Gottschalk of Orbais - Godescalc - (controversy with Hincmar on predestination)

Steven Avery

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

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
1661173188199.png

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
Click to expand...

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 ur.booksc.me
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

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.
Click to expand...

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:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Is this Gottschalk?
No, it is written by another Gottschalk, about Johannes Bodin in the 1500s.

Das Heptaplomeres; zur Geschichte der Cultur und Literatur im Jahrhundert der Reformation von G. E. Guhrauer (1841)
Johannes Bodin
Bodin, Jean, 1530-1596; Guhrauer, G. E. (Gottschalk Eduard), 1809-1854. tr
https://books.google.com/books?id=FA1UAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA244
https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_NhRLAAAAMAAJ/page/n335/mode/2up


Haec, quaeso, quae leviora putantor, omittanus, sed quonam modo excusari possit, quod apud Joannem legimus, quo certe nihil gravius esse potest, non video. Tres sunt, inquit, qui testantor * in coelo Pater, Verbum et Spiritus S. et hi tres unum sunt, llanc period uni
1661168507803.png


1661167118431.png

1661167196328.png
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
TWOGIG

Steinová, E., & Renswoude, I.V. (2017). The annotated Gottschalk: Critical signs and control of heterodoxy in the Carolingian age. <doi.org/10.1484/M.HAMA-EB.5.114194>.

The date after the middle of the ninth century is commonly accepted for La Cava Bible is based upon a dubious
interpretation of marginal glosses as reflective of the Gottschalk controversy over predestination. (Williams, Imaging the
Early Medieval Bible, 1999, p. 181)

• [Gottschalk_and_predestinarianism] Hincmar' first encounter was with Gottschalk, whose predestinarian doctrines
claimed to be modelled on those of St Augustine. Hincmar placed himself at the head of the party that regarded
Gottschalk's doctrines as heretical, and succeeded in procuring the arrest and imprisonment of his adversary (849). For a
part at least of his doctrines Gottschalk found ardent defenders, such as Lupus of Ferrières, Prudentius of Troyes, the
deacon Florus, and Amolo of Lyons. Through the energy and activity of Hincmar the theories of Gottschalk were
condemned at the second council of Quierzy (853) and Valence (855), and the decisions of these two synods were
confirmed at the synods of Langres and Savonnières, near Toul (859). To refute the predestinarian heresy, Hincmar
composed his De praedestinatione Dei et libero arbitrio, and against certain propositions advanced by Gottschalk on the
Trinity he wrote a treatise called De una et non trina deitate. Gottschalk died in prison in 868.
• Hincmar. Wikipedia. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hincmar>

• [Steinová] In the mid-ninth century, right in the middle of the predestination controversy, a religious dispute broke out
over the correct way to address the Trinity. The new controversy involved two contestants who had already been (and still
were) pitted against each other in the debate over predestination : Archbishop Hincmar of Reims (845–882) and the monk
Gottschalk of Orbais (c. 808-c. 869). The prelude to the new dispute should be located in the early 850s of the ninth
century, when Hincmar forbade the singing of hymns in his diocese that contained the liturgical formula”trina deitas”(«
trine deity »). The archbishop considered it to be a dangerous term that implied the existence of three gods. Gottschalk,
not amenable to episcopal authority, least of all to the authority of Hincmar, defended the use of this liturgical formula. To
his mind, there were good (grammatical) reasons to use the expression”trina deitas", since”trina”did not mean « three »
but denoted the unity of three different parts, which was, Gottschalk maintained, in line with the orthodox view of the
Trinity. The church fathers had used the expression”trina deitas", he argued, and the term even occurred in the Acts of the
Third Council of Constantinople. Gottschalk wrote several essays on [PAGE 244] the subject in which he opposed
Hincmar’s position on the matter. In 853, at the Council of Soissons, the issue was for the first time debated, but
discussion broke off prematurely. Sometime after the council, between 855 and 857, Hincmar responded to Gottschalk’s
challenge with a treatise called”De una et non trina deitate", in which he attacked Gottschalk and his « blasphemies »
severely. The treatise was addressed to the « beloved children of the Catholic church » and to Hincmar’s co-ministers to
warn them against Gottschalk’s errors. (Steinová, E., & Renswoude, The annotated Gottschalk: Critical signs and control
of heterodoxy in the Carolingian age, 2017, p. 243-244)

• [Davis] In one of the very few essays in English on Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, Eleanor Shipley Duckett calls him
a prince of the Church, a statesman, an administrator, a scholar who rises far above the other figures she
surveys and who stands out in the company of Charles the Great and Pope Nicholas I in the historical records of
the ninth century.1 His long life, from his birth in northern France in 806, his entry into the monastery of St. Denis in 814,
his consecration as archbishop in 845, to his death in 882 at Epernay while fleeing from the Danish invasion, was one
long series of combats calling for a variety of talents. He revealed a deep knowledge of canon law in his various
ecclesiastical disputes with recalcitrant clergy and laity, an astute diplomatic talent in his attempts to knit together the
rapidly unraveling unity of the empire, a broad but un original scholarship in his theological controversies over
predestination and the Trinity which brought him to grips with the leading thinkers of the Carolingian renaissance,
especially the redoubtable Saxon Gottschalk, monk of Orbais. It is with this last controversy that this paper will be
concerned. (L. Davis, Hincmar of Rheims as a Theologian of the Trinity, 1971, p. 455)

• [Davis] Thus grounded in Scripture, Hincmar embarks on his refutation. The chief characteristic of his method, as all his
critics have pointed out scornfully, is the heaping up of apposite texts culled from the Fathers. In this he is indefatigable. In
all, he quotes some twenty-five authors 423 times. St. Augustine whom he counsels Gottschalk to hear and hear again
heads the list with some 123 quotations from twenty-nine works, principally, of course, the De Trinitate. St

Cyprian Cited at Council of Quierzy 838 AD
• [Hergenrother] Amalarius was a deacon and priest in Metz, and died in 837, as abbot of Hornbach in the
same diocese. It is not known when or where he was born. During the deposition of Agobard (833–837),
Amalarius was head of the church at Lyons. He was one of the ecclesiastics who enjoyed the friendship of
Louis the Pious, and took part in the predestination controversy, but his work against Gottschalk, undertaken at
Hincmar’s request, is lost.

====================

Amalarius is Amalar of Metz
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top