Grimlaicus’ Rule for Solitaries, 28.2

Grimlaicus’ Rule for Solitaries, 28.2

Around 900 CE., Grimlaicus, a solitary monk, living somewhere near Metz, France, wrote the Regula Solitariorum, a rule for solitary monks, at the behest of another named Grimlaicus.

Source: Grimlaicus. 2011. Grimlaicus: Rule for Solitaries, p. 90. Translated by Andrew Thornton. Cistercian Studies Series 200. Liturgical Press.

I am ashamed to bring up the topic of swearing oaths, not only because of the oaths but also because of perjury [see Matt 5:33-37]. If indeed swearing an oath is a sin and a transgression of a commandment, then what are we to say about perjury? Gospel truth does not allow an oath, even though every word is found to be trustworthy by means of the swearing of an oath [see Matt 18:16; Heb 6:17].

Pope Lucius III, Ad Abolendam, 6

Pope Lucius III, Ad Abolendam, 6

Written by Pope Lucius III, in 1184 CE. Reproduced verbatim in the Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 3 in 1215 CE. The text reported here is based on that of the Lateran Council. translation by Norman Tanner.

Source: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norman P. Tanner

---

We add further that each archbishop or bishop, either in person or through his archdeacon or through suitable honest persons, should visit twice or at least once in the year any parish of his in which heretics are said to live. There he should compel three or more men of good repute, or even if it seems expedient the whole neighbourhood, to swear that if anyone knows of heretics there or of any persons who hold secret conventicles or who differ in their life and habits from the normal way of living of the faithful, then he will take care to point them out to the bishop. The bishop himself should summon the accused to his presence, and they should be punished canonically if they are unable to clear themselves of the charge or if after compurgation they relapse into their former errors of faith. If however any of them with damnable obstinacy refuse to honour an oath and so will not take it, let them by this very fact be regarded as heretics.

The Rule of the Master, 11.66-68

The Rule of the Master, 11.66-68

Written 6^th century CE.

Source: Luke Eberle, trans. 1977. The Rule of the Master, p. 145. Cistercian Studies Series 6. Cistercian Publications.

If he hears a brother swearing a great deal, let the dean who is present reprove him, saying: ‘Hold your tongue, brother. Why are you swearing so much, when Scripture commands us not to swear at all, lest the taking of an oath occasion the breaking of it? “All you need say is yes if you mean yes, no if you mean no”, believe me if you mean believe me, and we shall immediately believe what you say.’

Donatus of Besançon, Regula ad virgines, 35

Donatus of Besançon, Regula ad virgines, 35

Written in the 7^th Century.


Source: Saint Donatus (of Besançon). 1993. The Ordeal of Community, p. 52. Translated by Jo Ann McNamara and John E. Halborg. Peregrina.

35. None are allowed to swear.

Strive to flee and avoid swearing or malediction as indulgence of the devil. And she who does it must repent with two suppositions of silence and one hundred blows punishment.

---


Source: PL 87:285


CAPUT XXXV. Ut iurare omnino non liceat.

Iuramentum, vel maledictum, velut venenum diaboli fugere et vitare contendat; quod si fecerit, duabus silentii suppositionibus, et centum percussionibus poeniteat.

Peter Divinacello, Commentary In I Regum, Book V, Chapter 4.57

Peter Divinacello, Commentary In I Regum, Book V, Chapter 4.57

Traditionally ascribed to Pope Gregory I (The Great). In recent years, shown convincingly to be the work of a 12th century Benedictine abbot, Peter Divinacello, though may be based on an original Gregorian reportatio. See Articles below for discussions of authorship.

• de Vogüé A. L'auteur du commentaire des Rois attribué à saint Grégoire: Un moine de Cava?. Revue bénédictine. 1996;106(3-4):319-31.
• Clark, Francis. "Authorship of the Commentary In 1 Regum: Implications of A. de Vogüé's Discovery." Revue bénédictine 108.1-2 (1998): 61-79.

Source: PL 79: 393-394

57. Quo in loco notandum est quia rex bis iusiurandum interfectionis Ionathae superius protulit, quem tamen victus populi instantia non occidit. Quid est quod iuravit, et iuramenti assertionem nequaquam servavit? Sed ex hac re duo nobis documenta proveniunt, ut cauti scilicet, et discreti esse debeamus. Cauti quidem, ne iuremus, discreti, si agere perversa iuramus. Qui enim iurare cavet, periurare omnino non potest. Sed cum male iuratur, iustius iusiurandum dimittitur quam compleantur crimina quae iurantur. Sit ergo unusquisque cautus antequam iuret, ut aut ne omnino iuret, aut facturum se mala non iuret. Cautos quidem nos esse Dominus insinuat, dicens: Sit sermo vester: Est, est, non, non. Nolite iurare per coelum, neque per terram (Matth. V, 37) . E contra autem reprobi, et incauti quidem sunt, et discreti non sunt. Nam saepe se acturos mala repromittunt, et revocare promissa, quasi periurium incursuri, non satagunt. Hinc est, quod Herodes incaute iuravit, et nefarium iusiurandum quod protulit, in praecursoris Domini morte complevit (Marc. VI) . Cauti ergo in nostris dispositionibus esse debemus, sed si cauti esse negligimus, praetermittenda sunt proposita, non implenda. Sic quippe a proposito desistere non est vitium levitatis, sed virtus discretionis.Tamen iurare quae revocanda sunt et detestanda, omnino cavendum est, et vehementer horrendum, quia cum tale iusiurandum non impletur, non omnino culpa vitatur, sed minor eligitur. Sequitur:

Peter, Cardinal of St. Chrysogonus, Letter to the Faithful, 1178 CE

Peter, Cardinal of St. Chrysogonus, Letter to the Faithful

From the Letter to the faithful, 1178 CE. (Epistle 3). On the excommunication of Bernard Raymond and Raymond of Baimac.

Source: Robert I. Moore. The birth of popular heresy, p 115-116. University of Toronto Press, Reprint 1995. 

However Righteous their previous confession, which had seemed to be enough for salvation if they had believed it in their heart of hearts, they were men of twisted minds and dishonest intentions. They did not want to relinquish their heresy when on the surface some authority or other seemed to support their slothful and foolish minds, on the pretext of the words which, according to the Gospel, the Lord said, 'Do not swear at all. Let your speech be: Yea, yea, and No, no.' They claimed that this  meant that they ought not to swear, though the Lord himself is recorded as having sworn, for it is written "The Lord hath sworn" etc. and elsewhere, "I have sworn by myself saith the Lord." Again, the Apostle says, "an oath for confirmation is the end of all their controversy.' Those who read the holy scriptures will find many other passages like this which permit us, because of their fickleness, to swear to anyone whom we wish to persuade. but, like the fools they were, these men did not understand the scriptures, and fell into the trap which they themselves had laid. Although they held swearing to be a dreadful thing, forbidden by the Lord, they were convicted of swearing in their own statement of confession. When they said, 'in the truth which is God we believe this, and declare that it is our faith.' thy did not realize that to adduce the truth and word of God in support of their assertion was undoubtedly to swear, as the Apostle said when he wrote, "this we say unto you in the word of the Lord, and God is my witness," and similar things which anyone who reads and understands the holy scriptures can easily find.

William of Ockham, Dialogues [On "Do not swear at all"]

William of Ockham, Dialogues

In two chapters of William of Ockham's Dialogus, part 3, tract 1, book 4, written in the 1330's CE., he touches on the Dominical saying, "Do not swear at all," shown below.

3.1 Dial. 4.7

Source: William of Ockham: Dialogus. Latin Text and English Translation, edited by John Kilcullen, John Scott, George Knysh, Volker Leppin, Jan Ballweg, Karl Ubl and Semih Heinen. British Academy, 1995-2015. Online project available at: http://www.britac.ac.uk/pubs/dialogus/t31d4new.html

Student Can it be proved that those words of Christ should not be understood as the holders of that opinion understand them? [That men should not be called rabbi, master or father.]

Master It seems to some people that the answer is 'yes'. For they say that that argument and ones like it are similar to that argument on which certain heretics base themselves when they say that it is not permissible to swear for any reason because of the fact that in Matthew 5:24[sic] Christ says, "But I say to you. Do not swear at all." Just as those people have said that because of that precept of Christ no one is permitted to swear under any circumstances, so in the same way the holders of this opinion seem to say that it should not be granted in any way, because of those words by which he seems to enjoin equality on them, that Christ established any one apostle as superior to the others. But just as in some cases it is permissible to swear, notwithstanding the above words of Christ about swearing, so it is permissible to be called rabbi, master and father, notwithstanding those words of Christ by which he seems to impose a certain equality on the faithful.

3.1 Dial. 4.22

Source: William of Ockham. 'A Letter to the Friars Minor' and Other Writings, p 182 – 183. Trans: John Kilcullen. Cambridge University Press. 1995.

Christ commanded in express words, not excepting any case, that one should not swear. In Matthew 5[:34] he says, "But I say to you do not swear at all, either by heaven" etc., and afterwards, "let your speech be 'Yes, Yes, No, No' - what is more than these is from evil." Yet notwithstanding that express commandment of Christ, it is permissible on occasion to swear: Extra, De electione, Significasti; Extra, De iureiurando, Etsi Christus; and 22, q. I, Non est, where Augustine asserts that to swear is permissible on account of the weakness or incredulity of those not otherwise moved to belief.