:\Ieanwhile Azzo, the papal aspirant, fared no better than his rival. The jieoplc rushed in to his inaugural { ban(iuet, unearthed him from the corner where he had I liidden himself, dragged him by the heels in the .street, and, jilacing him in a ludpit, forced him to swear that ' lie woidd make no further jiretensions to the see, and , Azzo (piitted the city, content to have saved his life. |
The city remained thus without an archbishop, and | in l<t74 Ilildebrand, who in April, Ki";}, had succeeded to Alexander, laimched an interdict against Milan. The IMIlanese were disjiosed to disregard the interdict, and applied to Henry lY, recpiesting the aiipoiutnunt of an- other archbishop. To this the emiieror responded by noininating Tedaldo, who was duly consecrated, Te- daltlo was the le.ider of the disaflected bishops, who at the Synodof Pavia.in lOTti, excommunicated jiojie ( Greg- ory himself; and though, after the interview at Canossa ' in 1(177, the Milanese, disgusted with Henry's voluntary humiliation before that papal power which they had I
learned to despise, abandoned the imperial party for a time, yet Tedaldo kept his .seat until his death in 1085, notwithstanding the repeated excommunications launch- ed against liim by (Jregorj- (see Anndf, lib. iv; v, c. 2, 5, 9 ; Landull', Sen. lib. iii, c. 29 ; iv, 2 ; Muratori, A nmdes, aim. 10M.J). With his death the independence of the Milan archbishopric ceased.
At present the clergy of Milan seem to be inclined to follow the lead of the Old Catholic party. Their pro- gramme, which contains the following reforms : election of the priests by the parish, the use of the vernacular at all Church-services, reform of Mariolatry and adoration of saints, marriage of the priests, etc.. shows a healthy reaction against papal abuses. E. Serra Gropelli may be i)ointed out as the leader of the Milanese reform party.
See \\^M(!,Condliengeschichte,\\',1^1s(\.; Riddle, //is^ of the I'(ipaci), ii, 119 sq.; Dupin, Eccles. Hist, ix, chap, viii ; Mosheim, Church Hist, iii, xi, pt. ii ; I^ea, Hist, of Sacerdotal Celibacy, chap, xiii ; Schrijckh, Kirchenfjesch. xxii, 523 sq. ; Bcihringer, Kirche Cbristi, i, 90 ; iii. {<■> s(|. ; Milraan, Hist, of Lat. Christianity, iii, 240 sq. ; Reicliel, Roman >See in the Middle Ages, p. 189, 191 sq. ; ^^'etze^ und Welte, Kirchen-Lexikon, v, 318 sq. ; Herzog, Real- Encykhp. XX, 72 sq. (J. H. W.)
MILAN, COUNCIL OF. There is no histnriral proof extant to warrant the assertion that any ( Imirh councils or synods were held at Milan before o.").") A.D. We have no reliable information concerning the synod which is said to have been held at Milan in 344 (see Hardouin, Acta Cnnciliorum et Epistola; decretales ac (\mstittitin,„.<. cic. I Paris. 1715], i,G27 sq.),and very little is known ol ihc vyii..il ii|'34G (or 347). In that year a councilor \\( stern lii>tiopswas summoned at ISIilan.when the so-calk(l Long Creed (/.laKpoonxoc, to be found in Socrates, Hist. Eccl. ii, 18), which had been drawn up by the Arian Council of Antioch (A.D. 345), was reject- ed. The council also required the deputies who brought it to sign a condemnation of Arianism. Of course they left the council in wrath (see J. Dominic, J/«n«j Sacro- ritm conciliorum nova et amplissiina collectio, etc. [Flor- cnt. 1759], ii, 1370). After the death of Constance (A.D. 350), and the victory over Magnentius (A.D. 353), Con- stantius eiideavored to establish Arianism by force in the West. In the synods of Aries (A.D. 3.i4) and of Milan (A.D. 358), he compelled the a.ssembled bi.-hops to sign the condemnation of Athanasius, though most of them were, it is thought, orthodox. Constantius was now sole master of the Roman world, and by bribes, by threats, and by force, the condemnation of Athanasius was extorted from the assembled bishops. Even Libe- rius (ip v.), the successor of Julius I, rejected Athanasius, irom fear of Constantius, but soon afterwards threw off his timidity, an<l refused to subscribe to his condem- nation (see Mansi. iii, 233 sq.; Hefele, i, G31).
The next council was held A.D. 390, St. Ambrose pre- .siding. It is commonly supposed that in this council the .sentence of the (iallic bishops against Ithacius Ursacius (who had cau.sed the death of the Priscillianists by their fiery zeal against their errors) was confirmed by the bishops of Italy. Baronius (as well as the collection of councils) states that this same council condemned Jo- vinian, the author of a new here.sy, which decried the merit of virginity. St. Jerome reduces his doctrine to the four following heads: 1. Tliat virgins, widows, and married women, being baptized, have the same degree of merit, if there be no difference between them in other respects. 2. That they who have been regencrateil in baptism cainiot lie overcome by the devil. 3. Tliat tliere is no dift'ctence in point of merit, between tliose who abstain from meat and those who partake of it with thanksgiving. 4. That all those wlio have kept their baptismal state shall liave the same glory in heaven. From these principles other errors were deduced, viz. that there is no dilTerence of degree in sin; that fasting is not requisite; that there will be no distinction of mer- its in heaven. The fathers of the council condemned
MILANESE LITURGY
253
MILE
the opinions of Jovinian and his followers, and they were driven out of the city. See Mansi, I. c. 690 ; Gie- seler, i, 333 ; Hefele, ii, 48."