other
« old codices » (in libris vetustis)1’. To his mind, Gottschalk was just as bad as the
heretic and forger Macarius of Antioch, and so was his accomplice Ratramnus of
Corbie 8. Ratramnus, collection of patristic excerpts in support of the expression trina
deitas that he had offered to Charles the Bald, contained forged excerpts, just like the
volumes Macarius and his supporters had presented to the bishops at Constantinople
for their inspection 9. Hincmar expressed his dismay over these two outrageous acts
of forgery, but also argued, on a more positive note, that something good could come
out it. In the past, debates with heretics had stimulated the Catholic fathers to
formulate clear doctrines on contested articles of faith80. Heretics provoked scholars
and interpreters of Scripture to formulate answers to difficult questions, and
challenged them to study their sacred texts much more thoroughly. They prevented
scholars, as it were, from becoming too lazy and complacent81. The same is
happening now, so Hincmar seems to imply with his examples from church history,
with the recent debate on the Trinity. Gottschalk’s heretical challenge stimulated him
to read the Acts of the Council of Constantinople carefully, and thanks to a thorough
study and comparison of texts and manuscripts Hincmar was able to unmask
Gottschalk’s deceitful forgery8". In that sense, the dispute over the Trinity not only
sparked a revival of a late antique practice of annotation, but also stimulated interest
in textual criticism. Hincmar quoted from the Acts of the Third Council of
Constantinople frequently in his treatise De una et non trina deitate. His reading of
these acts, and in particular the story of the forger Macarius, provided him with an
analogy to accuse Gottschalk of being not only a heretic, but also a malicious forger8
Did the acts of the council also inspire him to « obelize »the arguments of Gottschalk
in his De una et non trina deitate? This is very well possible, since this was precisely
what the bishops of the council of Constantinople had done to the evidence of the
heretic Macarius. The acts, however, do not say what shape the obelus had, nor do
they mention a chresimon : the graphic sign that Hincmar used as the positive
counterpart of the obelus, to indicate the orthodoxy of his own statements. That
knowledge must have come from elsewhere.
Doctrinal controversies of the carolingian renaissance: Gottschalk of orbais’ teachings on predestination (2017)
Andrzej P. Stefariczyk
https://www.researchgate.net/public...schalk_of_orbais'_teachings_on_predestination
https://www.jstor.org/stable/90014623
Last edited: