Court In Session

“And if those three should come to court, namely God, man, and the devil, the devil and man would have no objection to make against God. For the devil would be convicted of the injury which he did to God by fraudulently stealing and violently retaining his servant, namely man.  Man also would be convicted for having done injury to God by holding his commands in contempt and submitting himself to another’s dominion. The devil would also be convicted of the injury to man because first he deceived him with a false promise, and then harmed him by subjecting him to many evils. And so the devil, on his own part, unjustly kept man in bondage, but man justly was so kept; the devil never merited to have power over man, but man, by his fault, merited to suffer the tyranny of the devil.” Peter  Lombard, The Sentences, Bk 3. Dist. 20. Chap. 4 (65), trans. Giulio Silano, (Toronto, 2008), p. 86.

Peter Lombard’s Sentences

Peter Lombard taught theology and philosophy at the Paris schools in the 1140s and 1150s. He became the bishop of Paris before he died in 1159. Here Lombard examines the central teaching of medieval Christianity: the redemption of sinful humanity. Inspired by debates in the cathedral schools and monasteries in western Europe, theologians focused on the nature of Christ’s redemptive act in relation to power and authority.

Lombard’s Sentences became the standard theology textbook in the Western Latin Church until the early 16th century. The Sentences were based on excerpts from well-known theologians, often known as the Latin Church Fathers. Lombard’s favorite theologian, Augustine of Hippo (d. 430), played a major role in his discussions of the doctrine of redemption in his writings too.  He focused on the relationship between power and legitimate authority. The devil may have power over humanity by default, but all legitimate authority rests with God.

Posted in Christ, medieval, Peter Lombard, theology | Leave a comment

Liberty, Fraternity, Equality

“The process of execution was also a sad and heartrending spectacle.  In the middle of Place de la Revolution was erected a guillotine, in front of a colossal statue of Liberty, represented seated on a rock, a cap on her head, a spear in her hand, the other reposing on a shields.  On the side the scaffold were drawn out a sufficient number of carts, with large baskets painted red, to receive heads and bodies of the victims.  Those bearing the condemned moved on slowly to the foot of the guillotine; the culprits were led out in turn, and if necessary, supported by two of the executioner’s assistants, but their assistance was rarely required.  Most of these unfortunates ascended the scaffold with a determined step–many of them looked up firmly on the menacing instrument of death, beholding for the last time the rays of the glorious sun, beaming on the polished axe: and I have seen some young men actually dance a few steps before they went up to be strapped to the perpendicular plane, which was then tilted to a horizontal plane in a moment, and ran on the grooves until the neck was secured and closed in by a moving board, when the head passed through what was called, in derision, ‘the republican toilet seat‘; the weighty knife was then dropped with a heavy fall; and, with incredible dexterity and rapidity, two executioners tossed the body into a basket, while another threw the head after it.”*

This is an eyewitness account of the executions in Paris during the French Revolution.  In 1789 the upper middle class began a revolution that initially led to a Constitutional Monarchy and the end of early modern feudalism and aristocratic privileges in France.  In August 1789 the self-proclaimed National Assembly wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen.  This document included the basic concepts of freedom of speech and association, rights to private property, representative government, and the right to a fair trial.  Over the next few years a process of radicalization took place for a number of reasons: War with other European powers, resistance from within France, and the complete collapse of any royal authority.  

The Civil Constitution of the Clergy (July 1790), condemned by the pope, gave the new French government authority over the Catholic Church and led to civil war within France between the revolutionaries and traditional Catholic peasants. By 1793 France had become a Republic and its new leaders had executed the king. This new government promoted an official “de-christianization” policy of French society that included a new calendar, destroying religious art, vandalizing church property, and the arrest and sometimes execution of many priests, monks, and nuns.  

File:Robespierre.jpg

Maximilien Robespierre

In 1794, turning the tide of war in their favor against the First Coalition, the republican government sought to first ensure its own survival and then to possibly expand French territory. To accomplish this, the government had created the Committee of Public Safety in 1793 and it gradually became a the most powerful nine-person committee in France. They ordered a brutal repression of traditionalist resisters and eventually turned on one another. Maximilien Robespierre emerged as the most significant leader who ordered the execution of many fellow revolutionaries. He justified his ideas in February 1794 with the publication of Report on the Principles of Political Morality in which he wrote:         

“If the spring of popular government in time of peace is virtue, the springs of popular government in revolution are at once virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country’s most urgent needs.”**

*J. G. Milligen, The Revolutionary Tribunal (Paris, October 1793) [Bold print added]

**Robespierre’s Report

Posted in French Revolution, government, Politics, virtue | Leave a comment

Ceremonies

“In the meantime, I have considered your wish, and it seems wise to me that I should shortly publish something setting forth (as I have written) a form of the celebration of the mass.  Meanwhile, abolish all private masses if you can, or as many [as possible]. But I do not see why we should alter the rest of the ritual, together with the vestments, altars, and holy vessels, since they can be used in a godly way and since one cannot live in the church of God without ceremonies.”*

Martin Luther wrote these words in a letter to Nicholas Hausmann, a pastor in Zwickau, in late October 1523. At this time, Luther and his colleagues had begun to implement reforms to the Christian liturgy in Electoral Saxony. Others sought Luther’s counsel in relation to theological issues related to the Mass and the nature of the Lord’s Supper.  Notice he instructed Hausmann to abolish the Private Mass (late medieval priests celebrated private masses in intercession for departed souls) as quickly as possible.  However, Luther advocated retaining traditional forms of worship based in the Western Catholic Rite.  As he stated here, “one cannot live in the church without ceremonies.”

In December 1523, Luther fulfilled his promise to Nicholas Hausmann when he published his Formulae Missae et Communionis pro Ecclesia Vuittembergensi (An Order of Mass and Communion for the Church at Wittenberg).  It often surprises devout Lutherans that Martin Luther wrote his first revision of the late medieval mass in Latin and changed as little as theologically possible.  Despite the fact that Luther did publish liturgical works and hymns in German, many early modern Lutheran churches, particularly those in the cities, continued to use the Latin liturgy.**

*Martin Luther, “To Nicholas Hausmann,” in Luther’s Works 48:56.

**Luther, An Order of Mass and Communion for the Church at Wittenberg, LW 53:19-40. On this text see Jon S. Bruss, “The Formulae Missae: Amputating the Dragon’s Tail,” For the Life of the World (Winter 2023): 7-9. Bruss

Posted in Martin Luther, Reformation, theology | Leave a comment

In Remembrance of Amalek

On October 28, 2023, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began his speech to announce the invasion of Gaza in response to an attack by Hamas with a reference to the enemy of the ancient Israelites: Amalek. He referred specifically to King Saul’s attack on the Amalekites. Some have interpreted his rhetoric as a call for the utter destruction of a group of people.  Others have argued that this appeal only focused on Hamas as a terrorist group and not the entire Arab population of Gaza. However, Netanyahu’s reference to Amalek reminded me of the theological rhetoric related to the preaching of the First Crusade.*

Pope Urban II preached a sermon at the council of Clermont on November 27, 1095. This event led to a massive armed pilgrimage known as the First Crusade. According to Baldric of Bourgueil (a monastic chronicler and eyewitness of the sermon), Urban concluded his sermon with a reference to Amalek as a forerunner to the Turks and other Muslims in the Middle East in the late 11th century:

“And he turned to the bishops: ‘You,’ he said, ‘you brothers and fellow bishops, you fellow priests and co-heirs of Christ, announce this very thing throughout the churches entrusted to you, and preach the way to Jerusalem powerfully and with complete eloquence.  Secure in Christ, agree a swift pardon to those who have confessed their sins committed through ignorance. Moreover, you who are going to make the journey, you will have us praying for you; let us have you fighting for the people of God.  It is our part to pray; let yours be to fight against the Amalachites [sic]. With Moses we shall stretch out unwearied hands to heaven in prayer; as fearless warriors you are stretching forth and brandishing the sword against Amalech [sic].’ “**

In the quote above, Baldric has Urban refer to Exodus 17:8-14 .  This text records a battle when  Joshua led Israelites against the Amalekites while Moses stood with his hands raised on the hill overlooking the area.  Here Urban and bishops are to play the role of Moses as they pray for the success of the First Crusaders against the Muslims, that is, the new Amalekites. The chroniclers of the First Crusade interpreted the armed pilgrims as the new Israelites going into the Promised Land in fulfillment of Old Testament events. In so doing, they borrowed from their (mostly) monastic theology that followed the earlier patristic allegorical tradition of interpreting the Old Testament. The early twelfth-century theologian, Honorius Augustodunensis, compared the procession at the beginning of the Mass to the ancient Israelites carrying the holiest of objects into battle:

“The priests carried the ark of the covenant, and Aaron the high priest follows in his vestments, and Moses, the leader of the people, with his rod. On their way, Amalek met the with his army and tried to block their way. But Joshua came out victorious and opened the way for the people toward their fatherland.”***

In this section, Honorius explained how the Church’s processional march during the liturgy spiritually fulfilled the ancient battles led by Moses and Joshua against the Pharaoh, Amalek, and the Canaanites at Jericho.  The reference to Amalek seemed like a common exegetical trope around 1100 that also appeared in sermons.  For example, Ivo of Chartres, bishop of Chartres from 1090 to 1115 identified Moses’ lifting up of his hands in prayer as the sign of the cross by which Jesus conquered Amalek.****

These references to the fulfillment of the Old Testament victory over Amalek as a pre-figuration of Christ’s victory on the cross and to the Crusaders’ victories became a standard part of the exegetical tradition related to the First Crusade.  They also appear in liturgies prayed and sung to intercede to God for later Crusades’ success.  I highly recommend two excellent books that show how Christian theologians and devotional writers did this:

M. Cecilia Gaposchkin, Invisible Weapons: Liturgy and the Making of the Crusade Ideology (Ithaca 2017).

Katherine Allen Smith, The Bible and Crusade Narrative in the Twelfth Century (Woodbridge 2020).

*“You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible: ‘Now go and attack[a Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ And we do remember. And we are fighting.” Netanyahu’s Speech in which he quotes:  I Samuel 15:1-10

**Baldric of Bourgueil, History of the Jerusalemites, trans. Susan B Edington (Woodbridge, 2020), p. 49.

***Honorius Augustodunensis, Jewel of the Soul, vol. 1, chap. 68, trans. Zachary Thomas and Gerhard Eger (London, 2023), p. 131.

****Ivo of Chartres, Sermo V, Patrologia Latina 162: 541A.

Posted in Crusades, Honorius Augustodunensis, preaching, Urban II | Leave a comment

The Insoluble Debt

“Wherefore, just as we have been accustomed to rejoice in the rising and ascending of the Lord, so now, not without merit, we rejoice in the lifting up of the cross.  For this scale held our ransom, by which indeed both we were rescued from the yoke of Egyptian slavery and we were freed from the usurious interest of the greedy extortionist. Clearly, this sum satisfied the handwritten decree of our insatiable damnation, and paid off for us the insoluble debt of the ancient bond of security. Whence the distinguished preacher to the Colossians:  ‘And you,’ he said, ‘when you were dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh; he hath quickened together with him, forgiving you all offences: Blotting out the handwriting of the decree that was against us, which was contrary to us. And he hath taken the same out of the way, fastening it to the cross: And despoiling the principalities and powers, he hath exposed them confidently in open shew, triumphing over them in himself.’ “*

Peter Damian wrote this sermon for the Exaltation of the Cross in the mid-eleventh century.  One of the most significant theologians of his time, he joined a strict monastic community in central Italy and became an important supporter the Papal Reform movement as a Cardinal-bishop before he died in 1073. He is well known for his verbal attacks on the practice of usury (charging interest to loan money) and the sexual sins of the clergy. In this sermon he describes Christ’s death on the Cross as a the only means to pay humanity’s debt for sin. The greedy extortionist is the devil who charged usurious interest on this debt.  Peter points out that only Christ could pay this debt that demanded eternal condemnation as St Paul explained in his letter to the Colossians.

The image to the right is currently in the Victoria and Albert Museum in London. I took this photo there. Originally made in the twelfth century, some parts were added and reassembled in the later Middle Ages.  It also contained a relic of the True Cross as you can see at the top. https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O120840/altar-cross-unknown/

*Peter Damian, Sermo 48: De exaltatione sanctae crucis, CCCM 57 (Turnhout, 1983), 292. [This is my translation.]

Posted in Cross, medieval, Peter Damian, theology | Leave a comment

Offices of Princes

“The offices of princes and officials are divine and right, but those who are in them and use them are usually of the devil. And if a prince is a rare dish in heaven, this is even more true of the officials and the court personnel. This is caused by the devil, depraved nature, which cannot stand success; that is, it cannot use honor, power, and authority in a divine way. No matter how insignificant the little office may be, they take a foot though they do not have an inch, and always want to be God themselves when they ought to be God’s maid.”*

*Martin Luther, Commentary on Psalm 101:5b, Luther’s Works vol. 13, p. 212

Posted in Martin Luther, Politics, Reformation | Leave a comment

It Squints Toward Monarchy

“This Constitution is said to have beautiful features: but when I come to examine these features, Sir, they appear to me horridly frightful: Among other deformities, it has an awful squinting: it squints towards monarchy: And does not this raise indignation in the breast of every American?  Your President may easily become King: Your Senate is so imperfectly constructed that your dearest rights may be sacrificed by what may be a small minority; and a very small minority may continue forever unchangeably [sic] this Government, although horridly defective: Where are your checks in this Government?”*

The famous patriot, Patrick Henry, opposed Virginia’s adoption of the new constitution (current U.S. Constitution) in 1788. He feared the federal government would become like the British government that the American States had just defeated to ensure their own independence.  He wanted to keep the Articles of Confederation that did not give the national government the same level of centralized power as the new constitution. His phrase, “It squints towards monarchy” is brilliant rhetoric. Henry recognizes the new constitution’s supporters promised a republican form of government, but he fears they have delivered another possible tyrant.

*Patrick Henry, “Speech of Patrick Henry on June 7, 1788” in The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Debates, ed. Ralph Ketcham (New York, 2003), p. 216. [Emphasis added]

Posted in government, Politics | Leave a comment

This Shameful Vice: Luther On Greed

“We daily see what a shameful, cursed vice greed is and what harm it does, especially in high offices and estates both spiritual and secular. If the greed-devil possesses a pastor’s or a preacher’s heart, so that (like the rest of the world) he strives only to produce great wealth for himself, then he has already been thrown into the jaws of the devil, like Judas the traitor, so that he dares to betray Christ along with the Word and His Church for a gold coin.”*

Martin Luther preached and wrote about the vice of greed often. He rebuked his hearers and readers for their greedy actions. He wrote whole treatises on the sin of usury and commerce. In this particular sermon, Luther focused on the greed of clergy and political leaders. He considered greed to be the reason for the papacy’s idolatry. And this corruption among greedy clergy affected every Christian.   In another sermon he wrote:

“If a pastor or preacher is greedy, he is quite useless; he uses the pulpit as does the pope with his priests, solely to feed his own belly and appetite, collects dues and piles up money, caring not a rap for the many thousands of souls who are being neglected. His concern is not for the care of souls but for money, tithes, and self-indulgence.”**

For this reason, pastors must learn to avoid avarice through listening to God’s Word. When greedy pastors preach only for monetary gain, their congregants listen half-heartedly.  Eventually they remain at home to work instead of listening to preaching. Greed subverts the preaching of the gospel. Greed also caused secular leaders to act improperly and not fulfill their vocations. As Luther explained: 

“How harmful it is in secular government when lords and princes have this shameful vice and strive to seize everything for themselves. Because of this, they forget their princely office of helping land and people–they are lords so that with honor and praise from all people they would be extolled and loved as fathers of their land and people. They pay no attention to how God’s Word requires them to provide and care for the churches and schools, so that the people are properly taught, or how discipline and justice are to be observed with their subjects. They let poor pastors, along with their children, widows, and orphans, suffer injustice, violence, and distress.”***  

Notice what Luther expected righteous rulers to do: fund churches and schools to ensure people learn eternal truths and seek a just order of temporal society.  This means secular rulers should pay pastors (who often served as teachers too), stop violent criminals, and protect the vulnerable. However, avaricious rulers use their authority to gain more riches through excessive taxation.      

  

*Martin Luther, “Sermon on Gospel for the Fifth Sunday After Trinity,” Church Postil IV, Luther’s Works 78, p. 208.

**Luther, “Sermon for Ninth Sunday After Trinity,” House Postils 2, p. 363.  

***LW 78: 209.

Posted in Martin Luther, preaching, Reformation | Leave a comment

Adoration of the Sacrament

“Everything depends on these words.  Every Christian should and must know them and hold them fast. He must never let anyone take away from him by any other kind of teaching, even though it were an angel from heaven [Gal. 1:8].  They are the words of life and salvation, so that whoever believes in them has all his sins forgiven through that faith; he is a child of life and has overcome death and hell.  Language cannot express how great and mighty these words are, for they are the sum and substance of the whole gospel.“*

Martin Luther published these words in late April 1523 in his treatise to the Bohemian Brethren entitled, The Adoration of the Sacrament. Luther wrote to respond to this group’s teaching on the Lord’s Supper and how Christians should adore the sacrament in the divine service. In the first part, Luther wrote about the nature of the Lord’s Supper. He put forth one of his first published arguments against those who wanted to interpret the Sacrament as only symbolic.  In so doing he rested his theological position on Christ’s Words of Institution, or the words upon which everything depends.  He explained:

” In the first place, we have often said that the chief and foremost thing in the sacrament is the word of Christ, when he says, ‘Take and eat, this is my body which is given for you.’ Likewise also, when he took the cup, he said, ‘Take and drink of it, all of you, this is a cup of a new testament in my blood which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.  As often as you do this, do it in remembrance of me.’ “**

Later in the same work he explicitly rejected a symbolic interpretation of these words.  However, he emphasized that FAITH in Christ’s promise in these Words was inner means to properly adore Christ in the Sacrament.  Luther exhorted his readers to trust God’s Words by stating, “But we should and will simply stick to the words of Christ—he will not deceive us—and repel this error with no other sword than the fact that Christ does not say: ‘This signifies my body,’ but ‘This is my body.’ ”***

*Martin Luther, The Adoration of the Sacrament, Luther’s Works, vol. 36, p. 277. [Emphasis added]

**Ibid. [Italics in the original.]

***Ibid., pp. 279-80.

Posted in Martin Luther, Reformation, sacraments, theology | Leave a comment

The Humanity of Christ

“Therefore, nevertheless, those weak with devotion look at the humanity of Christ, in which they recognize the cause of their own salvation: They stand near the cross of Christ, and with Thomas put their own hand into the place of the nails and most devoutly they received the blood, which was shed for the washing away of sins.  Therefore, let everyone come to the cross of the Lord, who, alarmed in conscience, stands guilty before God.”*

In this sermon for Palm Sunday, Absalom of Springiersbach focused on the nature of the cross in the Christian life. Absalom belonged to the Victorines, a organization of regular canons with profound influence in the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. This text demonstrates two significant teachings in twelfth-century spirituality. First, the Incarnation and Passion of Christ appeal to humanity’s physicality to lead sinners away from mere carnal desires to spiritual affections. Second, biblical characters’ response to the crucifixion of Christ exemplify various forms of response to the Passion.

In this quote Absalom describes the spiritually weak and the means by which Christ comes to them.  The spiritually mature have ascended beyond the crutch of Christ’s physicality to the virtues of faith and love in God.   Bernard of Clairvaux famously described this idea in the following manner:

“The soul at prayer should have before it a sacred image of the God-man, in his birth or infancy or as he was teaching, or dying, or rising, or ascending.  Whatever form it takes this image must bind the soul with the love of virtue and expel carnal vices, eliminate temptations and quiet desires.  I think this is the principal reason why the invisible God willed to be seen in the flesh and to converse with men as a man. He wanted to recapture the affections of carnal men who were unable to love in any other way, by first drawing them to salutary love of his own humanity, and then gradually to raise them to spiritual love.”**

*Absalom of Springiersbach, Sermo 24. Palm Sunday, PL 211: 145 [my translation]

**Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermon 20, On the Song of Songs I, trans. Kilian Walsh (Kalamazoo: Cistercian, 1971), p. 152.

Posted in Bernard of Clairvaux, Christ, Cross, Incarnation, medieval, theology | Leave a comment