BCCCAP00000000000000000000821

WILLIAM OF VAUROUILLON, O.MIN. 313 There is no reason to doubt, then, that it is Vaurouillon who is directly attacked by Dominic de' Domenichi1º 7 • William was therefore in Rome sometime in the course of 1462, when the sermon of Saint James caused a sudden and wiclespread controversy, the general lines of which are well known. At Brescia, on Easter, 18 April, James hacl said, among other things, that the Blood of Christ shed in his Passion (that Blood which left his body ancl stained the earth or the cross) was no longer united to his divinity; therefore it was not the object of latría but only of hyperdulia; and further, was not reunited to him at the resurrection. Such a proposition (which hacl no place in a sermon, remarked Pius II) he reinforced with appeals to Francis de Mayronis, Thomas Aquinas, Albert the Great, Richard of Mediavilla, etc. 108 • The Do– minican Inquisitor, James of Brescia, called this teaching heresy, and hade another Dominican, who was to preach on Monday, declare it false, erroneous and heretical. The Franciscan defended himself at length in a Tuesday sermon, showing his authorities and pleading his innocence of all heresy. Given his fame and sanctity, it is hardly surprising that the affair caused a stir among the people or that it was soon brought to the Holy See 109 • Because it grew to enormous proportions, Pius II by letters of 31 May 1462 imposed silence on both parties and called for a solemn dispute later the same year 110 • to Master Petrus de Vaucello, who would have recognized Guillem Vorillon as regent with him at Paris in 1448, when they were both appointed to examine the question of the relic at La Rochelle (cf. above, n.63). 1 0 7 Charlier's friends and former pupils, who joined him in the attaclc, go a step further and attribute the teaching not only to Francis de Mayronis, quoted by the magíster antiquus, but also to Nicolaus Boneti (also a favorite author of Vaurouillon). Cf. the Sportula, f.224v, 256v, 257r, 263v, 264r; and MARTÍN DE BARCELONA, O.F.M.Cap., Fr. Nicolas Bonet, O.F.M. (t 1343) Doctor Proficuus, in Estudis Franciscans 38(1926) 108-111; Felim O'BRIAN, O.F.M., Bonet (Nicolas), in Dict.Hist.Géogr.Eccl. IX, 851. For further details on Charlier, cf. V. DoucET, Mag. Aegidius Carlerii (t 1472) eiusque Quaestio de Im. Conc. B.M.V., in Antonianum 5(1930) 405-442. 10s The text, from codex Monteprandone, Bibl. Munic. 46bis, f.182a-186a, is given by G. CASELLI, Studi su S. Giacomo della Marca I, Ascoli 1926, 39-43. - For the account of Pius II, cf. Pii II P.M. Commentarii rerum memorabilium quae temporibus suis contigerunt, a R.D. Joa. Gobcllini... compositi, Francofurti 1614, 278; see also G. Caselli, I, 132-134. Another survey of the whole controversy is provided by Pope Benedict XIV, De servorwn Dei beatificatione et beatorum canonizatione II, XXX, in Opera Omnia II, Prati 1839, 283-288. 'º" Pius II, Commentarii, 278-279; G. CASELLI, Studi su S. Giacomo II, Oflida 1926, 131-133. See also M.-D. CHENU, O.P., Jacques de Brescia, in Dict.Théol.Cath. VIII, 291-292; and P. MoRTIER, Histoire des maítres généraux de l'Ordre des Freres Precheurs IV, Paris 1909, 413-417 (not too accurate an account). 110 Intelleximus, sent to both the Franciscans and Dominicans of Lombardy. Cf. Bull.Franc. n.s. II, n.1020, p.534¡ Bull.Ord.Praed. III, Romae 1731, n.56, p.421. Despite the fact that the Commentarii rerum memorabilium dates the dispute: « in festo Natalis Domini anni 1463, cum iam Pius ex Tuscia redisset » (p.279), in which the author is followed by Benedict XIV (op. cit., 285a) and other chroniclers, it is well established that the debate,